criterionforum.org

The DGA has a strict rule which prohibits replacing the director with someone else from the film’s team except for a brief emergency. It's designed to discourage producers from forcing out a helmer and taking over a picture.

Yeah, about that...

It is mildly insulting to Howard that a tone in a lot of these pieces is that they really just wanted Kasden to do it but didn't think it was worth fighting the union over

Does anyone, anywhere, including Howard himself, care about Howard's feelings? The man's no better than a scab and will pick up an easy paycheck sitting back and doing whatever Kennedy and Kasdan tell him to do

I would buy into the whole "scab" thing a little more if this weren't a movie about the origin story of Han Solo made by a gigantic conglomerate and were, say, Lord and Miller's passion project. They knew what they were getting themselves into, and it literally just happened on Rogue One.

Just looking at it from a distance, this move seems a little desperate on Howard's part. His last three movies weren't big hits, and The Dark Tower (which he produced) doesn't look like it's going to be any different.

Rob Reiner was too busy to step in and replace them? Who could forget how he valiantly heeded WB's calls for help and saved Alex & Emma and Rumor Has It?

domino harvey wrote:Ehrenreich blamed his poor performance on the directors

Taking a lot of this with a jumbo-sized salt lick, but I'm still confused as to how Kennedy thinks the film could be nearly as interesting (or, let's face it, good) with Howard in the director's chair as it was just seeing things through with Lord and Miller. This seems like it was mishandled by the producers from the beginning considering that they hired directors who didn't have the tone in mind that they did, and then hired an actor to play Han that wasn't a fit with the tone that the directors had in mind. It's a nesting doll of poor production, and they've got no one but themselves to blame.

The best byproduct of this fiasco (from the talent's and Disney's perspective; I'm hard pressed to care less about one of these until they can prove they can make a decent movie out of them) would be if young, talented filmmakers would think twice before getting sucked into these studio "connected universe" behemoths in the first place, and maybe leave them to the hacks and yes men who eventually take them over anyway. Leaving these kinds of films in the hands of people incapable of putting even the sheen of acceptable mediocrity on them would hopefully lead to more financial disasters like The Mummy, which might kill off some of these franchises and free up talent and money for other projects.

As much as we'd all like to smugly encourage artistic integrity among young, promising filmmakers, unless they've got financial security already I don't know if I can blame any of them for taking a substantial paycheck (or points) in exchange for a job on one of these films. It's definitely a deal with the devil, but it's a launching pad to a steady income making feature films for most of them, when whatever indie stuff they were doing before likely lost them money and security to get done. The days of a Wes Anderson getting immediately groomed by James L. Brooks and then recruited by Disney to make small-to-mid budget indies until he himself became a brand are long gone.

What bothers me most is the ineptitude. They hired Lord and Miller (After being well aware of what kinds of films they make) and for whatever reasons decided this late into filming this isn't what they wanted? Everyone here understands mistakes made on set. That things sometimes need to be changed. But who the heck waits this long before going "Well Jesus we need to replace these guys!"

Even more disturbing to me is that they hired Howard what two days after firing Lord and Miller? I don't know about you but that really rubs me the wrong way. As it feels (At least to me) that they may have realized they shit the bed and started talking to Howard before they even fired Lord and Miller.


:-k

Everyone agrees that is the situation. You don't fire directors until you get their replacement in line so that the production doesn't have to halt.

mfunk9786 wrote:As much as we'd all like to smugly encourage artistic integrity among young, promising filmmakers, unless they've got financial security already I don't know if I can blame any of them for taking a substantial paycheck (or points) in exchange for a job on one of these films. It's definitely a deal with the devil, but it's a launching pad to a steady income making feature films for most of them, when whatever indie stuff they were doing before likely lost them money and security to get done.

To be clear, I'm not judging these filmmakers for taking huge paychecks and career boosts to do major projects. I'm selfishly hoping that their changed risk analysis results in fewer of them wasting years creating a franchise product at best only marginally improved over what it would have been with Ron Howard, et. al. at the helm.

Here's hoping we get a Clint Howard cameo.

bearcuborg wrote:Here's hoping we get a Clint Howard cameo.

the silver lining

Big Ben wrote:What bothers me most is the ineptitude. They hired Lord and Miller (After being well aware of what kinds of films they make) and for whatever reasons decided this late into filming this isn't what they wanted?

I dunno. I don't see much in the "they knew what they were getting into!" assertion. On the one hand, sure they knew what they were getting in Lord and Miller, but the opposite is true as well - Lord and Miller knew they were signing up for a tentpole release that would be driven by heavy top-down input. In principle, I think directors should be left to work in relative freedom, but still, they were directors-for-hire and it wasn't their project. They knew that they'd have to play ball on a project like this. If they didn't, they were more deluded than the producers were for hiring them.

Secondly, it's possible that both of these things are true:

1) The producers understood what kind of movies Lord and Miller make, and
2) Lord and Miller were making a genuinely shitty movie.

It's possible also that they made a brilliant movie and the producers are making a big mistake! There's no way to know. But I haven't seen any of their movies aside from 21 Jump Street, and it was pretty mediocre. Certainly there was nothing about it that would make me think that these are two guys who are incapable of making a giant turd of a movie. It's maybe a bit early to make martyrs of these guys, I guess is what I'm saying.

carmilla mircalla wrote:

bearcuborg wrote:Here's hoping we get a Clint Howard cameo.

the silver lining

If Clint Howard channels his Evilspeak days, he'll surely be on the dark side!

This seemed inevitable as Star Wars is about giving the people what they want and whatever you think of Lorde and Miller they're best known for surprising if not subverting audience expectations where as cults must be fed.

As for Kennedy it looks to me she's the one taking bullets for people (likely Kasdan) which is pretty much a big part of her job.

Ehrenreich's performance compared to Jim Carrey's in Ace Ventura.


:-k

Big Ben wrote:Ehrenreich's performance compared to Jim Carrey's in Ace Ventura.


:-k

Now I kinda want to see Han Solo fly the Millennium Falcon with his head out the window.

mfunk9786 wrote:applause broke out among the crew when it was announced that Lord and Miller were fired and Ron Howard would be brought in

Help us Opie Wan...you're our only hope.

Sounds like Kennedy is very good at PR.

mfunk9786 wrote:Lucasfilm was so concerned about Ehrenreich's performance that an acting coach was brought in; applause broke out among the crew when it was announced that Lord and Miller were fired and Ron Howard would be brought in

Would that it were so simple.

Who has ever met their new boss and like booed them? Who cares they applauded? I would applaud Ron Howard too if he was my boss, or Michael Bay or whoever