You're forgetting the firing of Josh Trank and the Gareth Edwards/Tony Gilroy Rogue One reshoots.
Scruffy-looking untitled Han Solo film thread
- Thread starter Skywalker
- Start date
You're forgetting the firing of Josh Trank and the Gareth Edwards/Tony Gilroy Rogue One reshoots.
Ah, now I understand, thank you.
They've directed both Jump Street movies, and episodes of both Brooklyn Nine-Nine and The Last Man on Earth, so they do have experience with live action. If what the Hollywood Reporter story said was true, it doesn't sound to me like their problems had anything to do with going from animation to live action.
TV shoots a lot less coverage generally. The crew knows exactly how to light and shoot every set and the cast know their characters better than the for-hire director ever could. It could be that the Jump Street movies shot more like a TV show and so that was their baseline for a live-action production.
Trank was fired before the movie he was going to do got started, which is something that happens in Hollywood and isn't even that rare. Heck, WB has had, what, three or four director's attached to the Flash movie? Movies not even in preproduction or barely in preproduction sometimes change directors. Its not a big deal. A director like Gareth Edwards getting replaced for reshoots is something that is not unheard of from what I've read (not common, but not rare). So, yeah, definitely not "having problems". Outside of the late stage firing of the Han Solo directors, Kennedy and the Star Wars people are pretty much just having issues that all studios have to deal with fairly regularly.
Not talking about an attached director (by rumors?) but about a hired director by the studio.
You must have missed all the drama about the replacement of Gareth Edwards and the extensive Rogue One reshoots by Tony Gilroy then. Or the recent uproar about Joss Whedon replacing Zack Snyder in the Justice League reshoots.
That happens, too. Also, at least one of the Flash directors was definitely hired (even showing off Flash comics he'd gotten for research) and then left. Directors getting completely hired then leaving before the movie even films happens in Hollywood. Trank wasn't even as involved in his project as, say Edgar Wright was in Ant-Man.
But, again, its not that rare to do that. Its not even that uncommon to, say, release a movie in theaters using a cut the director didn't even touch. Neither are common, but hardly something to go all "they're having problems". As for Snyder, he was replaced because of a death in the family that made him voluntarily leave, so you can't even use that to compare (plus the only "uproar" was from people not working on the film).
But that's my point exactly. Snyder and the studio had to make his personal tragedy public knowledge because if they didn't it would have become a huge problem for the movie. If we didn't know the real reason for his leave the internet would have been full of articles about JL's "failure" and Whedon's "salvage job". The movie would have been buried by the rumors and bad publicity long before it was released.
Last edited:
Indeed. The reason why this case feels more visible is because Star Wars is such a big deal for many people so of course it's going to get more press.
I don't really buy the comparison to what happened with Rogue One. Gareth Edwards was never fired. Tony Gilroy was brought in to direct the reshoots while Edwards was still working away in post production. If he'd gone back to the set for the reshoots himself, he'd have to drop what he was doing and delay the movie even further. It was a matter of efficiency.
The reshoots themselves weren't the result of Edwards going against the company or screwing up on set, they were the result of getting the movie into the editing bay and (as often happens in movies like this) realising the principle characters could do with stronger introductions and the third act action could do with tightening up. Also, a little extra bit of Vader awesomeness thrown in at the end so the audience doesn't leave the theatre on too much of a down note.
Yes, any high profile change on a movie this big is always going to generate a lot of press, a lot of theories, clickbait articles and unsubstantiated rumours. But the key point here is that the directors were outright fired after the majority of the work had theoretically already been done. On a project this expensive, that almost never happens and in this scenario Kathleen Kennedy is the veteran with a solid track record producing many many movies of this pedigree and the two directors are the relative rookies, I think it's obvious that whatever the whethertos and whyfors of what went on, it's the latter who were the problem.
The reshoots themselves weren't the result of Edwards going against the company or screwing up on set, they were the result of getting the movie into the editing bay and (as often happens in movies like this) realising the principle characters could do with stronger introductions and the third act action could do with tightening up. Also, a little extra bit of Vader awesomeness thrown in at the end so the audience doesn't leave the theatre on too much of a down note.
Yes, any high profile change on a movie this big is always going to generate a lot of press, a lot of theories, clickbait articles and unsubstantiated rumours. But the key point here is that the directors were outright fired after the majority of the work had theoretically already been done. On a project this expensive, that almost never happens and in this scenario Kathleen Kennedy is the veteran with a solid track record producing many many movies of this pedigree and the two directors are the relative rookies, I think it's obvious that whatever the whethertos and whyfors of what went on, it's the latter who were the problem.
Josh Trank's situation had more to do with other issues outside of Star Wars itself. Indeed, according to IMDB he hasn't written or directed anything since Not-So-Fantastic Four.
According to IMDB and Wikipedia he has written (and is planning to direct) Fonzo, an Al Capone biopic film.
Wikipedia says that, yes, but IMDB does not.
Do you have IMDb Pro? I don't see Trank's name on the Fonzo page and when I click on writer (or anything else on that page), I'm sent to the IMDb Pro login page. Fonzo is likewise not listed on Trank's page.
That must be it then. And I was wondering why @The Wormhole couldn't see it. It's clearly visible in IMDb Pro and the IMDb App. And in the aforementioned wikipedia page of course.
And it should be noted, neither Tom Hardy's IMDB or his Wikipedia mention the movie either.
None of this has any bearing on Josh Trank's removal from Star Wars, and since he was removed before any real work started on his movie, there isn't any real loss to Disney or Lucasfilm in this case.
None of this has any bearing on Josh Trank's removal from Star Wars, and since he was removed before any real work started on his movie, there isn't any real loss to Disney or Lucasfilm in this case.
IMDb Pro does. Along with 14 other upcoming projects of his. But I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it.
What the hell is IMDB Pro anyway, and how is it different from regular IMDB, aside from requiring people sign up for it?