Solo (young Han Solo film) *spoilers from post 1493*

Sad Professor

The prospect of expensive reshoots, presumedly under the supervision of another director, probably escalated the situation for everyone. Lord & Miller may have dug their heels in and forced them to fire them. As a duo they are a lot harder to control than Edwards was.

I don't doubt that their take on Star Wars was different, more comedic, but then what the hell did they hire them for?

Falthyron

Sad Professor wrote: »

I don't doubt that their take on Star Wars was different, more comedic, but then what the hell did they hire them for?

Maybe the darker tone and its success for Rogue One had some executives re-thinking their strategy? Yet another film that will be confined to the 'What if' category irrespective of its success/failure when it is eventually released. Personally, I thought it was an odd choice of director/s for the Han Solo movie (though I dispute the need for one anyway!), but usually in times of stark change, studios prefer to then play it safe. I suspect the Han Solo film will now be a competent, but wholly forgettable experience.

The films are going to go the way of the Marvel universe, hire indie directors for a little street cred and then give them little say in what happens as a committee dictate every second of what happens. Miller and Lord aren't like the Russo Brothers, they've worked in the studio and kick started two big franchises so telling them what to do is a hell of a lot harder to do than it is with most someone like Edwards. Would have been interesting to see the Miller/Lord take as there's not many mainstream comedies I like but so far I've enjoyed their work. Have a feeling that this is going to be cookie cutter cinema of the most banal kind.

homerun_homer

This news has now finally got me worried about the film. I've read that it was a clash of personalities between directors and Kathleen Kennedy/Lawrence Kasdan and co but that should have been a warning sign earlier on. It's crazy to think they'd be pushed out so late in the game. I wonder who will get final director credit once it's completed, whether it will be shared or owned by the replacement director.

I looked forward to seeing what they'd do with the franchise. Maybe they tried to change the Star Wars format and look too much and it needed to be reigned in and in keeping with the style of the other films. At the same time I'd feel like these stand alone movies should get to have their own stamp and identity.

conorhal

Sad Professor wrote: »

Variety and THR are reporting that Miller & Lord were indeed fired and that there was a "culture clash" between them and Kennedy from day one, mainly over the personality of Han Solo, who THR's studio source suggests the duo were treating too much as a "comedic personality". They also suggest their improvisational shooting style was a problem with Kasdan (nothing new there). Another source suggests that Kennedy is hiring indie directors like Rian Johnson on the assumption that she can control them which didn't work with Miller & Lord because they felt they had "earned their stripes". Despite these differences, Miller & Lord thought they could work through them.

The frontrunner to replace them is.... brace yourselves... Ron Howard. But Joe Johnston and Kasdan are also being considered, according to THR.

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/star-wars-han-solo-kathleen-kennedy-director-fired-1202473919/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-why-han-solo-movie-directors-were-fired-1015474?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"I’ve got a bad feeling about this."

Kathleen Kennedy may have a stellar track record, but I have to wonder if her mojo is slipping.
For this to happen once (Rogue One) seemed like bad luck, but to offload a director and stare down the barrel of substantial reshoots twice seems like carelesness. In both cases she has fired directors that she directly hired and that smacks of bad decision making from the outset.
I've been underwhelmed by the new films, they have been largely 'competent' but a bit dull and uninspired. There is a whiff of corporate micro-management about them.

Tony EH

Have to admit to being sort of unsurprised. To me, Lord and Miller were always a very bad choice to direct a Star Wars film. Star Wars is not a comedy. They were the wrong people from the start and I'm kind of happy they're gone. But, this should have been nipped in the bud from the beginning. Their back catalogue alone proved that they were completely wrong for a Star Wars film.

If

THR's studio source suggests the duo were treating too much as a "comedic personality".

is correct, then thank christ this is no longer a goer. In fact, I'd like to see the whole "Han Solo" thing dropped altogether. It's a terrible idea and it always was.

Solo is not a clown. He may have a sarcastic sense of humour and ride his luck too often, but he's no Jonah Hill character.

Sad Professor

Falthyron wrote: »

Maybe the darker tone and its success for Rogue One had some executives re-thinking their strategy? Yet another film that will be confined to the 'What if' category irrespective of its success/failure when it is eventually released. Personally, I thought it was an odd choice of director/s for the Han Solo movie (though I dispute the need for one anyway!), but usually in times of stark change, studios prefer to then play it safe. I suspect the Han Solo film will now be a competent, but wholly forgettable experience.

My thinking would be more that after the Rogue One reshoots to "add humour", Disney was terrified of getting another overly dark or serious film and overcompensated by hiring two guys known for directing comedies. Which would appear to have now backfired on them.

It's hard to say how much responsibility Kennedy has in this. It depends a lot on the internal politics. For all we know she was happy to let Lord and Miller do their thing despite their differences, but Disney was looking at the dailies and going nuts. Kennedy is a very safe and competent pair of hands and I find it hard to believe that she's the problem here.

Tony EH

Speaking of 'Rogue One', maybe Kennedy should just give Edwards a call. At least he knows his Star Wars.

Falthyron

Sad Professor wrote: »

My thinking would be more that after the Rogue One reshoots to "add humour", Disney was terrified of getting another overly dark or serious film and overcompensated by hiring two guys known for directing comedies. Which would appear to have now backfired on them.

It's hard to say how much responsibility Kennedy has in this. It depends a lot on the internal politics. For all we know she was happy to let Lord and Miller do their thing despite their differences, but Disney was looking at the dailies and going nuts. Kennedy is a very safe and competent pair of hands and I find it hard to believe that she's the problem here.

I agree. She has worked with Spielberg for decades and has vast experience in handling big budget epics as well as smaller titles.

I can understand Disney initially taking the position of making Han Solo the light-hearted movie (Rogue One was never going to be a barrel of laughs and I can't see Boba Fett or Obi-Wan being comedies either) as its the only one that has the scope to be funny because of the titular character.

I dunno... I can't help shake the feeling that investors were rocked a little by the developmental mess that was Rogue One. Maybe Lord and Miller were going too far 'out there' with their vision and concept, and this scared Disney? Fart jokes, anyone?! :pac:

Two anthology movies featuring serious problems in production does not bode well for future anthology movies. The worst part is, the movies are dealing with content/characters/worlds/periods that have pretty much already been written for the directors. These are supposed to be the 'easy' movies to make. Creating new characters/stories/worlds is when the convincing element is needed.

Again, as I said, this will be a competent movie but wholly forgettable. "Yeah, it was fine" will be the prevailing thought.

Tony EH

Was 'Rogue One' really that awful a shoot though? As far as I know, the bulk of the reshoots were to change how the ending played out. Instead of them all dying on the beach, they die elsewhere and K2SO got a few more lines to say perhaps. But, beyond that, I'm not sure that there was too much differences going on. The thrust of the film remains the same and it's still Gareth Edward's picture.

This seems to be an admission, of sorts, that LFL just hired the wrong guys. But, that was something I could have told them for free last year, by simply looking at their previous involvements.

More than likely, I reckon what happened here is that Lord and Miller were sticking to their formula. One that they've established in their comedies and Kasdan and Kennedy weren't liking what they saw. Both of them probably were blue in the face telling them to ease back on the gags and Lord and Miller weren't having it.

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

Speaking of 'Rogue One', maybe Kennedy should just give Edwards a call. At least he knows his Star Wars.

Let's not forget she had to bring in another director to fix the mess he made of rogue one. He won't be back in the galaxy far far away ever again.

johnny_ultimate

pixelburp wrote: »

Ron Howard's not a bad move though; say what you will but he's a consummate professional, who at least knows his business. He's a long way from the Brett Ratners of this world...

I dunno, I genuinely believe he is one of the least noteworthy directors working today. His films, especially in recent years, are 'grand' at best, never showing anything in the way of true directorial vision. I'm by no means a massive fan of Miller and Lord, but they at least have established some sense of character and consistency across their work. Ron Howard might be able to produce a tidy, coherent film - but they almost universally lack spark. If confirmed, he'd be the safest possible bet in the most uninspiring way.

While never expecting major things from this Han Solo film, I think expecting something beyond mere competence is now a big ask - and frankly mere competence should never be good enough.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

Let's not forget she had to bring in another director to fix the mess he made of rogue one. He won't be back in the galaxy far far away ever again.

Mmmm, I don't think it was a "mess". She just brought in another director for the reshoots, while he finished off his part. In any case, Edward's agreed to both the reshoot of the ending and the other director.

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I dunno, I genuinely believe he is one of the least noteworthy directors working today. His films, especially in recent years, are 'grand' at best, never showing anything in the way of true directorial vision. I'm by no means a massive fan of Miller and Lord, but they at least have established some sense of character and consistency across their work. Ron Howard might be able to produce a tidy, coherent film - but they almost universally lack spark. If confirmed, he'd be the safest possible bet in the most uninspiring way.

Ron Howard is decent (although he's made some real guff), but is he "Star Wars"?

Then again, I would have thought the same thing about Irvin Kershner (whose back catalogue was probably worse than Howard's) and he turned in, arguably, the greatest Star Wars film ever made.

Part of me thinks that Howard's name is getting a mention because he made 'Willow'.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

While never expecting major things from this Han Solo film, I think expecting something beyond mere competence is now a big ask - and frankly mere competence should never be good enough.

See, this to me is the elephant in the room. This thing should never have been green lit in the first place. It just has bad idea written all over it and I don't believe that there was anybody out there clamoring for a young Han Solo movie, even though some people came around to the idea after it was announced.

Frankly, if anyone makes anything competent out of it, I think they should be relieved.

Beefy78

homerun_homer wrote: »

At the same time I'd feel like these stand alone movies should get to have their own stamp and identity.

I don't disagree with this as a general point with the new SW universe but if your stand alone film is a Han Solo movie then the stamp and identity is already in place.

Kathleen Kennedy has a lot of credibility built up, with me at least. Making as drastic a change as this at this late stage is a huge call, especially as it will inevitably be followed by a lot of re-shoots. I'm going to try to look at the positive of this and say that it shows that Disney aren't happy to churn out any old rubbish, stick 'Star Wars' on the poster and watch the millions of dollars come in.

pixelburp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I dunno, I genuinely believe he is one of the least noteworthy directors working today. His films, especially in recent years, are 'grand' at best, never showing anything in the way of true directorial vision. I'm by no means a massive fan of Miller and Lord, but they at least have established some sense of character and consistency across their work. Ron Howard might be able to produce a tidy, coherent film - but they almost universally lack spark. If confirmed, he'd be the safest possible bet in the most uninspiring way.

And those are all fine arguments that'd give pause for thought - were this a movie whose filming only started next month. Instead, this is clearly a damage control / fire-fighting situation where the remaining 2 weeks of shooting need completion, along with whatever reshoots will presumably be required, given it's fairly clear the producers are unhappy with the material & tone created thus far.

In that environment, and with those kind of pressures, the very last thing you want is the auteur; if anything that'd make a small disaster balloon into a Heaven's Gate sized one. Regardless of whose fault this is - and going by the tattle it has to be Disney for failing to tackle the problem sooner - right now they likely need the safe pair of hands to rescue a production in trouble; someone reliable, dependable and who pretty much commands respect from those both in front of & behind the cameras. So yeah, Ron Howard makes a lot of sense.

FunLover18

TBH Lord and Miller's involvement in this was the only thing that had me even remotely interested in this film as I wanted to see how they'd work in an established universe. I have no interest in seeing how Han Solo net Chewie or got his waste coat.

Sad Professor

Howard is close to Lucas and helped him re-cut the third act of TPM. He's a very bland choice, but that's probably want you want for a job like this.

Kasdan and Joe Johnston are also possibilities but I can't see Kasdan taking it on by himself. I suspect he's already taken over in effect and whoever they get will just be doing the donkey work of day-to-day directing.

david75

Interesting

After we talked about which director would claim the end credit, I jumped over to read the rules concerning the Directors Guild of America. After I got past the names on its theatrical committee (John Carpenter, Wes Craven, David Fincher, Michael Mann, Frank Marshall, Phillip Noyce, Sam Raimi, Michael Bay and many more) I found this under their rights;

"Rule 2: One director to a picture. With few exceptions, only one director may be assigned to a motion picture at any time. (7-208) Only the director assigned to a motion picture may direct it. (7-101)"

There's a whole list of clauses that make for interesting reading especially Creative Decisions, No Retaliation (The producer may not discriminate or retaliate against you because you assert your creative rights under the Basic Agreement) and this juicy bit titled "Vesting Of Post-Production Right:A director who is replaced after directing 90% but less than 100% of the scheduled principal photography...shall be the director of the film entitled to all post production creative rights".
Are they not reporting that it's 90% in the can already?

I know KK could recite the dga rules in her sleep because a producer has to know these as good as any director. I'm sure she hasn't overstepped her bounds. But I'd also bet that L&M are ensuring the dga lawyers are earning their money too.

It's a really good read if you're into this sorta stuff. There's also a checklist for directors which is cool. Here's one under the title During Production: "4.Did all notes to cast and crew come directly from you?"

Interesting reading.

*Michael Bay is on the Committee?!

FunLover18

david75 wrote:

There's a whole list of clauses that make for interesting reading especially Creative Decisions, No Retaliation (The producer may not discriminate or retaliate against you because you assert your creative rights under the Basic Agreement) and this juicy bit titled "Vesting Of Post-Production Right:A director who is replaced after directing 90% but less than 100% of the scheduled principal photography...shall be the director of the film entitled to all post production creative rights". Are they not reporting that it's 90% in the can already?

The rule about the 90% is an interesting one and is why the guy who replaced Donner on Superman 2 (can't remember his name) reshot some of the exact same scenes Donner had already filmed so he'd get the credit. Whoever replaces L&M presumably doesn't have to shoot 90%, just enough so that they haven't either.

tigger123

Interesting read on this on wired.com :

http://www.wired.com/story/han-solo-lord-miller-star-wars-directors

Essentially, "The vaunted "story department" approach, in which Kennedy and a cadre of writers oversee the development of multiple films, ensures a Star Wars universe with ever-expanding lore and never-wavering tonal consistency."

The approach taken by Disney favours consistency of tone over the creative freedom of whoever is picked to direct any of the new films. The audience benefits in the end I think.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

Interesting

After we talked about which director would claim the end credit, I jumped over to read the rules concerning the Directors Guild of America. After I got past the names on its theatrical committee (John Carpenter, Wes Craven, David Fincher, Michael Mann, Frank Marshall, Phillip Noyce, Sam Raimi, Michael Bay and many more) I found this under their rights;

"Rule 2: One director to a picture. With few exceptions, only one director may be assigned to a motion picture at any time. (7-208) Only the director assigned to a motion picture may direct it. (7-101)"

There's a whole list of clauses that make for interesting reading especially Creative Decisions, No Retaliation (The producer may not discriminate or retaliate against you because you assert your creative rights under the Basic Agreement) and this juicy bit titled "Vesting Of Post-Production Right:A director who is replaced after directing 90% but less than 100% of the scheduled principal photography...shall be the director of the film entitled to all post production creative rights".
Are they not reporting that it's 90% in the can already?

I know KK could recite the dga rules in her sleep because a producer has to know these as good as any director. I'm sure she hasn't overstepped her bounds. But I'd also bet that L&M are ensuring the dga lawyers are earning their money too.

It's a really good read if you're into this sorta stuff. There's also a checklist for directors which is cool. Here's one under the title During Production: "4.Did all notes to cast and crew come directly from you?"

Interesting reading.

*Michael Bay is on the Committee?!

The above may be one of the reasons why this firing has only come about now. The clashes may have been happening for some time, but before any move was made all the ducks had to be in a row, as it were.

Part of me finds it difficult to believe that this all blew up out of nowhere.

Maybe Kennedy wants to make sure that when Lord and Miller are gone, they stay gone.

Sad Professor

david75 wrote: »

Interesting

After we talked about which director would claim the end credit, I jumped over to read the rules concerning the Directors Guild of America. After I got past the names on its theatrical committee (John Carpenter, Wes Craven, David Fincher, Michael Mann, Frank Marshall, Phillip Noyce, Sam Raimi, Michael Bay and many more) I found this under their rights;

"Rule 2: One director to a picture. With few exceptions, only one director may be assigned to a motion picture at any time. (7-208) Only the director assigned to a motion picture may direct it. (7-101)"

There's a whole list of clauses that make for interesting reading especially Creative Decisions, No Retaliation (The producer may not discriminate or retaliate against you because you assert your creative rights under the Basic Agreement) and this juicy bit titled "Vesting Of Post-Production Right:A director who is replaced after directing 90% but less than 100% of the scheduled principal photography...shall be the director of the film entitled to all post production creative rights".
Are they not reporting that it's 90% in the can already?

Interesting, so maybe this move was about keeping them out of post-production and reshoots.

A few factors probably played into this: After forking out for expensive reshoots on Rogue One while also having to accommodate its original (possibly somewhat scatty) director because he was entitled to stay involved having completed principal photography, Disney probably weren't in the mood to do it all over again. And as I said earlier, it's harder to control a directing duo than a single director. In addition, other recent high profile directing replacements, such as Whedon/Snyder, may have emboldened Disney, along with the fact that the bad press caused by the Rogue One reshoots didn't seem to do the film any harm at the box office.

I still think Lord and Miller were digging their heels in big time. According to Variety, they felt they had "earned their stripes", an attitude which if true won't do their reputation any favours.

Tony EH

I don't think this situation is anything like what happened with the reshoots for 'Rogue One', which I think have been blown out of proportion completely.

I'd wager what's happened here is that Lord and Miller set about trying to make a knockabout comedy in the same vein as their previous efforts. A '23 Jump Street' set in space or 'Lego Star Wars Movie', but with real people, which was wildly inconsistent with anything that has come before in Star Wars and Kasdan and Kennedy went "no bloody way".

What happened with 'Rogue One' was relatively mild. Tony Gilroy (who Gareth Edwards had worked with before) was brought on board to reshoot scenes for the final third, while Edwards concentrated on PP and effects. It probably had more to do with time than anything else.

Lord and Miller have been jettisoned from the project, or at least that's what LFL are trying to do.

david75

Welll let's also look at L&M's statement which basically seems amicable enough and says 'creative differences' so it's not like they're gonna go to war with LFL / Disney over it.

It will be interesting to see how it's credited and where their cut of the cheese for the work they did both in credit and monetary return goes.

I'd say there's a compensation package written into the fine print when they signed on 'in case of' clause kinda thing.

david75

I wonder will they be obliged to do all the press junkets for this once it is released?
Edwards had to and had a sh!t eating grin the whole entire time.

Tony EH

If Edwards had had any real animosity toward the final product, or LFL, he wouldn't have appeared on any press junkets or DVD extras either.

I think the situation re: Lord and Miller is another thing altogether. There's just a real disconnect between them and Kennedy...and Kasdan who, more than likely, was probably the instigator of the whole episode. I'd say he was simply unsatisfied about the way that Lord and Miller had interpreted his writing and the character of Solo, to the point where things just became unworkable.

While this is all speculation, one thing that's clear is that there's some real personal differences going on, despite the "creative differences" damage control statement.

david75

Well im gonna side with Kasdan and Kennedy in either case. He is the voice of Han and knows the character better than anyone. If he wasn't happy with where they were taking the character, or with them seemingly ignoring his script, I'm with him. KKs resume speaks for itself.

We never 'needed' this film to begin with but if the powers that be aren't happy with where it was going well I'm gonna side with them.


I do wonder where this leaves Kenobi. Have they signed some up and coming indie director for it? Are they now rethinking that? Or have they got someone established for it?
We'll know in a few weeks I guess.

Tony EH

Umm...if I'm correct as to the reasons why L+M got the boot, then Kennedy and Kasdan are absolutely correct to halt things and sort it out.

But, the real question is why Lord and Miller were hired to do the film in the first place? It's not like they don't have a particular stamp on their previous work. What did they think they were going to bring to the table? Even I could see that they were completely wrong for any kind of Star Wars project, so why couldn't Disney execs? Did Kennedy just hope that she could simply force her way?

If were either of them, I'd feel pretty hard done by and certainly fight my corner.

It would be like hiring Terry Gilliam to direct Episode IX and complaining that the film was too like 'Brazil' or 'Time Bandits'.

fluke

Kinda feel sorry for Lord and Miller. Think the SW fanboys will be out for them regardless of what happened.

Whatever happens this film is going to have that 'what could've been' vibe over it in the same way that R1, and Ant-Man did.