|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jun 30, 2017 20:09:18 GMT
www.vulture.com/2017/06/han-solo-movie-3-question-we-still-have-about-the-firing.html
This is an article about a question I've been asking myself...
If its true that Gareth Edwards was ghost-replaced by Tony Gilroy to "fix" Rogue One, and Josh Trank was fired (remember that? funny how no one brings that up anymore), and now Lord and Miller are fired and replaced with Ron Howard, will anyone be willing to take a chance on working with Lucasfilm?
I have been one who defended Kathleen Kennedy. She's a great and experienced producer, and I believe that the bad will against her has been immature, misogynist and mostly baseless. But now, even I am wondering... Is it true that she is the problem? Is she "reigning" it in too tightly?
From the article: Already, a Star Wars film requires directors to sublimate their personal stamp in the service of a series with an established history and tone (I've said it before), and while that’s not unusual in today’s franchise-driven environment, the risk-to-reward ratio is getting pretty steep when you can be replaced at any stage of production.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jul 2, 2017 0:38:06 GMT
www.vulture.com/2017/06/han-solo-movie-3-question-we-still-have-about-the-firing.html
This is an article about a question I've been asking myself...
If its true that Gareth Edwards was ghost-replaced by Tony Gilroy to "fix" Rogue One, and Josh Trank was fired (remember that? funny how no one brings that up anymore), and now Lord and Miller are fired and replaced with Ron Howard, will anyone be willing to take a chance on working with Lucasfilm?
I have been one who defended Kathleen Kennedy. She's a great and experienced producer, and I believe that the bad will against her has been immature, misogynist and mostly baseless. But now, even I am wondering... Is it true that she is the problem? Is she "reigning" it in too tightly?
From the article: Already, a Star Wars film requires directors to sublimate their personal stamp in the service of a series with an established history and tone (I've said it before), and while that’s not unusual in today’s franchise-driven environment, the risk-to-reward ratio is getting pretty steep when you can be replaced at any stage of production.
She might be the issue. From the articles i've read regarding the Han Solo controversy she seems to be a control freak. I wonder what will happen if Han Solo underperforms? Will Disney take away some control over Star Wars? |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jul 2, 2017 1:10:27 GMT
There are plenty that would jump at the chance.
|
|
shinnickneth
Junior Member
@shinnickneth
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 1,782
|
Post by shinnickneth on Jul 2, 2017 6:37:37 GMT
Ron Howard agreeing to undertake the project answers your question.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiosane on Jul 2, 2017 15:41:01 GMT
Lucasfilm will probably move toward the model used by its sister company Marvel Studios, and hire less well known directors to "direct" so they could take greater control of the movie. Hell, if Directors' Guild do not exist, I am sure they will take away the directors' position as well. Haven't they been doing that? Haven't most of the directors had little on their resume in the way of big budget films? |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 7, 2017 1:10:46 GMT
Kathleen Kennedy is an albatross around the neck of Lucasfilm. Until her tyranny comes to an end, Star Wars will continue to be shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 7, 2017 22:25:40 GMT
One has to earn a living.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 8, 2017 2:52:17 GMT
One has to earn a living. So basically you're volunteering to direct Episode IX. I say go for it. Can't be any worse than whatever they currently have planned. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 11, 2017 19:40:36 GMT
Lucasfilm will probably move toward the model used by its sister company Marvel Studios, and hire less well known directors to "direct" so they could take greater control of the movie. Hell, if Directors' Guild do not exist, I am sure they will take away the directors' position as well. Haven't they been doing that? Haven't most of the directors had little on their resume in the way of big budget films? That's been my point from the get go. If Kennedy had gotten better directors in the first place maybe they wouldn't be having this problem, directors who have directed bigger budget movies with some FX in them.
The problem is that these guys have only handled lower budgeted comedies and such. Colin Trevorrow had only directed one low budget indie before they gave him Jurrassic World and now Episode 9. Wtf?
I think that she's been hiring these guys because she believes that their lack of experience will make them more "malleable"(?), controllable. Turns out, that may not be the case after all. Maybe a little more experience carries more weight.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 11, 2017 19:45:22 GMT
Ron Howard agreeing to undertake the project answers your question. Yeah, but Ron Howard strikes me as being an "of the same mind" type of director, someone already in-line with Lucasfilm mentality, someone who doesn't need to be wrangled in because he's already there.
Directors who do truly different things may not do well in that mold; and that's a shame because that's what Star Wars needs, now that its no under George Lucas personal control anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 20:17:57 GMT
LOL. Star Wars fans are so hyperbolic.
Yes. Just about every fucking director in the world wants to work on Star Wars.
I know that Kennedy bashing is ubiquitous on these fan sites, but y'all are living in your own little galaxy when it comes to how Star Wars is perceived, how Kennedy is perceived, how Disney is perceived, etc.
Outside of these sites, TFA was wildly successful, the creative teams are wildly lauded, Disney's takeover is a good thing and yes, every director, line producer, writer, actor, key grip and best boy in the world is salivating at a chance to be part of the Disney Wars Machine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 23:37:09 GMT
LOL. Star Wars fans are so hyperbolic. Yes. Just about every fucking director in the world wants to work on Star Wars. Not every director. Spielberg has turned it down. And who knows if there have been any unreported examples. Few directors have turned it down but it doesn't mean every director is beating on Disney's door for the job either. In fact there are some famous directors that rumors swirled turned it down and likely haven't changed their stance. Terse Statement: Honestly does the average movie viewing audience have a formed opinion about movie studios or their executives unless they do something highly offensive. It's passionate members of fan bases that form and vocalize these positive or negative opinions. And as Kathleen Kennedy's perception goes her actions and decisions are such that it inspires the query of whether Disney SW is successful because of her or in spite of her. In fact such conjecture is not uncommon and is the very reason that the OP created this thread. Disagreeable Commentary: The perception is such, especially so held amongst avid fans. It was "wildly successful" in box office profit. But that can be attributed to clever but not entirely transparent marketing, and a decade long hiatus. TFA made it's entire production cost back on the opening weekend! That's just unparalleled! And if it was so wildly and universally loved why did it not sustain that pace longer and overtake Titanic and Avatar? The statement that the creative teams are "wildly lauded" sounds like very subjective opinion. Those creative teams only won a handful of minor awards. And this droid hasn't seen any specific critical praise for the "creative teams" that would hallmark their accomplishments. Given the lack of originality that is entirely understandable. This comment that every director, writer, and production position in the industry is salivating and lining up for a chance at Disney SW is fanboy hyperbole. There's no evidence that those opportunities are any more coveted than positions with other movie franchises or notable film projects. It is quite easy to superimpose the general feelings and perception within one's social circle over an entire fan base, demographic, audience or society. If you base perception off of the media that followed TFA's reception in the first several months one might conclude it's universally loved at crazy proportions up to right now currently. But I've observed reactions on forums, reactions within my own social circles, even comments and debate on radio stations with differing opinions about the quality of TFA or how much it was liked. Both in general and in comparison to the OT. Laugh away. But there's realities (that apparently you haven't observed) outside this forum that are comprised of viewers and social circles who found that TFA didn't live up to the hype. |
|
shinnickneth
Junior Member
@shinnickneth
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 1,782
|
Post by shinnickneth on Jul 12, 2017 0:10:12 GMT
Statement: Not every director. Spielberg has turned it down. And who knows if there have been any unreported examples. Few directors have turned it down but it doesn't mean every director is beating on Disney's door for the job either. In fact there are some famous directors that rumors swirled turned it down and likely haven't changed their stance. That isn't anything new. Spielberg has always turned down directing Star Wars. He even turned down his good friend, George Lucas, when he was asked to direct an OT Star Wars episode. He did it again when Lucas asked him to direct a PT episode too. I think he prefers to be "just a fan" and not someone hands-on with the franchise. |
|
shinnickneth
Junior Member
@shinnickneth
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 1,782
|
Post by shinnickneth on Jul 12, 2017 0:19:19 GMT
Haven't they been doing that? Haven't most of the directors had little on their resume in the way of big budget films? That's been my point from the get go. If Kennedy had gotten better directors in the first place maybe they wouldn't be having this problem, directors who have directed bigger budget movies with some FX in them.
The problem is that these guys have only handled lower budgeted comedies and such. Colin Trevorrow had only directed one low budget indie before they gave him Jurrassic World and now Episode 9. Wtf?
I think that she's been hiring these guys because she believes that their lack of experience will make them more "malleable"(?), controllable. Turns out, that may not be the case after all. Maybe a little more experience carries more weight.
Well, in all fairness, the franchise started with an indie director. I think Disney is trying to keep the franchise at its "roots", but they may be reconsidering now that this whole Solo fiasco happened. |
|
|
|
Post by audiosane on Jul 12, 2017 8:07:30 GMT
Haven't they been doing that? Haven't most of the directors had little on their resume in the way of big budget films? That's been my point from the get go. If Kennedy had gotten better directors in the first place maybe they wouldn't be having this problem, directors who have directed bigger budget movies with some FX in them.
The problem is that these guys have only handled lower budgeted comedies and such. Colin Trevorrow had only directed one low budget indie before they gave him Jurrassic World and now Episode 9. Wtf?
I think that she's been hiring these guys because she believes that their lack of experience will make them more "malleable"(?), controllable. Turns out, that may not be the case after all. Maybe a little more experience carries more weight.
Yeah. It is my understanding that Hollywood regularly does this with big budget films, in part, because directors with little on their resume are easier to control. Star Wars and Marvel are assembly-style films where we're not going to get anything that's crazy original and a director's unique vision. I am reminded of Edgar Wright leaving Ant-Man. It's not just Kennedy and Star Wars. You mentioned Trevorrow and Jurassic World. Gareth Edwards (Godzilla) and James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy) are other examples of directors with little on their plate before being handed these amazing opportunities. The difference with Star Wars is that pretty much all the Disney hires have at least one big budget film under his belt. I don't know for sure what happened with those Han Solo directors, but I don't think it had anything to do with a lack of experience. |
|
|
|
Post by audiosane on Jul 12, 2017 8:08:57 GMT
That's been my point from the get go. If Kennedy had gotten better directors in the first place maybe they wouldn't be having this problem, directors who have directed bigger budget movies with some FX in them.
The problem is that these guys have only handled lower budgeted comedies and such. Colin Trevorrow had only directed one low budget indie before they gave him Jurrassic World and now Episode 9. Wtf?
I think that she's been hiring these guys because she believes that their lack of experience will make them more "malleable"(?), controllable. Turns out, that may not be the case after all. Maybe a little more experience carries more weight.
Well, in all fairness, the franchise started with an indie director. I think Disney is trying to keep the franchise at its "roots", but they may be reconsidering now that this whole Solo fiasco happened. Weren't these guys hired, in part, because Lawrence Kasdan highly recommended them? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 15:33:07 GMT
Statement: Not every director. Spielberg has turned it down. And who knows if there have been any unreported examples. Few directors have turned it down but it doesn't mean every director is beating on Disney's door for the job either. In fact there are some famous directors that rumors swirled turned it down and likely haven't changed their stance. And as Kathleen Kennedy's perception goes her actions and decisions are such that it inspires the query of whether Disney SW is successful because of her or in spite of her. In fact such conjecture is not uncommon and is the very reason that the OP created this thread. Disagreeable Commentary: The perception is such, especially so held amongst avid fans. It was "wildly successful" in box office profit. But that can be attributed to clever but not entirely transparent marketing, and a decade long hiatus. TFA made it's entire production cost back on the opening weekend! That's just unparalleled! And if it was so wildly and universally loved why did it not sustain that pace longer and overtake Titanic and Avatar?
The statement that the creative teams are "wildly lauded" sounds like very subjective opinion. Those creative teams only won a handful of minor awards. And this droid hasn't seen any specific critical praise for the "creative teams" that would hallmark their accomplishments. Given the lack of originality that is entirely understandable. This comment that every director, writer, and production position in the industry is salivating and lining up for a chance at Disney SW is fanboy hyperbole. There's no evidence that those opportunities are any more coveted than positions with other movie franchises or notable film projects.
It is quite easy to superimpose the general feelings and perception within one's social circle over an entire fan base, demographic, audience or society. If you base perception off of the media that followed TFA's reception in the first several months one might conclude it's universally loved at crazy proportions up to right now currently. But I've observed reactions on forums, reactions within my own social circles, even comments and debate on radio stations with differing opinions about the quality of TFA or how much it was liked. Both in general and in comparison to the OT. Laugh away. But there's realities (that apparently you haven't observed) outside this forum that are comprised of viewers and social circles who found that TFA didn't live up to the hype.
This is at least a valid argument. And one I've wondered myself.
It is pathetic that this is the last resort for TFA haters.
Which is exactly my point and a major flaw of the perceptions held by some members of this site.
Even IF this statement had any argumentative teeth to it whatsoever, "TFA not living up to the hype" and "errrmergerd, will anybody ever even want to work with Lucasfilm anymore?!?" are absurdly on different ends of the scale.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 16:39:18 GMT
Well, in all fairness, the franchise started with an indie director. I think Disney is trying to keep the franchise at its "roots", but they may be reconsidering now that this whole Solo fiasco happened. Weren't these guys hired, in part, because Lawrence Kasdan highly recommended them? If that was truly the case then it was likely because Kathleen Kennedy told Kasdan what type of directors she was going to hire: a children's/family/cynical comedy type. And then Kasdan went with them. I can't imagine Kasdan approving them and then either Kasdan or Lord and Miller drastically change their behavior if they had already worked with one another. And Kasdan choosing directors of that genre of his own initiative seems unlikely since he doesn't have a penchant for comedy. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 12, 2017 18:53:25 GMT
Not every director. Spielberg has turned it down. TFA made it's entire production cost back on the opening weekend! That's just unparalleled! And if it was so wildly and universally loved why did it not sustain that pace longer and overtake Titanic and Avatar?
Laugh away. But there's realities (that apparently you haven't observed) outside this forum that are comprised of viewers and social circles who found that TFA didn't live up to the hype.
Spielberg turning Star Wars down is a bit inaccurate. Actually, Spielberg was Lucas first choice to direct ESB, believe it or not. The directors guild got involved for some reason so Lucas had to scrap that, and went with his old college teacher Irvin Kirshner instead. Also, Spielberg did direct the lava light saber duel in ROTS. True story. He did turn down the Disney movies though.
It is pathetic that this is the last resort for TFA haters. Absolutely pathetic. It even says in the statement that the movie made back its entire production cost in its opening weekend for crying out loud. What more does one need? If becoming the 3rd most moneymaking movie of all time isn't enough then what is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 20:43:18 GMT
Statement: Not every director. Spielberg has turned it down. And who knows if there have been any unreported examples. Few directors have turned it down but it doesn't mean every director is beating on Disney's door for the job either. In fact there are some famous directors that rumors swirled turned it down and likely haven't changed their stance. And as Kathleen Kennedy's perception goes her actions and decisions are such that it inspires the query of whether Disney SW is successful because of her or in spite of her. In fact such conjecture is not uncommon and is the very reason that the OP created this thread. Disagreeable Commentary: The perception is such, especially so held amongst avid fans. It was "wildly successful" in box office profit. But that can be attributed to clever but not entirely transparent marketing, and a decade long hiatus. TFA made it's entire production cost back on the opening weekend! That's just unparalleled! And if it was so wildly and universally loved why did it not sustain that pace longer and overtake Titanic and Avatar?
The statement that the creative teams are "wildly lauded" sounds like very subjective opinion. Those creative teams only won a handful of minor awards. And this droid hasn't seen any specific critical praise for the "creative teams" that would hallmark their accomplishments. Given the lack of originality that is entirely understandable. This comment that every director, writer, and production position in the industry is salivating and lining up for a chance at Disney SW is fanboy hyperbole. There's no evidence that those opportunities are any more coveted than positions with other movie franchises or notable film projects.
It is quite easy to superimpose the general feelings and perception within one's social circle over an entire fan base, demographic, audience or society. If you base perception off of the media that followed TFA's reception in the first several months one might conclude it's universally loved at crazy proportions up to right now currently. But I've observed reactions on forums, reactions within my own social circles, even comments and debate on radio stations with differing opinions about the quality of TFA or how much it was liked. Both in general and in comparison to the OT. Laugh away. But there's realities (that apparently you haven't observed) outside this forum that are comprised of viewers and social circles who found that TFA didn't live up to the hype.
This is at least a valid argument. And one I've wondered myself.
Statement: Congratulations on missing the point @winterssuicide and lenlenlen1 . The point is that TFA didn't sustain a pace that should have had it surpassing Titanic and Avatar. Those 2 films held a higher rate of box office profit for a longer time because they were universally loved. TFA wasn't. And congratulations also for missing my previous points that it made so much money in it's opening weekend because of the hiatus and clever marketing. If it were truly universally loved, everyone would've kept going back after the first several weeks... you know, like they did with the original Star Wars!
Mocking Statement: Two salivating TFA fanboys called my logic pathetic. I don't know how I will activate myself in the mornings after this!
Statement: Physician heal thyself!... But thank you for informing of the problem because nobody else outside of this forum questions the quality of TFA or has a complaint or dislike. I guess the meatbags I've talked to and even the radio conversations I've heard are figments of this droids neuro-processor.
Mocking Addendum: Time to run a self-diagnostic!
[/font][/font][/quote] Statement: Quite accurate. They are on different ends of the spectrum. But my statements were meant to address the broader subject of the OP's topic. In addition to your claims. Besides, it is my belief that the OP was exaggerating in making the statement that no one would want the directors job with Disney SW. It was most likely meant to imply that because of the mentioned problems it might become less attractive. Statement: HK-47 signing off! |
|
