Master Of Illusion
Member
I'm starting to believe there's people out there who believe if it isn't a masterpiece, it's shit.
Hell, the only Star Wars movies I would call masterpieces (for now) are IV & V. That doesn't mean the rest suck by default.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
'Star Wars': Han Solo Film Loses Directors (Lord & Miller)
- Thread starter zsynqx
- Start date
I'm starting to believe there's people out there who believe if it isn't a masterpiece, it's shit.
Hell, the only Star Wars movies I would call masterpieces (for now) are IV & V. That doesn't mean the rest suck by default.
DerZuhälter
Member
Project should have never been done in the first place. So many opportunities for stories in this universe and you choose to rehash the most safest and blandest idea possible and try to spice that blandness up with L&M just to ditch them again because it turned out not bland and safe enough for your taste.
I'm not offended.
Person: TFA is widely regarded as being great, popular with fans and critics. It also made a ton of money. Why should they move away from that formula?
You: I didn't like it.
It's silly. You answered a question with a silly response and people are calling you out on it. And by trying to compare its box office success to Transformers, while ignoring the fact that unlike Transformers, it's regarded as an actual good movie, it's even sillier.
brandonh83
Banned
I get having a kneejerk opinion about a project, but I personally don't call something out until I see it. The screenplay and vision is what's important, obviously combined with solid filmmaking/directing/performances.
In my opinion, simply writing off a movie based on absolutely nothing-- and come on, it's absolutely nothing, we don't even have a title-- I don't subscribe to that. Just saying that a Han Solo prequel is a bad idea doesn't cut it for me because we don't know what's in that script and we haven't seen anything from it.
Being skeptical? Alright, sure. But I've seen so many people write this thing off and naysay about it almost as if they know exactly what it's going to be like, what the story is, and how much cinematic merit it has without knowing a single thing about it other than that it's about Han Solo.
The problem here is that this occurrence adds easy fuel to the fire, but frankly? We still don't know how it's going to turn out. Rogue One hit similar bumps and required some reshooting, but that turned out solid for a lot of people. Folks also were skeptical about Edwards directing that, and it sounds like those shots that were called to reshoot and bring in Gilroy or whatever paid off as it's not a movie that turned out bad.
What if whatever is happening here ends up being a good thing for the film? Everyone is quick to defend Lord and Miller, but none of us were there. Kathleen or whoever could be making good calls. We don't know that. We don't know, again, how this thing will turn out. I agree that there's a lot more they can do with the universe, but it being about Han Solo absolutely does not mean the movie wouldn't have anything new about it or its own vision.
I dunno. I'd just like to see more people willing to give things a chance rather than turn their nose up at a mere concept/idea, because ideas are almost fucking nothing without execution, and it's impossible to know right how how that's gonna be.
In my opinion, simply writing off a movie based on absolutely nothing-- and come on, it's absolutely nothing, we don't even have a title-- I don't subscribe to that. Just saying that a Han Solo prequel is a bad idea doesn't cut it for me because we don't know what's in that script and we haven't seen anything from it.
Being skeptical? Alright, sure. But I've seen so many people write this thing off and naysay about it almost as if they know exactly what it's going to be like, what the story is, and how much cinematic merit it has without knowing a single thing about it other than that it's about Han Solo.
The problem here is that this occurrence adds easy fuel to the fire, but frankly? We still don't know how it's going to turn out. Rogue One hit similar bumps and required some reshooting, but that turned out solid for a lot of people. Folks also were skeptical about Edwards directing that, and it sounds like those shots that were called to reshoot and bring in Gilroy or whatever paid off as it's not a movie that turned out bad.
What if whatever is happening here ends up being a good thing for the film? Everyone is quick to defend Lord and Miller, but none of us were there. Kathleen or whoever could be making good calls. We don't know that. We don't know, again, how this thing will turn out. I agree that there's a lot more they can do with the universe, but it being about Han Solo absolutely does not mean the movie wouldn't have anything new about it or its own vision.
I dunno. I'd just like to see more people willing to give things a chance rather than turn their nose up at a mere concept/idea, because ideas are almost fucking nothing without execution, and it's impossible to know right how how that's gonna be.
Don't get me wrong, I still have faith in Lucasfilm. They're two for two so far. Likely three for three after this December.
So until they put out a movie that makes me lose faith, I'll continue to have it.
But it's hard to deny that this is a very worrying development and I really dislike some of the things coming out about the decision. We're likely only hearing one side of things so far though.
So until they put out a movie that makes me lose faith, I'll continue to have it.
But it's hard to deny that this is a very worrying development and I really dislike some of the things coming out about the decision. We're likely only hearing one side of things so far though.
I mean, those comparisons are interesting. Edwards wasn't canned because he was willing to accept editorial. Trank was canned before anything moved forward because they lost confidence in him before the project started. Based off the hearsay, Lord and Miller refused to accept editorial AND they lost the confidence of the producers. What a deadly combo.
Jest Chillin
Member
I'm talking about Trank on Fantastic Four, which of course, cost him his SW spot. Not his getting the axe from Lucasfilm specifically.
Where are we hearing that L&M refused to accept editorial?
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
It's that weird mentality of "I don't like thing, but I hear too many positive comments and good sales numbers about said thing, so I need to be as vocally negative and hyperbolic as possible to try and even it out".
Here's the thing though, they weren't fired for making a dumpster fire of a movie. They were fired because it wasn't what Kasdan or Kennedy wanted. That's a very different thing. We also have reports that the movie was turning out good before this. Now we're in limbo as Howard tries to salvage the rest of the film and make it match Kasdan's vision. Not make it good but match his vision.
This was a pure power play driven by incompetent managing.
brandonh83
Banned
All of that may be the case. What concerns me in the end is how I feel about what I actually watch in the end and I couldn't begin to tell you what that's going to be based on anything we're hearing about right now.
Freewheelin'
Member
Completely kills my buzz for the movie.
I think directorial vision is often the single most important thing for a film. Whether that means you go full auteur like Lynch or you quietly adapt to deliver movies so competent and technically perfect like Spielberg or Scorsese, it lies on you. Fury Road is a testament to George Miller's work. Ant-Man is a mediocre movie directed by a mediocre director with the most interesting thing about it being its alternative future. Shane Black made a fucking Shane Black movie in the most homogenous environment there is in film today, and it's my favourite of them all. Hell, I really liked Godzilla and find Rogue One deeply deeply dull; would rather have had Edwards' vision than Gilroy's/Lucasfilm's.
Getting rid of these two is bad news. LF in damage control mode - "we hired two directors known for comedy and improvisation but balked when they trusted in actors and inspiration on set to make the movie better by playing to their strengths in comedy and improvisation".
If this ends up being as milquetoast as Rogue One was I'll be severely disappointed. I thought the whole point of these movies was to be experimental and offer something different.
I think directorial vision is often the single most important thing for a film. Whether that means you go full auteur like Lynch or you quietly adapt to deliver movies so competent and technically perfect like Spielberg or Scorsese, it lies on you. Fury Road is a testament to George Miller's work. Ant-Man is a mediocre movie directed by a mediocre director with the most interesting thing about it being its alternative future. Shane Black made a fucking Shane Black movie in the most homogenous environment there is in film today, and it's my favourite of them all. Hell, I really liked Godzilla and find Rogue One deeply deeply dull; would rather have had Edwards' vision than Gilroy's/Lucasfilm's.
Getting rid of these two is bad news. LF in damage control mode - "we hired two directors known for comedy and improvisation but balked when they trusted in actors and inspiration on set to make the movie better by playing to their strengths in comedy and improvisation".
If this ends up being as milquetoast as Rogue One was I'll be severely disappointed. I thought the whole point of these movies was to be experimental and offer something different.
TheGameshark
Member
That doesn't sound promising considering they were the only promising thing about it. Wrong choice of Star Wars movie to fire the director(s) from Disney.
A Serious Man
Member
I really hope they rethink the "Star Wars film every year" thing but I know they won't.
brandonh83
Banned
I don't think there's going to be a spinoff after VIII. Maybe after IX.
Fast Forward
Member
23 pages? Look, I'm buzzed ATM, but either way, in the hands of modern Disney, i feel really good about this movie. Yes, neither Force Awakens, nor Rogue One were PERFECT, but than again, once you remove the rose covered glasses, NONE of the movies in the OT were perfect, either.
Otherwise, if nothing else, this movie will be fine, and honestly, I'll take fine, if nothing else.
Now, if current old man Lucas was in charge of the franchise I would be a LOT more worried about this movie, but he's not, so much less worried as a result.
Otherwise, if nothing else, this movie will be fine, and honestly, I'll take fine, if nothing else.
Now, if current old man Lucas was in charge of the franchise I would be a LOT more worried about this movie, but he's not, so much less worried as a result.
To be fair, Trank was very clearly fired from FF. The reason Fox didn't make a big deal out of that was because they didn't want even more bad PR for a film plagued with bad PR, and the person replacing Trank in the editing room was... I think Kinberg?
The "word" about the behind the scenes shit seems to mostly be from this series of tweets: https://twitter.com/mjsamps/status/877347705550499842
Grain of salt, etc.
brandonh83
Banned
Master Of Illusion
Member
I'm so sorry.
brandonh83
Banned
Thanks. It's obviously taking time to readjust based on me saying I don't think there'll be a spinoff after VIII.
A Serious Man
Member
The Han Solo movie is the spinoff after VIII. Boba Fett and Obi-Wan movies are also in the works.
I don't think they ever confirmed Obi Wan.
brandonh83
Banned
brandonh83
Banned
How? Did you get to read the script?
I'm just curious to know how anyone on the outside could possibly know if what they're doing with this is good or bad. An idea is just an idea. The execution determines if that idea had any worth.
I didn't know what Lord of the Rings was about until Fellowship was about to release. I asked someone what it was about. They said "it's about some little dudes called Hobbits who are tasked with throwing an evil ring into a volcano." I laughed my ass off. It's one of my favorite films of all time.
This movie may not be good for all I know, but I sure as shit don't know.
They want to uphold quality in the brand, shit is admirable,
Conceptually, a Han Solo movie without Harrison Ford is one of the dumbest ideas possible and I had zero faith in it even when Lord & Miller were attached. There is no way to execute well on such folly.
A Serious Man
Member
The last few posts literally just cleared that up
I hit reply before they were posted. The point is, they're planning on releasing a Star Wars movie ever year and it sucks. At the very least they could try to broaden out the universe but instead they've decided to just cash in on existing characters instead of exploring fresh, interesting concepts.
brandonh83
Banned
I guess here's where I disagree, because I think it can be executed well with the right script and vision. It's all to be determined, but I personally criticize bad execution, not necessarily the idea.
There may be annual Star Wars films for decades to come. I'd love to see a KotOR film or something like that as much as anyone but for me there's no rush. I'm fine with them focusing on more well knowns eras and characters first, then broadening out later, which they'll have to do.
But why? Why is it a dumb idea?
Out of all the main characters in the original trilogy, Han is the one with a past that would be interesting to explore in film. There is so much that can be done with Han's adventures prior to meeting up with Luke.
JJ-isms basically killed TFA for me, I'd hate to see him do it again.
Raitosaito
Member
Just got to reading this whole thread, and man if this doesn't kill my hype for the film.
But this is the exact description of a business deal I'm working through right now. Hopefully it goes well for me, unlike L&M.
The role is too iconic and too closely associated with one specific actor. Lando as well IMO. No matter what you do, it's going to end up reminiscent of a SNL sketch.
Sober up and come back to us. None of what has transpired here suggests that you should be feeling good about this movie's chances.
TDLink
Member
Because Han Solo the character is so inherently tied to Harrison Ford the actor. Plus from the established films we do know a bit of his backstory, and the parts we don't know are better left unknown as it helps if his character is more mysterious and murky.
If they wanted to do some sort of scoundrel adventure story they could have done a new character.
If they really wanted to do an established character, they could have just done young Lando instead. Glover looks like he's nailing the role and Lando as a character is a lot less "main" in the original films and has more room to flesh something interesting out.
brandonh83
Banned
I'm not really someone that gets worked up about things like this. I don't mind a younger actor playing a younger version of the character. I can take it for what it is if it's well done.
Makes sense though. It's why most people scream about a new theme written for something that had an older theme. You have nostalgic ties to the older theme and therefore get defensive about it even if the new theme is fine.
I don't have that problem though. I take things individually for what they are.
jstevenson
Sailor Stevenson
I do sort of agree tho that for Young, pre-ANH Han, sarcasm and selfishness are more of the character. And that's still funny in many ways.
So there is comedy there, but it'll be interesting. Maybe it was getting too jokey.
But I don't think that quote is necessarily wrong.
TDLink
Member
I mean I'm still going to evaluate the film on its own merits.
The thing is, Solo is such a beloved character because of Harrison's performance. The actor they got already doesn't really physically resemble him, if he doesn't nail the exact mannerisms, cadence, and attitude that Ford put into the character, people are going to see it as a weird imitation. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't that character or the character wasn't so intrinsically linked to one actor over four films, including one that released less than two years ago.
Lord & Miller being attached was literally the only reason I was even mildly looking forward to this. So I guess that's it for that.
In order to have creative differences, you have to have creative vision. Trevorrow is here to stay.
In order to have creative differences, you have to have creative vision. Trevorrow is here to stay.
That's...actually probably the most fucking sensible choice with a project like this in a situation like this.
What's Spielberg doing right now?
His Pentagon Papers film I believe. And post on Ready Player One as well. And pre on Indy 5... So quite busy.
Similar threads
- Locked