• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Colin Trevorrow Exits Episode 9

As do most filmmakers.

3 years is roughly the usual time it takes to make a Hollywood film; 1 year of pre-production, 1 year of production and 1 year of post-production.

This isn't something exclusive to Rian.

This schedule isn't all that hard and fast though, and can be compressed pretty cleanly.

Big-budget action blockbusters can get knocked out in like, 18 months, if you prep 'em right.

Granted, that prep needs time too, but it can be done.

The Force Awakens basically came together in a little over 2 years.
 
They could abbreviate pre-production on IX by forcing whatever director who comes in to retain some of the extant locations/art/materials that Trevorrow produced.

That's a shitty way to go about it, but they could do it.
 
This schedule isn't all that hard and fast though, and can be compressed pretty cleanly.

Big-budget action blockbusters can get knocked out in like, 18 months, if you prep 'em right.

Granted, that prep needs time too, but it can be done.

The Force Awakens basically came together in a little over 2 years.

Absolutely. But I do think this won't be the case for Episode IX, no matter who they get to direct it. Because, as you said, that sort of production cycle really only works if you prep 'em right... which Trevorrow seemingly didn't do.

We have to consider the reports that part of why Trevorrow was fired is due to Lucasfilm not being satisfied with how his scripts were turning out. Either that is purely because of Trevorrow doing a poor job with his drafts of the script or his story for IX wasn't working out period. If it's the latter, then they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a story that works and write out a script that satisfies everyone ASAP.

I wonder if delaying Ep. IX would also mess around with their plans for the totally-unannounced-not-Obi-Wan-movie. If that film was scheduled for May 2020, and IX for May 2019, you can imagine that a lot of the crew on IX would switch right over to the 2020 film once their work on IX was complete.

Now, if they're committed to a May slot for the 2020 standalone, and a December 2019 slot for Episode IX, it's going to be difficult - if not impossible - to transition the crew from Ep. IX to totally-unannounced-not-Obi-Wan-movie.

I mean, the Obi-Wan film seems to be in a pretty early stage of development at this point. Plus, seeing as how they apparently got Stephen Daldry for the film, I bet it will have a considerably smaller scale and budget to the other Star Wars films. Especially if it's set entirely on Tatooine.

But what I meant by switching up key crew members is in relation to the producer, Director of Photography and possibly screenwriter spots. Rian always works with Ram Bergman as his producer and Steve Yedlin as his D.P.
 
I mean, the Obi-Wan film seems to be in a pretty early stage of development at this point. Plus, seeing as how they apparently got Stephen Daldry for the film, I bet it will have a considerably smaller scale and budget to the other Star Wars films. Especially if it's set entirely on Tatooine.

But what I meant by switching up key crew members is in relation to the producer, Director of Photography and possibly screenwriter spots. Rian always works with Ram Bergman as his producer and Steve Yedlin as his D.P.
I understand that, it just occurred to me that the delay might introduce additional constraints in regards to other projects. In the space of six months, LFL could put out three films: IX, Obi Wan, and Indy 5. That's nuts, and I think there's plenty of reason why they might wanna clear the table before starting on the latter two films.

As for regime change on IX, I don't imagine Rian will have any difficulty retaining his two guys. This isn't like JJ Abrams dragging his entire Bad Robot entourage into the mix.
 
I'm not. I just want a good director for this trilogy. Period.

Then why did the suggestion of that director being a woman cause you to start this tired line you're dragging behind you?

Seriously, asking for a woman to fill that chair isn't some sort of radical, shortsighted request. Unless you think that a woman getting to fill that chair makes it much more likely we don't get a good movie. Which doesn't really make sense, right?
 
I'm not. I just want a good director for this trilogy. Period. If the director is male or female I'm okay as long as it's a good choice.

Like Ava Duvernay.

Who is a good director.

And a woman.

Her getting picked would be good for representation and for the trilogy. You don't have to root for one at the expense of the other.
 
Then why did the suggestion of that director being a woman cause you to start this tired line you're dragging behind you?

Seriously, asking for a woman to fill that chair isn't some sort of radical, shortsighted request. Unless you think that a woman getting to fill that chair makes it much more likely we don't get a good movie. Which doesn't really make sense, right?

Approaching the problem of filling the director's seat with the preconceived limitation that the person must be female to fill that seat immediately limits your options considerably.

If a female director is the #1 person for that job, awesome, that will be a 1st in the history of the Star Wars film saga. If a male director is the #1 person for that job, awesome, I'm glad that we didn't limit ourselves to strictly female director options.

What are you interpreting that is so controversial about stating this? We'd prefer EVERYONE to be considered, not just females, because we want to make sure we get the best director possible for the job.

The above opinion is not anti-diversity ---- don't try to paint it that way.
 
Approaching the problem of filling the director's seat with the preconceived limitation that the person must be female to fill that seat immediately limits your options considerably.

If a female director is the #1 person for that job, awesome, that will be a 1st in the history of the Star Wars film saga. If a male director is the #1 person for that job, awesome, I'm glad that we didn't limit ourselves to strictly female director options.

What are you interpreting that is so controversial about stating this? We'd prefer EVERYONE to be considered, not just females, because we want to make sure we get the best director possible for the job.

Where was this "#1 best person for the job, male or female" attitude when people were suggesting David Lynch, Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, and George Lucas of all people? Like, nobody was posting about the "preconceived limitation that the person must be male to fill that seat."

Why is it that when Ava was being suggested it's suddenly a question of whether or not people are pushing for a female director without regard for quality? Why is there an assumption of exclusion that wasn't there before?
 
Approaching the problem of filling the director's seat with the preconceived limitation that the person must be female to fill that seat immediately limits your options considerably.

No it doesn't.

See, this is where we're getting all tangled up! You're starting from a flawed premise.

At least we've figured out the snag. Now we can smooth that out and move forward without the "all sides matter" flavor you're sprinkling all over your protestations that a woman get this seat.
 
What did I miss re: Ava Duvernay? I'm not familiar with her and looking her up I see...documentaries and TV movies and one well received historical from a few years ago.

What about this person says "Star Wars"? Do I have the wrong person?
 
Where was this "#1 best person for the job, male or female" attitude when people were suggesting David Lynch, Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, and George Lucas of all people? Like, nobody was posting about the "preconceived limitation that the person must be male to fill that seat."

Why is it that when Ava was being suggested it's suddenly a question of whether or not people are pushing for a female director without regard for quality? Why is there an assumption of exclusion that wasn't there before?

While I didn't quote the posts explicitly, my initial post on pg 68 was referring to the comments by posters wishing for a female writer and director. Maybe I misinterpreted their posts as wanting the process to be restricted to those candidates. That's what I'm not OK with.


No it doesn't.

See, this is where we're getting all tangled up! You're starting from a flawed premise.

At least we've figured out the snag. Now we can smooth that out and move forward without the "all sides matter" flavor you're sprinkling all over your protestations that a woman get this seat.

LOL --- there are no protestations that a woman get the director's seat.

Please explain the flawed premise and how restricting your choices to a single gender doesn't limit your options considerably. If the best person for the job is part of that other gender, then you've immediately lost out on the best person for the job.
 
What did I miss re: Ava Duvernay? I'm not familiar with her and looking her up I see...documentaries and TV movies and one well received historical from a few years ago.

What about this person says "Star Wars"? Do I have the wrong person?

She's a very talented, Oscar and Emmy-nominated director who is just wrapping up a big ass Disney sci-fi fantasy movie. Plus she's pretty damn cool.
 
What did I miss re: Ava Duvernay? I'm not familiar with her and looking her up I see...documentaries and TV movies and one well received historical from a few years ago.

What about this person says "Star Wars"? Do I have the wrong person?

Selma put her on everyone's radar, including Disney's. She's directing A Wrinkle in Time for them

Also that whole best director thing is dumb
 
What did I miss re: Ava Duvernay? I'm not familiar with her and looking her up I see...documentaries and TV movies and one well received historical from a few years ago.

What about this person says "Star Wars"? Do I have the wrong person?

Patty Jenkins had one critical hit in 2003, and then proceeded to work in television for the next decade and a half.

And then she made Wonder Woman.

Also, Ava has been tapped for the "A Wrinkle in Time" adaptation, which looks great, so obviously all that (Oscar-nominated, Award-winning) historical work has gotten people's attention.
 
What did I miss re: Ava Duvernay? I'm not familiar with her and looking her up I see...documentaries and TV movies and one well received historical from a few years ago.

What about this person says "Star Wars"? Do I have the wrong person?

She directed the Oscar nominated Selma, she was also the first black female director to have her film nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture and she was considered for Black Panther when she passed the project to work on A Wrinkle In Time for Disney.
 
What did I miss re: Ava Duvernay? I'm not familiar with her and looking her up I see...documentaries and TV movies and one well received historical from a few years ago.

What about this person says "Star Wars"? Do I have the wrong person?

No, those are indeed her credentials.

However Ava is also working on A Wrinkle in Time (an upcoming sci-fi/adventure film with Disney that's looking to be pretty baller) and she also played a part behind-the-scenes in assisting JJ with the Rey vs Kylo Ren duel in TFA.

She's definitely someone that I'd love to see take on the franchise at some point.
 
Please explain the flawed premise and how restricting your choices to a single gender doesn't limit your options considerably.

Because it doesn't limit your options at all. There's a lot of viable options if you only look at women, much like a large, large number of your favorite movies had a lot of viable options available to their producers when they only looked at men. That particular practice has been ongoing since the industry took its first fuckin' steps, really.

Your inherently sexist argument only seems to crop up whenever someone suggests they'd like to see a woman in the director's chair, which kinda says something. You're apparently a-ok with a whole raft of male names getting shot like spitwads at fandom's chalkboard, but when someone suggests maybe pulling from a different talent pool suddenly it's a question of lost potential?

Nah.

If anything, the potential of the movie getting made and made well likely goes up if you look at that female talent pool and pick a creative with the particular eye to make the ending of Rey's story emotionally resonant in a way a large number of men just don't have the perspective to carry off.

Hell, Abrams himself knew enough to know he needed to run TFA past Ava DuVernay before he finished the film.
 
While I didn't quote the posts explicitly, my initial post on pg 68 was referring to the comments by posters wishing for a female writer and director. Maybe I misinterpreted their posts as wanting the process to be restricted to those candidates. That's what I'm not OK with.

The only person who mentioned "wishing for a female writer and director" was Chained Prometheus, and even then he was talking specifically about how Ava is a relatively new director, that there aren't that many veteran female film directors, and that KK is probably wary of hiring someone up-and-coming given her experience with L&M and Trevorrow, so it's unfortunately not a one-and-done pick.

Somehow you read that as multiple posters going "I'm okay with Episode IX sucking as long as a woman sits in the chair!"
 
Besides which, who thinks Kennedy's actually casting all that wide a net here anyway? The pool of directors that are both qualified, and available, and likely to align creatively with where Kennedy wants to go is already pretty small. So what's wrong with focusing that lens more on the woman's side of things?

The shortlist is probably around 10 people or less. Hopefully there's like 4 or 5 women on it. Hopefully she's looking at those names very strongly.
 
Because it doesn't limit your options at all. There's a lot of viable options if you only look at women, much like a large, large number of your favorite movies had a lot of viable options available to their producers when they only looked at men. That particular practice has been ongoing since the industry took its first fuckin' steps, really.

Your inherently sexist argument only seems to crop up whenever someone suggests they'd like to see a woman in the director's chair, which kinda says something. You're apparently a-ok with a whole raft of male names getting shot like spitwads at fandom's chalkboard, but when someone suggests maybe pulling from a different talent pool suddenly it's a question of lost potential?

Nah.

If anything, the potential of the movie getting made and made well likely goes up if you look at that female talent pool and pick a creative with the particular eye to make the ending of Rey's story emotionally resonant in a way a large number of men just don't have the perspective to carry off.

Hell, Abrams himself knew enough to know he needed to run TFA past Ava DuVernay before he finished the film.

I disagree that anything I've posted is at all sexis(if anything, it wasn't meant to be), but I really like your bolded part above. Now that is a great reason to aim for a female director. Considering that angle, I'm on board with you 100%
 
Then why did the suggestion of that director being a woman cause you to start this tired line you're dragging behind you?

Seriously, asking for a woman to fill that chair isn't some sort of radical, shortsighted request. Unless you think that a woman getting to fill that chair makes it much more likely we don't get a good movie. Which doesn't really make sense, right?

Once again did I specify that I didn't want a certain director in that? No. Last time I will say this. I want a good director for ending this trilogy. Doesn't matter who it is I just want a good director. If it's female awesome, if it's male awesome. I want a good movie end of story. I'm sorry if you think I'm this guy who is opposed of it. Maybe I missed communicated. I want a good director directing episode 9. That's all.

Like Ava Duvernay.

Who is a good director.

And a woman.

Her getting picked would be good for representation and for the trilogy. You don't have to root for one at the expense of the other.
Did I say I was against her? Nope I'm good with the choice.
 
What did I miss re: Ava Duvernay? I'm not familiar with her and looking her up I see...documentaries and TV movies and one well received historical from a few years ago.

What about this person says "Star Wars"? Do I have the wrong person?
What about Patty Jenkins' filmography says "Wonder Woman"?
 
No, those are indeed her credentials.

However Ava is also working on A Wrinkle in Time (an upcoming sci-fi/adventure film with Disney that's looking to be pretty baller) and she also played a part behind-the-scenes in assisting JJ with the Rey vs Kylo Ren duel in TFA.

She's definitely someone that I'd love to see take on the franchise at some point.

I see. So she's an up and coming director showing a lot of promising potential after a hit. (Bonus points for being involved in TFA.)

About the same status as Rian Johnson when he was brought on board, which seems to be working out pretty well so far. That's also about where Trank and Trevorrow were at too when they were handed franchises, though. Productions are collaborative, a pattern means a lot more than a hit. Same goes for Patty. Hopefully it turns into a pattern.

We'll see how A Wrinkle in Time turns out. Kennedy is on the ball, though. Whatever choice she makes will probably be for the best. Canning Trevorrow/Lord/Miller shows she's not afraid to do whatever it takes to get the product she wants. I'm not worried.

Someone like her with historical drama experience might turn out pretty neat for the final film of the trilogy.
 
The idea that these franchise filmmakers are expected to have prior action-flick experience only seems to crop up when we talk about women directors. I don't recall this coming up when talking about Jon Watts directing Spidey or Taika Waititi directing Thor.
 
I think that people might have lower expectations regarding the amount of responsibilities given to a Marvel director, for some reason. I personally doubt Kennedy micromanages less than Feige.
 
The idea that these franchise filmmakers are expected to have prior action-flick experience only seems to crop up when we talk about women directors. I don't recall this coming up when talking about Jon Watts directing Spidey or Taika Waititi directing Thor.

Didn't Waititi do The Wilderpeople movie? That clearly shows his directing chops and why he would be suitable.

Jon Watts was a weird choice, but he is apparently an uber fan, and that kinda passion takes you a long way.

Ava isn't a super fan. She doesn't seem to be into typical genre fare like that at all. She's a an odd suggestion to come up with out of the blue, unless she expressed interest herself.

Absolutely no one was suggesting Jon Watts. He was just plucked from relative obscurity due to his pitch. But not a single fan or member of the public said how about Jon Watts?

I like Ava. I hope Wrinkle in Time is good. I love the book, but that trailer looks pretty bad to me. The framing, the effects, everything looked horrible. But everyone on my facebook feed seemed really impressed. Still that was quite a bit ago when the trailer came out, so may not be representative.
 
I don't think Ava is doing this one. But I've been like, 100% positive that she will do a Star Wars forever now. So maybe this one, maybe X, maybe some crazy new spin-off. It's happening, sooner or later. She is the chosen one.
 
Besides which, who thinks Kennedy's actually casting all that wide a net here anyway? The pool of directors that are both qualified, and available, and likely to align creatively with where Kennedy wants to go is already pretty small. So what's wrong with focusing that lens more on the woman's side of things?

The shortlist is probably around 10 people or less. Hopefully there's like 4 or 5 women on it. Hopefully she's looking at those names very strongly.

Spitballing randomly. Directors that would probably fit Kennedy's MO. I'd put Ava DuVernay out simply because I think she wouldn't play studio ball with Kennedy.

Michelle MacLaren, Ryan Coogler, Cary Fukunaga, Susanne Bier. Karyn Kusama has probably worked her way back up to feature film level.

Dan Trachtenberg is my dark horse choice. He's an Abrams-affiliated director with good chops, but he's not big enough that Lucasfilm couldn't push him in a direction.
 
Spitballing randomly. Directors that would probably fit Kennedy's MO. I'd put Ava DuVernay out simply because I think she wouldn't play studio ball with Kennedy.

Michelle MacLaren, Ryan Coogler, Cary Fukunaga, Susanne Bier. Karyn Kusama has probably worked her way back up to feature film level.

Dan Trachtenberg is my dark horse choice. He's an Abrams-affiliated director with good chops, but he's not big enough that Lucasfilm couldn't direct him in a direction.

It could be him.

Dan Trachtenberg is a realistic choice. Ryan Coogler could be a good choice. Fukunaga, no. I don't see him as a Star Wars fan, and he's known for creative control, which is why he left IT.

Might simply be JJ Abrams himself.
 
It could be him.

Dan Trachtenberg is a realistic choice. Ryan Coogler could be a good choice. Fukunaga, no. I don't see him as a Star Wars fan, and he's known for creative control, which is why he left IT.

Might simply be JJ Abrams himself.

You're probably right with Fukunaga. He's probably be out for the same reason DuVernay is.
 
Trachtenberg is a great shout.

I'd rule out anyone who has an upcoming feature in 2018/2019 until we have a hard NO from Rian Johnson. He is without question the most qualified filmmaker to direct Episode IX. Setting his aside his resume and the successful production of TLJ, he is closer to the narrative and the characters than anyone else, simply because they're his.

If LFL are willing to hold off on pre-production until 2018, then there's no reason they wouldn't tap Johnson unless he is absolutely not interested.
 
I've been hoping Trachtenberg would get a shot at a Star Wars movie since 10 Cloverfield, yeah.

(mostly because it probably means he's bringing Bear McCreary with him)
 
Part of me feels a Trachtenberg type director might run into similar friction as Trevorrow and Trank, although judging by their past works, he's got more talent than those two. It's the same part that thinks they may go for an established director. But who knows. We'll see what happens.

For as much doom and gloom as there is from this, at the end of the day I feel the replacement director will end up being an upgrade.
 
Part of me feels a Trachtenberg type director might run into similar friction as Trevorrow and Trank, although judging by their past works, he's got more talent than those two. It's the same part that thinks they may go for an established director. But who knows. We'll see what happens.

Those two bombed out, but the mid-range director play has worked out for Marvel in particular and Disney as a whole is probably looking at that and seeing if they can replicate it elsewhere.

Also, I dont' know why we're ruling out DuVernay working with Kennedy because she turned down Feige. She didn't turn down Horn.

Point taken.
 
Part of me feels a Trachtenberg type director might run into similar friction as Trevorrow and Trank, although judging by their past works, he's got more talent than those two. It's the same part that thinks they may go for an established director. But who knows. We'll see what happens..

It's not even so much a matter of talent as it is he appears to know how to work with people. I mean, the talent is obviously there (10 Cloverfield, his episode of Black Mirror) but it also seems to be coupled with a really good, easygoing, focused work nature. People like working with the guy, he likes working with people, and there doesn't seem to be that bullshit foaming up around the ankles like the stories that came out about Trank, Trevorrow, and (unfortunately) Lord & Miller.

He's a lot more like Johnson than he is those other guys.
 
Top Bottom