Support NeoGAF

[brandonh83]

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.

The way my mind works is that if they have a good story to tell, and they execute it well, that instead of me playing mental games about it all, my train of thought is simply "okay Ford does not work with the age of this version of the character." I can literally just see it as a canon spinoff-- but again, if the story isn't there, if the performances are off, if it's not compelling-- that's what's gonna hurt it, as you said.

For me it's not "no, I can't mentally accept this!" but rather "let's see if they make a good movie."

 

[ZeoVGM]

Because Han Solo the character is so inherently tied to Harrison Ford the actor.

This simply isn't something anyone can have a true opinion on until we actually see a new actor playing him.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

This simply isn't something anyone can have a true opinion on until we actually see a new actor playing him.

Of course one can have that opinion, otherwise it would be impossible to judge without every actor taking their turn at the role.

With that said, opinions can change, but to argue someone's wrong for believing that now is silly

 

[TDLink]

The way my mind works is that if they have a good story to tell, and they execute it well, that instead of me playing mental games about it all, my train of thought is simply "okay Ford does not work with the age of this version of the character." I can literally just see it as a canon spinoff-- but again, if the story isn't there, if the performances are off, if it's not compelling-- that's what's gonna hurt it, as you said.

For me it's not "no, I can't mentally accept this!" but rather "let's see if they make a good movie."

Obviously Ford doesn't work for a young Solo film anymore. The solution, like I said, is to make it a different character. The movie could very well end up being great, but if the character ends up feeling like Han In Name Only it'll be very strange for a lot of viewers, trying to reconcile a good movie with the fact that the character doesn't feel like the previous iterations.

This simply isn't something anyone can have a true opinion on until we actually see a new actor playing him.

Yes it is. We associate Han Solo with what Harrison Ford did. Anything the new guy does will be under immense scrutiny and if the performance isn't identical people are going to take problems with it.

This sucks for the actor too since he's not really allowed to play to whatever his strengths are and instead is stuck trying to mimic another actor's performance.

 

[brandonh83]

This simply isn't something anyone can have a true opinion on until we actually see a new actor playing him.

I know it's not 1:1 to the example here, but people frequently end up mindblown over a performance compared to what they thought it would be. Like with Ledger as Joker, Affleck who everyone scoffed/laughed at for being cast as Bruce Wayne, or Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman.

Much of the time the case is "wow that was better casting/portrayal than expected!" You hear about something, you see the performer completely out of context and you start trying to picture it in your mind. If you can't, you cry foul, thinking that professionals clearly can't do it because you couldn't imagine it.

Obviously Ford doesn't work for a young Solo film anymore. The solution, like I said, is to make it a different character. The movie could very well end up being great, but if the character ends up feeling like Han In Name Only it'll be very strange for a lot of viewers, trying to reconcile a good movie with the fact that the character doesn't feel like the previous iterations.

And this could result in people saying the new character is Han Solo, only not in name

But Kasdan didn't have the story for a new character. He had one for Han Solo. The new character "solution" therefore is not a solution. Telling a storyteller that they're wrong because they have a better solution is telling the storyteller that the story they want to tell is null and void.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

I really don't buy that Kasdan had the clout to get them fired simply for veering off from what was on the page.

Nor do I buy Kathleen Kennedy doing that.

But perhaps their directing style, plus numerous on the fly changes, ended up making a VERY different film from what the script painted, tonally. While I imagine the script had its humor, perhaps they played it straight comedy, more so than what any pre-prodction meetings alluded to, and KK and co began to try to steer them in another direction. I'm all for letting directors have freedom to make their own take on Star Wars, but maybe just maybe this the one time too much freedom led to something that may not have been 'right'.

The movie may have been good, great even, but Han Solo is an established character - and if their tone ended up altering his persona into something played more straight comedy, I can understand the pushback.

But one way or another, I really fucking doubt they were fired for allowing too much improv.

 

[Karish]

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.

This

 

[Jest Chillin]

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.

My point was Trank wasn't fired during Principal. He was allowed to finish and was even still present during reshoots (though effectively removed from any power). Rumors well after the fact stated that Trank was nearly fired before Principal began but timing pressure and blah blah blah... but the fact remains, even when the shoot was going terrible and he was being a problem on all fronts, they didn't fire him in the middle of filming. Of course we see what resulted but it's also safe to say L&M weren't anything close to as bad as Trank.

As for the tweets, I hadn't seen those fully. Wonder what that guys track record is.

I really don't buy that Kasdan had the clout to get them fired simply for veering off from what was on the page.

Nor do I buy Kathleen Kennedy doing that.

But perhaps their directing style, plus numerous on the fly changes, ended up making a VERY different film from what the script painted, tonally. While I imagine the script had its humor, perhaps they played it straight comedy, more so than what any pre-prodction meetings alluded to, and KK and co began to try to steer them in another direction. I'm all for letting directors have freedom to make their own take on Star Wars, but maybe just maybe this the one time too much freedom led to something that may not have been 'right'.

The movie may have been good, great even, but Han Solo is an established character - and if their tone ended up altering his persona into something played more straight comedy, I can understand the pushback.

But one way or another, I really fucking doubt they were fired for allowing too much improv.

Disney gives Lucasfilm strong autonomy on the decisions for Star Wars films. Kasdan has been Lucasfilm since forever and Kennedy's credits read like a pop culture list of acclaimed movies. They've been in the same cinema circles since the early 80's. He definitely has the clout and she already pulled Gareth off Rogue One last year because she didn't like what he was doing with it. It's absolutely possible.

 

[brandonh83]

I'm all for letting directors have freedom to make their own take on Star Wars, but maybe just maybe this the one time too much freedom led to something that may not have been 'right'.

Here's the thing. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to go with as a possibility, but I'll be damned if people aren't completely hellbent on the narrative going their way-- which is faulting those they like less.

It's why conversations about stories like these are so negatively-fueled. People assume what they want to assume, and pretend like they were there and saw how it all went down.

 

[WadiumArcadium]

Almost spat out my coffee when I noticed this thread this morning.

What the fuck? They've been filming for months.

 

[TDLink]

I know it's not 1:1 to the example here, but people frequently end up mindblown over a performance compared to what they thought it would be. Like with Ledger as Joker, Affleck who everyone scoffed/laughed at for being cast as Bruce Wayne, or Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman.

Much of the time the case is "wow that was better casting/portrayal than expected!" You hear about something, you see the performer completely out of context and you start trying to picture it in your mind. If you can't, you cry foul, thinking that professionals clearly can't do it because you couldn't imagine it.

With comic book characters, all of your examples, the characters were written and portrayed in illustrations first before any actors touched them. There are many different variations in the comics for each of those characters (and for nearly all comic book characters in general). Each one has also been played by plenty of different actors and voice actors over the years.

Han Solo originated in Star Wars, played by Harrison Ford. And every iteration of Solo since has either been played by Ford or been based on the Ford version of the character--the only version.

It's not the same thing and not a good comparison.

 

[brandonh83]

It's not the same thing and not a good comparison.

I said it's not 1:1, but my point is that people always seem to criticize these things before seeing a thing from it.

Han Solo movie without Ford? Terrible! Heath Ledger playing Joker? You kidding me? Gal Gadot's tits aren't big enough to portray Diana! BEN AFFLECK WAS DAREDEVIL LOL

 

[ZeoVGM]

Solo with what Harrison Ford did. Anything the new guy does will be under immense scrutiny and if the performance isn't identical people are going to take problems with it.

But the performance shouldn't be identical. It should simply give us a great version of Han Solo. As long as he embodies what makes the character who he is, that is what is important.

Anyone looking for a straight impression is going to be disappointed. But this idea that there is no merit to this movie is crazy talk. The simple truth is that really good stories could be told based on Han's early adventures. And if it's a good movie, that's all that will matter in the end.

Writing it off before this news, which it seems as if you've done, is silly.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

Guess what, mice control this shit and you better believe it.

 

[Freewheelin']

In some ways I'd rather a director - or two in this case - be allowed to make the film they want to make, regardless of whether it was bad or not.

I understand that's not feasible because we're playing with trillions of dollars and I understand that Kennedy and Lucasfilm want the best version of the film in their eyes, but then you have to trust in the talent you hire. You have to trust in people like Lord and Miller who have been making gold out of shit their entire career.

 

[brandonh83]

Rian Johnson could have had control on Rian Johnson's film.

If Rian was doing something Kathleen or any of the other higher-ups weren't cool with, he might've had less.

The amount of control from film to film is different. Rian just did something that they were cool with and they didn't apparently try to "right" his ship.

 

[Jest Chillin]

Guess what, mice control this shit and you better believe it.

Gonna have to reiterate again, that Rian could easily have been afforded complete creative control. He's not Lord and Miller and doesn't do the things they do.

Also, Disney lets Lucasfilm do what they want with the films. No reason to blame Disney for anything outside of budget restrictions.

 

[WadiumArcadium]

Rian Johnson could have had control on Rian Johnson's film.

If Rian was doing something Kathleen or any of the other higher-ups weren't cool with, he might've had less.

The amount of control from film to film is different. Rian just did something that they were cool with and they didn't apparently try to "right" his ship.

Nah, that doesn't fit their narrative. You must be wrong.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

Nah, that doesn't fit their narrative. You must be wrong.

I am just joking btw. Stop taking stuff so seriously.

 

[brandonh83]

Nah, that doesn't fit their narrative. You must be wrong.

I'm always wrong on GAF.

 

[TDLink]

I said it's not 1:1, but my point is that people always seem to criticize these things before seeing a thing from it.

Han Solo movie without Ford? Terrible! Heath Ledger playing Joker? You kidding me? Gal Gadot's tits aren't big enough to portray Diana! BEN AFFLECK WAS DAREDEVIL LOL

It's not just not 1:1, it's completely different due to the way the characters originated. You can't compare Star Wars characters who have only been played by one actor to comic book superheroes who have had dozens of different iterations across different mediums. You just can't.

I don't know why you made the comparison again in a second post. It just...isn't right. There's no correlation.

Even in your flawed ass comparison your give away the difference. Certain people were skeptical about "Actor X" playing "Role Y". While with "Han Solo" they're worried about it not being "Only actor who has played the role"

And for the record I am not someone who ever said any of those things about those actors who played those characters.

But the performance shouldn't be identical. It should simply give us a great version of Han Solo. As long as he embodies what makes the character who he is, that is what is important.

Anyone looking for a straight impression is going to be disappointed. But this idea that there is no merit to this movie is crazy talk. The simple truth is that really good stories could be told based on Han's early adventures. And if it's a good movie, that's all that will matter in the end.

Writing it off before this news, which it seems as if you've done, is silly.

I'm not writing the film off at all. Or saying there's no merit in a Han Solo adventure film. But I do think the idea is inherently boring and safe when they could have done literally anything in the Star Wars universe. And they picked one of the most iconic actor-linked roles in that universe for making a film centered on an established character. It's a tough hurdle to get over.

 

[Real Hero]

I knew this film was all kinds of fucked.

 

[Einchy]

Guess what, mice control this shit and you better believe it.

All the reports we've heard so far says that Kathleen Kennedy and Kasdan were not happy with the directing they were going, after months of putting heads, they finally realized they couldn't continue working with them. So why are you bringing up Disney? Disney didn't fire them, LucasFilm did.

 

[Ser Booty]

I feel like people are way too willing to believe the tabloid reports about why Lord and Miller were fired when we really have no fucking idea what happened. I think the fact that they were fired this late into the production discredits the idea that this is an issue of "creative control" in the traditional sense, and everyone is just using that point as confirmation bias for the idea that Lucasfilm doesn't afford creative control at all.

 

[WadiumArcadium]

I am just joking btw. Stop taking stuff so seriously.

That wasn't aimed at you specifically. There's a lot of people that are pretty serious when they say that.

 

[effzee]

I need to know a year in advance just right now if I should hold off on spending $15 on a Star Wars movie! Help me GAF!

 

[Kenzodielocke]

That wasn't aimed at you. There's a lot of people that are pretty serious when they say that.

I was just about to edit, you did quote someone else.

All the reports we've heard so far says that Kathleen Kennedy and Kasdan were not happy with the directing they were going, after months of putting heads, they finally realized they couldn't continue working with them. So why are you bringing up Disney? Disney didn't fire them, LucasFilm did.

Because mice man, mice.

 

[ZeoVGM]

I'm not writing the film off at all. Or saying there's no merit in a Han Solo adventure film. But I do think the idea is inherently boring and safe when they could have done literally anything in the Star Wars universe. And they picked one of the most iconic actor-linked roles in that universe for making a film centered on an established character. It's a tough hurdle to get over.

I think the divisive reaction from Star Wars fans is actually proof that recasting an iconic character is not a "safe" idea.

 

[Jest Chillin]

I feel like people are way too willing to believe the tabloid reports about why Lord and Miller were fired when we really have no fucking idea what happened. I think the fact that they were fired this late into the production discredits the idea that this is an issue of "creative control" in the traditional sense, and everyone is just using that point as confirmation bias for the idea that Lucasfilm doesn't afford creative control at all.

Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline all have legitimate behind the scenes sources with major studios and pretty solid records with this kind of reporting. They're definitely not "tabloid reports."

 

[brandonh83]

I'm just saying whether 1:1 or not people have a habit of complaining about this sort of thing anyway. Let's say Han was already played by another actor prior to this that already warmed up people to another actor. They would then compare Alden to him.

So whether the same thing or not, people are always uncomfortable and very skeptical of different actors doing a character another actor already did well or defined or whatever. Basically if they have a good story but one that requires a change like this, I think the story should always win over whether or not people are cool with an actor change.

I'll see it as another version of Han but younger.

 

[vio]

Expect r2d2 and c3po to show up and other fan service. Forced just like in Rouge One.

 

[brandonh83]

I think the divisive reaction from Star Wars fans is actually proof that recasting an iconic character is not a "safe" idea.

This, lol. It's obviously not safe.

Expect r2d2 and c3po to show up and other fan service. Forced just like in Rouge One.

Yeah those two seconds of that in Rogue One were just an absolutely uncalled for, utterly miserable experience.

 

[Zereta]

Not a good day for anything remotely related to Han Solo. This and Ossof?

:'(

I can't. My heart can't take it.

 

[TDLink]

I'm just saying whether 1:1 or not people have a habit of complaining about this sort of thing anyway. Let's say Han was already played by another actor prior to this that already warmed up people to another actor. They would then compare Alden to him.

So whether the same thing or not, people are always uncomfortable and very skeptical of different actors doing a character another actor already did well or defined or whatever. Basically if they have a good story but one that requires a change like this, I think the story should always win over whether or not people are cool with an actor change.

I'll see it as another version of Han but younger.

Yes I agree...but that isn't the case. That's why it's a bad comparison that doesn't track. We've had 40 years of Harrison Ford = Han Solo.

The problem is compounded as well due to Han already being a fairly young guy in the original trilogy.

 

[effzee]

Expect r2d2 and c3po to show up and other fan service. Forced just like in Rouge One.

Huh? Rogue One is the least fan service forced Star Wars movie since the original trilogy.

 

[Aklamarth]

I don't get this "creative control" bullshit. People involved in the movie should have creative control when the movie is written/casted, not when it's being shot.

When you shoot a movie, you want solid pre-production and to stick as close as possible to what have been agreed/discussed/established and to finish the shooting as soon as possible.

Look at the big directors who do these big budget movies : the shooting part of the movie is just the ending part. Lots of solid work goes preproduction, scripts, scheduling. The shooting part should be just the last part of the process not the part when you cram everything and realize that nothing works.

The more chilling news is about LucasArts being displeased with the actor performances. If some actors can't even "act" at Star Wars level (which isn't "quite" Oscar level) , imagine how shitty the performance must be...

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Huh? Rogue One is the least fan service forced Star Wars movie since the original trilogy.

Probably has the worst implementation though. random shot of 3p0 and R2 that didn't have anything to do with anything and Randomly bumping into ugly man and ball face...Trash tier fan service.

 

[TDLink]

I think the divisive reaction from Star Wars fans is actually proof that recasting an iconic character is not a "safe" idea.

I don't think that's true. Recasting a younger version worked great with Ewan McGregor and Obi-Wan Kenobi and fans are even clamoring for a new movie with him. The thing is they had room to be flexible in that case because when we saw Obi-Wan originally he was already an old man.

Han starts out as a pretty young guy. There's not as much you can do with a "prequel" story for him that won't make any differences incredibly weird and/or weaken the character.

Also, ultimately the fourth new Star Wars film in over a decade was always going to be "safe" in terms of making money regardless of what it was. Maybe it'd be a different story if it was the fourteenth or something instead.

 

[brandonh83]

Yes I agree...but that isn't the case. That's why it's a bad comparison that doesn't track.

The problem is compounded as well due to Han already being a fairly young guy in the original trilogy.

People aren't cool with so much shit and complain about everything without even seeing anything from it was all I was trying to say, and that I don't think it matters that another actor hadn't played the character before other than Ford. I know 100% what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing, just highlighting how negative and assumptious people are regardless.

Some claim this is a terrible idea inherently because of what you're saying, and my argument is that if the circumstance were different and Han Solo had been played by someone else before, that the new actor is going to take unfounded scrutiny before they even have a chance.

 

[Shadowhelper]

Well sources have commented on what was happening.

It was from day 1 the problems emerged apparently. And it was their whole directing style that Kathleen Kennedy didn't approve of apparently.

Their whole way of interacting with actors and cast, and their process. The source said it was because Kathleen Kennedy was refusing Lord and Miller to make the movie how they wanted at the end and was denying them things, is why they left. But apparently they were at odds from the very beginning.

Rian Johnson probably has a completely different method of working, one that Kathleen Kennedy obviously did not oppose. As much as I love Lord and Miller, I really really believe in Rian Johnson, and I think he might be on another level compared to everyone else. He's certainly one of the most unique and exciting directors of action, if nothing else. We should not compare how well Rian Johnson got along on Star Wars to other people, as I think he is extremely refined, intelligent and ready to kick ass, more so than other directors. I don't think they are going to find any other directors at all like Rian Johnson.

 

[Markitron]

Even if this movie still turns out well, people are going to be forever be whining about L&M's original version being far superior even though they'll have never seen it.

 

[HariKari]

Well sources have commented on what was happening.

It was from day 1 the problems emerged apparently. And it was their whole directing style that Kathleen Kennedy didn't approve of apparently.

That's not a vote of confidence for her. She should have known what she was getting. It's not like their style is all over the place.

 

[commedieu]

Probably has the worst implementation though. random shot of 3p0 and R2 that didn't have anything to do with anything and Randomly bumping into ugly man and ball face...Trash tier fan service.

You lie!

it was a total of 2 blinks, then the movie continued to tell a story about characters I actually cared about. Unlike tfa, which felt like a constant stream of "remember this bro???"

 

[Shadowhelper]

That's not a vote of confidence for her. She should have known what she was getting. It's not like their style is all over the place.

Yeah, well they did sign on Treveror, Gareth Edwards, and Josh Trank. I always thought all of these choices were terrible, with Josh Trank being the least worst potentially, back then. Treveror in specific, I really did not understand why you'd hire him to do a movie after an obviously bad movie like Jurassic World. So perhaps, Kennedy isn't as savvy as we thought.

And if those guys are getting you excited then, it's easy to see how you'd get extremely excited about much more talented, exciting, and proven talent like Miller and Lord. If she's willing to trust those other bozos then she probably had no problems giving Lord and Miller a shot. Considering their resume, it seems like a pretty safe bet.

But it does seem like she really did not like Lord and Miller and the way they work. I really wonder what must've been the last straw, as most of the movie is already shot, and there are rumors Ron Howard will finish the movie.

 

[Jest Chillin]

That's not a vote of confidence for her. She should have known what she was getting. It's not like their style is all over the place.

They've only directed 4 films. Two are animated. The other two were casted and conceived to be improv heavy (they have no writing credits on the Jump Street films).

It really was not a given that they'd take that approach with this film. And despite how well loved they seem to be, they don't have a long list of films to have earned a reputation from. They pretty much shot to stardom off the back of Jump Street, similar to The Russo's shooting to stardom off Winter Soldier. Except The Russo's have stuck with Marvel for films, where they're trusted and Lord and Miller have branched away from Sony (where 3 of their films have been).

 

[brandonh83]

I really did not understand why you'd hire him to do a movie after an obviously bad movie like Jurassic World. So perhaps, Kennedy isn't as savvy as we thought.

Many liked Jurassic World and it was really successful. There's hate for it from some, but the same can be said about most things. Force Awakens got backlash and it has a 90+ RT score. But that movie sucks too, it's a rehash of IV, can't believe they hired that hackfraud Abrams! It's not an "obviously bad" movie. It's bad to you. It's by no means some consensus.

I get that it's cool to hate JW around here, but I've yet to encounter hate for that movie away from internet forums or Twitter.

 

[Einchy]

I don't even hate Jurassic World but it's just so...whatever? Safety Not Guaranteed was decent but pretty forgettable, too. I really don't want him as director since JJ and Rian Johnson had done great stuff that I love but he hasn't done shit that I care about and his latest movie seems to be pretty horrible.

pls kk get rid of him plox

 

[duckroll]

In order to have creative differences, you have to have creative vision. Trevorrow is here to stay.

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn.

 

[brandonh83]

I really don't want him as director since JJ and Rian Johnson had done great stuff that I love but he hasn't done shit that I care about

Maybe this would... change that?

Most say that Book of Henry was well directed with great performances. They had problems with the script/story and Trevorrow didn't write it.

 

[Neff]

I never had one ounce of faith in this idea.