I find this "Ace Ventura" story really hard to believe, if Lord and Miller's version of the movie was that different, I doubt the Disney/Lucasfilm people would have let it go on as long as they did.
If the Story Group has even has half the authority I've been led to believe it does, this "Ace Ventura" style movie would never have gotten the green light, let alone nearly completely filmed.
I think it's safe to say that we haven't been told the whole story and probably won't hear it until after the movie has come out. Possibly quite a while after.
Some new possible info on the firing of Lord and Miller. We'll see how much of it is true. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...ls-behind-phil-lord-chris-miller-exit-1016619
This sounds pretty believable to me, definitely more believable than the Ace Ventura story. How bad would Ehrenreich have to been from them to bring in an acting coach to work with him?
If it's so "usable" then why did they fire them? If what they were filming was so incompatible with what Lucasfilm wanted, then wouldn't that mean what they were filming was unusable? This brings up my one big fear with regards to this movie right now, that in order to salvage what Lord and Miller did they are going to have to just edit and cut this whole thing up so much that it's going to end up a disjointed, overly cut up mess.
Yeah, I don't think this really has anything to do with the LFSG as their role is more about co-operating with the content creators to help them tell the story they want to tell and offer advice while coordinating between the various parts of the company to shepherd the overall brand. They don't pick the projects, or decide who gets to make what. Firing a couple directors would have to be Kathleen Kennedy's decision and even she would probably have had to consult with Disney on the matter. To me, this is looking more and more like a case of hubris on the part of the former directors. By sticking to their guns they pretty much tried to play chicken with a freight train and were shocked when it didn't flinch. That may seem admirable from an artistic perspective, but these movies are also products with a lot of financial investment behind them. To risk that is very irresponsible and actually a little selfish since all they loose if the movie tanks is a slight hit to their reputation, whereas LF taking a hit like that so early in it's new production run could seriously cripple other projects. Not just in terms of funding, but in the kind of projects a suddenly risk averse company may or may not entertain.
I agree completely. Most industry websites and magazines were acting like this will have no negative effect on Lord and Miller's future directing jobs. But I think as more of this is coming to light that will change. I have no doubt they will have no problem directing animation and comedies which they have a proven track with again. But I highly doubt they will be offered The Flash again after this! This is so much more than just about differences of opinion on tone and style. They seemed incapable of handling a large production like this. Nor working on a film that is part of an existing franchise. The Flash would certainly have the same type of issues. I can not see WB or any major studio feeling comfortable to hear how they wasted so much money by slowing production by doing so few setups a day.
Reuters: "Han Solo" Directors Fired Because Kennedy Overheard One Making a Passing Remark Speaking Positively of "Star Trek"
^I don't get it. Yeah, I definitely don't see them getting hired for any more big studio controlled movies after this. I do have to wonder if the studios are going to start having more trouble finding directors willing work with them. I can understand it from both perspectives, directors are used to having control over their movies, but at the same time I can see why the studios would want to make sure that they get exactly what the want. A lot of the times, it seems like they go into these movies with some pretty specific ideas of what they want, and since it's their name and money on the movie, I can see why they'd want to make sure they get it.
Honestly the big movies don't seem to have trouble getting directors. They just seem to need to stay away from comedy directors (for serious-ish movies, at least), and directors that are more used to the indy film style. I can't imagine Marvel/Disney/etc ever having problems filling the director's seats of their movies, they just need to think through their choices a bit more. Hire director's because they think they'll be a good fit, not just because they have big names. The MCU has done well when its done that, and it seems like its not that hard of a thing to do if the people hiring the director's do a little research into who they're planning to try to get.
Yeah, probably. They definitely need to make sure the directors understand exactly how things are going to work.
There's no reason to avoid comedy directors, The Russos came from comedy, Favreau came from comedy, Peter Jackson, Chris Columbus, plenty of others did too and managed to play ball with the studio and put out a franchise film or two that did pretty well. If there was an inherent problem with the choice of Lord and Miller it was that the process of making their biggest film (The Lego Movie) was very different from doing a live-action production like this and that process may not have translated as well as expected. The management behind the MCU has scared away plenty of good talent it seems, and had more than a few films that felt like less than their greatest potential to me. There's no formula that is going to work all the time, but Kennedy seems to be having consistent trouble with her choices and that is beginning to worry me.
How is Kennedy having consistent trouble? She's fired one group of directors, but that's it. Sure Rogue One had a few problems with its director, but that could happen to any film. Honestly I don't think enough has happened to say that Kennedy is having problems.
Yeah, out of four movies, this is the only one which seems to be having serious issues. Not a bad record, IMO.