Solo: A Star Wars Story (Ron Howard, May 25, 2018) Movie • Page 9

I do get that, but can you imagine if they let a director do it how they wanted and it ended up an absolute disaster? The fan base would set the pitchforks on fire!

 

I think Kennedy has been doing a solid job. But this is still a bad look. If they were worried about portraying Han in too comedic of a light, why hire a team of directors know for their heavy comedic touch in the first place?

 

And yet, they would still go to see it and the next one after. There really isn't a big financial risk (which is in theory what this all comes down to).

 

I'm not even going to pretend that money isn't a massive point in this - but I certainly think that staying true to the Star Wars Universe and Characters is the bigger picture here.

 

If that were to happen, a remake would be fast-tracked and make even more money.

 

Because they wanted their skills in comedy to merge with their own vision for the film, not take over the vision entirely. (Again these are rumours, so I appreciate that they may not be facts)

 

But it's fiction ... you can say whatever you want and it becomes the SW universe. Maybe Han made more wise cracks as a youth. It's literally make believe.

 

I dunno, I think there's a quote out there from Kennedy saying she wants it to be more of a western type film. If you want that to be the dominating tone, hire someone who you know can do that.

 

If all fiction characters were always written the exact same way ... literally every character people love today would look nothing like they do. Batman, Spider-Man, Cap, Iron Man ... each telling of the mythos can add and remove things. They're legends. And Han having more humor, probably would be a good thing. Can't point to any movie these guys have done that would say they haven't nailed the tone and balance needed.

 

The funny thing about movies creating coherent universes that follow the mold of comic book universes is that the tried and true comic book event of having a creator pulled by editorial has made its way into the world of $200 million dollar movies haha.

This whole discussion has been happening for decades in the world of comics. Artistry v corporate shepherding of established properties.

 

Just wait until Cap says hail hydra in a movie and fans revolt. Haha.

 

To be fair, at least writers and directors have unions in Hollywood so there is some level of protection.

In comics, editorial removes and screws you with reckless abandon.

 

Han Solo is fucking hilarious. Not in that he's making wisecracks all the time, though he has plenty of sarcastic one-liners, but Harrison Ford's performance is often bumbling and slow-witted and vain, there's a ton of physical comedy and big expressions in Ford's performance:





Plus he had plenty of jokes and physical comedy and comedic beats in the Force Awakens, too. Han Solo is a multi-faceted character, and humor is a big part of him. Lord & Miller are super great and making character driven, comedic films, and have hit home runs critically and commercially every time they directed a film. They'd be a perfect fit for anything, but it's hard to imagine a better marriage of source material and filmmakers. But, looking at the Disney track record in Marvel and Lucasfilm:
Jon Favreau had conflicts with the studio making Iron Man 2.
Shane Black had conflicts with the studio making Iron Man 3.
Joss Whedon had conflicts with the studio making Avengers: Age of Ultron
Patty Jenkins had conflicts with the studio and left the project when hired for Thor 2.
Edgar Wright had conflicts with the studio and left the project when hired for Ant-Man.
Ava DuVernay had creative conflicts with the studio and opted not to make Black Panther.
Josh Trank and the studio parted ways for their Star Wars film.
The studio hired Tony Gilroy to extensively re-shoot Gareth Edwards' Rogue One.
Phil Lord & Chris Miller are fired five months into shooting Han Solo for creative differences.

With the exception of maybe Josh Trank, these are directors with a history of high quality work (I like Chronicle but Trank has probably the shortest resume on the list, and it includes Fant4stic). I'll always be predisposed to side with the creators in a conflict between creators and studios. Sometimes conflicts between filmmakers and studios can lead to absolutely stunning work and absolute masterpieces, but that's stuff like Apocalypse Now, Mad Max: Fury Road, and One-Eyed Jacks, where ultimately, even after the push and pull, the studio trusted the filmmakers and their vision was ultimately largely realized. In these Disney/Marvel contexts, the studio side wins every time, and the absolute best result we get out of these movies is pretty much: yeah that was pretty fun.

I know it gets shit, often rightfully, but if you want to talk about a big studio handling massive franchises that actually lets their filmmakers run free, the DC/Warner Bros superhero movies have given us far more creatively unrestrained works. Which, maybe some might see as an argument for studios restraining their filmmakers, since Zack Snyder's vision makes up a lot of the end result, but it also helped create the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy and Wonder Woman (which I haven't seen yet but has been widely acclaimed and commercially successful).

 

If they made Han a comedy character and it worked well and the tone of the movie fitted with Star Wars, then fantastic. Doesn't seem like that was what was happening though. (Again I'm speculating on rumours from EW sources, if Kennedy and LF fired these guys for no good reason then that is shitty - if the movie wasn't working and the directors didn't want to compromise their vision, more power to them, but I'm glad they are gone.)

 

This movie will probably be fine. Fun in parts, funny, lots of what Lord & Miller brought to it will be why it works, Ron Howard might bring some stuff to the table that works. I'm sure it'll be fine. Ant-Man was fine.

I think about and marvel at A New Hope and the Empire Strikes Back and even Return of the Jedi all the time. I don't think about Ant-Man at all.

 

I trust the directors' taste and direction and body of work way more than I do Kasdan.

 

Should have just been a buddy film with him and Chewie.

 

If it boils down to just Kasdan not wanting to work with them, I'd totally agree. That would be a real shame.

 

That's what a lot of the rumors are about. And Kennedy sided with Kasdan.

 

Yeah I saw that yesterday which left me disappointed about the whole thing. Today's EW article made it seem like it was more than just that though. Wonder if Lord and Miller will be allowed to talk about it, would like to hear their side of the situation instead of just rumours.

 

This isn't really true, though. Snyder is an exception, like James Gunn is. WB lost 2 Flash directors and a Wonder Woman director, all who were signed on and working, over creative differences. And Patty Jenkins had to fight to keep the best sequence in her film. And Suicide Squad was heavily edited by multiple people.

The Ava DuVernay example for Disney is bad, too. She was never signed on (if we have to list every filmmaker who has conversations, these lists will be crazy for every big studio), and she's been a big advocate for her friend Ryan Coogler's work on Black Panther on Twitter, and the project she took instead was Disney's A Wrinkle in Time.

Your main point is right, but I just think it's important to have all the facts right here.

 

The book surrounding this will be amazing to read.

 

Another thing that's been pointed out but deserves more attention:

If Disney is gonna have a television-like approach to these franchises' directors, fine. That's far less interesting than letting directors have their own voice, but it's their right to do with their brands what they want. BUT, if you're gonna micromanage everything, YOU BETTER SIGN SOME WOMEN TO HELM YOUR FILMS.

If you're gonna let directors have a voice, getting women is even more important, of course. But, you're with even less of an excuse if you're micromanaging these filmmakers, since it's not like a female newcomer is gonna be able to screw up more than a male newcomer. Use your television approach to break new filmmakers!

 

Just let robots make the movies. Fuck it. Automate all the things.

 

You're right, I think I blocked the existence of Suicide Squad from my brain. I think the Nolan point stands, but since trying to build a cinematic universe they've clearly tightened up. I still think DuVernay works in the pattern, partially because again I'll side-eye any conflict between studio execs and a brilliant filmmaker and side with the filmmaker, and I don't think A Wrinkle in Time is subject to the same studio mandates as a Marvel film would be. But yeah, you're right to clarify.