• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Colin Trevorrow no longer directing Episode IX.

Tony Gilroy was brought in to replace Garett Edwards as director towards the end because Rogue One was not coming together as hoped by Disney under Edwards' direction. Tony Gilroy did extensive reshoots and wrote new scenes and new dialogue to 'salvage' the film, earning a screenplay credit. Tony Gilroy had just as much say in the final cut of the film although he couldn't earn a co-director credit under current DGA rules. And that's just the publicly reported news. No behind-the-scenes rumors here.
 
Last edited:
Reverend said:
Pro-tip: Director's who get fired absolutely do *not* stick around to do press for the movie
Click to expand...

They do when they know that if the Mouse decides it doesn't like them anymore, their career is over. Edwards put his head up, stand tall and put on a happy face, especially because Gilroy's re-shoots didn't hit the 51 percent threshold for a DGA credit (since it's known the third act was where Gilroy's work was done), and I have no doubt that Kathleen Kennedy told Edwards she'd bury him if he didn't play ball for a movie with his name on it -- just look at how readily people accepted the obviously planted stories about Lord / Miller and Trevorrow.

(Trevorrow's hit piece I can buy to an extent, though it's blatantly obvious that Frank Marshall is the source quoted in it, but the THR piece on Lord / Miller stopped just short of saying they were doing acid on the set and telling the cast to do whatever the fuck they wanted.)
 
http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/star-wars-episode-8-colin-trevorrow-firing-explanation.html

“There’s one gatekeeper when it comes to Star Wars and it’s Kathleen Kennedy,” says a veteran movie producer, who has worked with the studio chief. “If you rub Kathleen Kennedy the wrong way — in any way — you’re out. You’re done. A lot of these young, new directors want to come in and say, ‘I want to do this. I want to do that.’ A lot of these guys — Lord and Miller, Colin Trevorrow — got very rich, very fast and believed a lot of their own hype. And they don’t want to play by the rules. They want to do shit differently. And Kathleen Kennedy isn’t going to fuck around with that.”
Click to expand...
 
That Vulture thing is the very hit piece on Trevorrow I was talking about. Fucking :lol: at the idea of Lord and Miller getting "very rich, very fast."
 
Reverend said:
This is bullshit control, here are the facts: -

Tony Gilroy (brother of John Gilroy, who was one of Edward's editor on the production) was hired on during the reshoots to help write some of the new material (hence the screenplay credit) and to serve as a *second unit director* alongside Edwards.
The nature of the reshoots being mostly character based and involved altering bits of dialogue within existing scenes, as well as a few embellishments like the brief introductions to Kassian, Jyn and I think the Vader scenes were re-contextualised.

Gareth Edwards was never fired off of Rogue One. At all.
Pro-tip: Director's who get fired absolutely do *not* stick around to do press for the movie, are not asked to record commentary tracks for the BluRay, do not show up to Star Wars Celebration to participate in panels and most of all, do not stand around for an hour dressed as a Stormtrooper to prank someone else's panel.


This was not a case of a Director that went off the rails, this was a Director who was a good team player and recognised that this was Lucasfilm's toybox and he wasn't there as an auteur director. The film needed help to get it over the final hurdles, so help it got.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much what I thought had happened.

Timby said:
They do when they know that if the Mouse decides it doesn't like them anymore, their career is over. Edwards put his head up, stand tall and put on a happy face, especially because Gilroy's re-shoots didn't hit the 51 percent threshold for a DGA credit (since it's known the third act was where Gilroy's work was done), and I have no doubt that Kathleen Kennedy told Edwards she'd bury him if he didn't play ball for a movie with his name on it -- just look at how readily people accepted the obviously planted stories about Lord / Miller and Trevorrow.

(Trevorrow's hit piece I can buy to an extent, though it's blatantly obvious that Frank Marshall is the source quoted in it, but the THR piece on Lord / Miller stopped just short of saying they were doing acid on the set and telling the cast to do whatever the fuck they wanted.)
Click to expand...
This is the problem when you try to follow these kinds of stories, you seem to end up with all sorts of contradictory stories, some of which are true, some of which are exaggerated second or third hand accounts, and some of which are full, ourtright bullshit. It really gets hard at times to figure out which is which.
 
Timby said:
They do when they know that if the Mouse decides it doesn't like them anymore, their career is over.
Click to expand...
They really don't. What happens is that they leave and keep their mouths shut if they ever want to be hired again since they're almost certainly under an NDA. Attending press events would require them still being employed by the company, just from a contractual POV to do otherwise is unthinkable, no matter how much of a brave face someone is supposedly putting on.

It's the same reason when a person is sacked from just about anywhere else, they're generally escorted off the premises. Don't want to risk a disgruntled former employee making a scene or causing trouble on their way out the door.

So do not expect to be seeing Trevorrow or Lord & Miller at Celebration 2018.

JD said:
This is the problem when you try to follow these kinds of stories, you seem to end up with all sorts of contradictory stories, some of which are true, some of which are exaggerated second or third hand accounts, and some of which are full, ourtright bullshit. It really gets hard at times to figure out which is which.
Click to expand...

Rule of thumb: look out for weasel words ("supposedly", "rumoured to be", "it has been claimed") etc. That generally means they're talking out of their arse.
Also, pay attention to who they're claiming their source is (if any!) It's normal not to name their sources for obvious reasons, but usually I find that the less descriptive they are on this point, the less credible. For example "an industry insider" is a lot less credible than "a senior executive directly involved with production".
Of course they could be outright lying, but that's where the reputation of the publication comes into play. Those prone to knee-jerk clickbait can safely be ignored, those with a history of being proven correct are worth listening too. Bold-faced liars don't go undetected for very long. You just have to be willing to do a little legwork.
 
Last edited:
I dont' by the "he's difficult"-Story for a second! I'm a huge Jurassic Park-Fan and I watchted the production of Jurassic World very closely and Trevorrow, in all his interviews, behind-the-scenes-clips and making ofs, came across as incredible nice, honest and down to earth. You could ask him questions on Twitter and he'd answer them honestly and nicely. He joined regularly fan-podcasts. After the first trailer hit the Internet he took the time to talk about it and to reassure even the last sceptical fan (the first scripts, bevore Trevorrow came on board, had human-dinosaur-hybrids in them - fans were pretty nervous).
And I vividly remember a making-of vid where he openly spoke about being inexperienced and therefore encouraging everyone in the cast and crew to speak out if they had a fun idea, because he just wanted to make the best movie they could. Same with everything regarding Jurassic World 2. So far, he had nothing but praise for Cast and Crew. I just don't see him being utterly difficult.
 
You really can't ever know the truth about these kinds of things. The studio has to give a PR version of events so that no one(like their shareholders!) lose confidence.

CBS told the public that Bryan Fuller was stepping down as "showrunner" due to a busy schedule on prior obligations. They said that he was still on the project, and still involved as a producer. And this story was accepted.

6 or so months later, we hear the other side of the story from Fuller. He was fired due to creative differences, and has had absolutely no involvement with Star Trek since then.

It's very unlikely that we'll get the honest truth of why so 'n so was let go... from the studio who let them go, whether the decision was for better or worse.
 
Seeming like a nice guy in interviews does not necessarily equate to him being an easy person to deal with on set or in story meetings. They're entirely different settings.


Pure conjecture on my part, but just going by the (to put it charitably) problematic way Trevorrow has portrayed female characters in his last three movies, I suspect his apparent attitudes in this area may have been a factor in his firing. Remember, this movie has a female lead and he may have wanted to go a direction Kathleen Kennedy was just not having.
 
The article also makes it sound like his ego didn't really start getting out of control until after Jurrasic World was a big hit.
I could see even a person who started out fairly down to Earth when they started the production, going completely out of control once it's a big hit.
 
JD said:
I could see even a person who started out fairly down to Earth when they started the production, going completely out of control once it's a big hit.
Click to expand...
Flash-in-the-pan successes with more ego than talent and self-styled auteurs with delusions of unappreciated greatness are a dime a dozen in Hollywood. Most seem to think that because many of the real greats (Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Coppola, Kubrick, etc.) were notoriously demanding perfectionists, that being a bully will somehow yield the same results. Many also mistake large box office returns for sole confirmation of their supposed artistic talent. So one big hit and it goes right to their heads.
Cart before the horse, mistaking correlation with causation, post hoc ergo propter hoc and all that.

Not that this is restricted to Directors by any means. There's plenty of artists, musicians, actors and the like with similar tendencies. Hell, I've seen crappy amateur sketch artists thump their chests and make like they're the most under appreciated talent since Van Gogh (and I know crappy amateur sketch artists when I see them, because I am one!)
 
dodge said:
I have no opinion on Trevorrow, but if every director you hire is an "asshole who's difficult to work with", it might just be it's not them, it's you... :shrug:
Click to expand...
If by "every" you mean "two out of five" and by "asshole" you mean "refused to fulfil contractual obligations" and/or "uncooperative with the people that hired them" then sure, clearly it's all LF's fault.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top