Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1076 Post by MoonlitKnight » Fri Sep 01, 2017 8:46 pm

Cue the black-actor-replaced-with-white-actor PC outrage on social media? 8-[

User avatar
Ribs
Posts: 2925
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1077 Post by Ribs » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:52 pm


User avatar
chiendent
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 12:32 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1078 Post by chiendent » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:57 pm

Finally some good news today! Maybe David Lynch will accept this time around...

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Posts: 29040
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1079 Post by domino harvey » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:59 pm

Thank God. Even with the producers' less than stellar reputation of interfering with directors, they could probably get literally anyone they wanted and his choice never made sense

User avatar
Ribs
Posts: 2925
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1080 Post by Ribs » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:00 pm

I expect the casual switcheroo Disney did with Toy Story to make sure Incredibles 2 would be pushed up to be next year was done totally aware it would free up Brad Bird for this if needed, the person they've most wanted for this franchise since the acquisition (and the one who brought them Trevorrow in the first place)

User avatar
soundchaser
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1081 Post by soundchaser » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:06 pm

I'm not sure this is the saving grace it would have been were he never signed on. Disney seems pretty confident about their release schedule, so surely Trevorrow started pre-production?

User avatar
Professor Wagstaff
Posts: 944
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:27 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1082 Post by Professor Wagstaff » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:19 pm

Brad Bird would be a blessing, but at the rate they've been going lately I'd half expect them to bring in some bland journeyman like Edward Zwick to direct.

User avatar
knives
Posts: 14107
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1083 Post by knives » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:23 pm

Frankly I'd rather Bird do something weird and personal. His journeyman efforts so far have been significantly less good than his other stuff.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Posts: 11960
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1084 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:25 pm

Same goes for Rian Johnson and J.J. Abrams, if we’re playing that game.

User avatar
swo17
Posts: 13623
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1085 Post by swo17 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:29 pm

This must be a fun day for Colin Trevorrow to read about himself on the internet.

User avatar
knives
Posts: 14107
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1086 Post by knives » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:32 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:Same goes for Rian Johnson and J.J. Abrams, if we’re playing that game.
I think, to be fair, Abrams was being used in just the right way and would more heavily level the poor use of journeyman claim to his Star Treks. Whereas those films are plainly antithetical to what works for him Star Wars and, ironically, Mission: Impossible are things he would seemingly come to independently anyway.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Posts: 11960
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1087 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:33 pm

I mainly meant that Super 8 was better than all of them.

User avatar
knives
Posts: 14107
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1088 Post by knives » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:37 pm

That is not something I could argue with, though I by a hair preferred Force Awakens.

User avatar
bearcuborg
Posts: 928
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1089 Post by bearcuborg » Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:01 pm

Perhaps he couldn't figure out a way write episode 9 with Carrie's passing. Does this mean Johnson at least writes episode 9?

User avatar
Ribs
Posts: 2925
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1090 Post by Ribs » Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:26 pm

I think it'd depend on who ends up directing - I think there's a very real possibility that Disney had Brad Bird tentatively sign some in-case-of-emergency late-addition thing as part of doing the Incredibles and that they'd been kind of planning to force him into doing it on this exact relatively late-in-the-day scenario as it'd be the only way he'd come aboard. I can't imagine Johnson being brought in to cowrite without getting him to direct (a very realistic possibility as Last Jedi is inevitably approaching a final edit), though.

User avatar
movielocke
Posts: 2357
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1091 Post by movielocke » Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:29 pm

What's most interesting about the director conflict this franchise has engendered is just how fragile the egos are of most hollywood directors.

That is to say, no hollywood feature director has EVER been in a situation where he (and it's always a he) felt like he wasn't the most powerful person on his project. Certainly with more power than the producers, even if they were technically his boss. The auteur theory that has been the utter and total dominance of all american film education (they teach you you have to act like an auteur, not how to block a shot) since Sarris translated the cahiers stuff, has led to a profoundly entitled culture where the directors believe themselves to be sacrosanct and every one else goes along with it.

That's one of the key differences between the current television regime and the feature film world (since the two are largely segregated), in television, the producers hold all the power.

So it's very interesting that Kennedy et al are establishing a new standard for features, and are running the franchise as though it were a TV production. ironic, considering Lucas was one of the brat generation director celebs that made the auteur theory root so strongly in american film ethos.

(on TV, no one ever wants to hire a feature director, since they're considered borderline incompetent at executing their jobs, likely to go six times over budget and annihilate the calendar of any series willing to take the risk. Often times the only time a celebrity director does a TV show for an established series is because network ordered it and is willing to take the budget and schedule brutality for the publicity).

So it is interesting that Abrahms--a TV director first--was the one that was able to easily transition into the TV esque system they are using on the star wars franchise. I wonder if he was partially responsible for some of these characteristics carrying over into the management of the new films?

User avatar
Ribs
Posts: 2925
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1092 Post by Ribs » Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:32 pm

I mean, the Bond franchise has done this producer before director and even sometimes star thing for a long time, too, it's just weird that it's become the dominant mode for every single other franchise rather suddenly over the past decade.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Posts: 5931
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1093 Post by matrixschmatrix » Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:38 pm

I think producer first mentality has become part of the big IP business idea- I doubt any of the directors on the Harry Potter movies had absolute control, and it's pretty clear that Del Toro did not on The Hobbit, nor Edgar Wright on Ant Man.

User avatar
knives
Posts: 14107
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1094 Post by knives » Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:44 pm

Yeah, since the '80s at least the idea of producer as semi-auteur has been pretty dominant especially on IP films. I also highly doubt this is the case with Trevorrow who is if anything notorious at this point for being a producer's dream director. Likely the reasoning is more complicated (maybe the failings of Books of Henry did do him in) then the annulment line that they pulled out of the handbook.

User avatar
Mungo
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1095 Post by Mungo » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:04 pm

I don't necessarily know if this is such a new idea; isn't this the way a lot of big budget studio era movies were made? Gone With The Wind especially comes to mind, what with the movie cycling through three directors.

User avatar
knives
Posts: 14107
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1096 Post by knives » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:07 pm

I took the original criticism as post-studio focused.

User avatar
Luke M
Posts: 1568
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1097 Post by Luke M » Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:12 pm

I think Ava Duvernay or Ryan Coogler would be inspiring choices.


User avatar
Magic Hate Ball
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1099 Post by Magic Hate Ball » Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:59 pm

I mean, at this point they might as well just prop up a dead person as a stand-in for how committee-controlled the process seems to be.

User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1100 Post by MoonlitKnight » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:20 am

movielocke wrote:That is to say, no hollywood feature director has EVER been in a situation where he (and it's always a he) felt like he wasn't the most powerful person on his project. Certainly with more power than the producers, even if they were technically his boss. The auteur theory that has been the utter and total dominance of all american film education (they teach you you have to act like an auteur, not how to block a shot) since Sarris translated the cahiers stuff, has led to a profoundly entitled culture where the directors believe themselves to be sacrosanct and every one else goes along with it.

That's one of the key differences between the current television regime and the feature film world (since the two are largely segregated), in television, the producers hold all the power.

So it's very interesting that Kennedy et al are establishing a new standard for features, and are running the franchise as though it were a TV production. ironic, considering Lucas was one of the brat generation director celebs that made the auteur theory root so strongly in american film ethos.

(on TV, no one ever wants to hire a feature director, since they're considered borderline incompetent at executing their jobs, likely to go six times over budget and annihilate the calendar of any series willing to take the risk. Often times the only time a celebrity director does a TV show for an established series is because network ordered it and is willing to take the budget and schedule brutality for the publicity).

So it is interesting that Abrams--a TV director first--was the one that was able to easily transition into the TV esque system they are using on the star wars franchise. I wonder if he was partially responsible for some of these characteristics carrying over into the management of the new films?
This is hardly a new concept for the SW franchise; both TESB and ROTJ were also made this way, after all, with Lucas more or less serving as the 'grand overseer,' so to speak, for both movies and Kershner and Marquand serving as directors do in TV (I know it's become fashionable to downplay Lucas' involvement with the former since it's largely regarded as the best outing in the series, but whatever :roll: ). As a result, despite his initial 'auteur' status, one could also cite him as at least partially responsible for the current movie environment of the producers having more of a say in the final cut of a potential blockbuster movie franchise, just as it was in the Old Hollywood studio era. I've always been led to believe in the concept that film is the director's medium, television is the producer's medium, theatre is the actor's medium, literature is the writer's medium, etc., but there are clearly always going to be producers/publishers in each medium who care far more about the short-term bottom line than making something that will potentially still be relevant for generations to come.

Post Reply