The Han Solo movie is so odd. They hired two comedy directors and were suprised that they made a comedy? Let alone only realizing this after they shot most of it.
Kathleen Kennedy was on a warpath to destroy everything George Lucas have made. Lord and Miller probably made the movie too good and thus she fired them
I think one of the biggest examples of that is Josh Trank and the Fantastic Four movie. He shot tons of his own version of that movie, there was apparently tons of craziness that happened behind the scenes, allegedly resulting in him getting fired from the movie and other people coming in to finish what he started. He's since stated that his intended version of the movie is vastly different from the one we got, and it makes me wonder what would've happened if we'd have gotten that version. Then again, maybe Trank wasn't ready for that kind of film yet. He'd only had one feature film credit, CHRONICLE, under his belt when he got F4, so who knows if it was his time yet.
From what I understand re: Trank & Fantastic Four, he got the boot once he was finished filming and he wasn't able to cut the film as he wanted in the editing room. But yeah, I think you're right on that he might not have been ready for a movie like that. He went from a tiny budget to a $100M+ budget. It would've been better for him to go from small to mid to large. To be fair, I suppose Gareth Edwards also had a massive jump in budget from Monsters to Godzilla, but Edwards also seems a lot more mellow and easier to get along with than Trank.
@@Syntopikon I remember that was a thing for a while, where these studios would hire directors who’d made names on the indie festival circuit and slap them onto big tentpole blockbuster projects. Filmmakers like Jon Watts, Ryan Coogler, Jordan Vogt-Roberts, and Cate Shortland were examples of filmmakers who made that kind of jump. I think they stopped doing it after a while, though, probably since a lot of these indie directors wanted to make their own projects, and the studios want to see them make their way with sequentially larger projects before giving them blockbuster stuff so quickly. I remember hearing that Ari Aster got offered some major tentpole project after Hereditary, but turned them down since he wanted to do his own thing. It still happens from time to time (see Barry Jenkins with the new live action Lion King movie and Nia DaCosta with The Marvels), but not as much as it used to.
I think Ryan Coogler had a solid ramp-up that we should see more of: indie (Fruitvale Station) -> mid-budget (Creed) -> big budget (Black Panther), but he seemed to also get a lot more freedom with what he wanted to make as opposed to what other Marvel directors got. Watts & Vogt-Roberts were both impressive in how they seamlessly transitioned to doing big-budget studio movies, though with Watts & Spider-Man, I imagine part of it is also because Marvel was there to help smooth a lot of things over. I think Wolfs will be the first movie he's done in a long time where we'll get to see more of his own voice, and I'm looking forward to it. I do feel bad for Cate Shortland, who got dealt a bad hand with the Black Widow release. I do hope you're right re: directors turning down offers to work on their own movies. Obviously the allure of big budget movies is strong (and as someone who really enjoys big set-piece movies, I hope they continue to get made), but considering how stifling they can be, I hope the power calculus changes in the coming years. Budgets do need to come down, so I'm wondering if part of that can be an increase in creative control + back end points in exchange for less pay up front. The $400M+ Star Wars movies, for example, are unsustainable - they need $1 billion just to break even. The 2019 Lion King was around $250M, so I wouldn't be surprised if Mufasa was $300M. That means a minimum of $750M to breakeven, which, despite the formers success, I'm less confident of this one making.
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the original film had an interesting aspect that the redo lacked. Maybe it wasn't great but kinda better, maybe awkward but still interesting.
you missed the more epic director firing of them all: THE FIRING OF RICHARD STANLEY FROM THE SET OF "THE ISLAND OF DOCTOR MOREAU. There is a whole documentary about that firing
No The Island of Doctor Moreau, Richard Stanley? Cmon! That story is so great! Val Kilmer at his most shitty, and Brando having lines fed to him in an earpiece. Glaring omission!
I always wonder what political machinations might be at work in firing directors. The studio might calculate that the cast and key crew they wish to secure are more likely to sign on to work with Gareth Edwards. So they launch the project with him, and then after securing the other people, swap him out for Tony Gilroy, who might be the best man for the job but may not be the most thrilling prospect for younger actors and key crew people.
That's an interesting angle that I hadn't considered. But thinking on it, and recalling that there are, in fact, many actors who do take a steep salary cut in order to work with director's like Scorsese and Wes Anderson, it must happen more than we think. Though I think the studio would probably prefer to let the initial director finish the movie, if only to avoid the drama that comes with a switch. I would think something really has to be off in order for them to take power away from the first director and give it to someone else.
This is a great video, you presented all of the films, directors, scenarios and general info pretty well. Of all these cases the one I'm most fascinated by is Rogue One. I have a lot of love for that film and Gareth Edwards, but for whatever reason things weren't coming together fully with Edwards at the helm so Tony Gilroy had to step in to fix things. I know we'll never get the full story, but I am so curious considering how much footage in the trailers didn't show up in the final film and how some reports stated that the ending was changed from the original version too.
That's kind of you to say - thank you! It's the one that's most interesting to me as well, considering Edwards is a genuinely good + impressive filmmaker (and if Jurassic World 4 must happen, there's no one better at the helm than him). My take is that, because Tony Gilroy specifically mentioned leaning into the sacrifice theme of the movie, maybe Edwards version was a bit lighter? I can understand his position - this was only his 2nd major movie after Godzilla, so perhaps he didn't want to overstep what he thought Disney + Lucasfilm would be comfortable with. Whatever the case, Gilroy definitely did a good job.
Kauffman had already done the meticulous pre production planning that Clint just glosses over with his own productions. Clint has done some good movies, but it's usually great casting and decent writing that saves his films. It's not his directing skills, that's for sure.
I thought Solo was such a dissonant mess. The behind the scenes drama definetly took its toll. I feel like they shouldn’t have hired the original directors in the first place knowing what Disney’s vision was. But what Disney would later do to Star Wars with episode 9 comfortably eclipses the sins of Solo so it should be less surprising lol
That's a really interesting idea. There are several actors that died during filming, but now I'm curious if there are many directors that died mid-movie during production/post-production.
@@Syntopikon Andrzej Munk, Polish director who died in a car crash while filming "Passenger" in 1963. It was shot on location, but... look, RUclips is a bit fickle about mentioning certain places here in Poland, so you'll have to look that one up. The film was posthumously assembled with stills, storyboards, narration etc. In truth it's not all that good, but I can hardly blame Mr Munk for that as only half the film was shot and he never edited it. Still, what's there is intriguing. May well have been masterpiece, certainly one of the first films shot on location in "place I'm not sure I can mention on RUclips".
I'll add that one to the list - seems really depressing, but worth highlighting. Thanks for mentioning him - I don't think I'm familiar with any of his work.
the lord and miller thing always confused me, but unless that quote from Kennedy was total lies, i can see how a more free form artist wouldnt fit on to a conveyor belt
Yup. It's admirable that they chose to stick to their guns instead of going along with what the studio wanted. But it was a miscalculation on who the right director would be on the studios part.
The Mel Gibson movie "Payback" comes to mind, but brother, the amount of composers REJECTED after completed soundtrack compositions ("original score"), is MASSIVE!! All the big ones have been canned at least twice, and that at top of their game and fame. Howard Shore AFTER Lord Of The Rings was booted big time, Danny Elfman AFTER Spiderman 1 was booted big time, the list is endless
I hope Gareth Edwards can really improve the characters in his movies. He's great at giving something a sense of scale, but the characters in Godzilla 2014 and rogue one were very flat and wooden. Hopefully his Jurassic park doesn't immediately cut away from every onscreen dino scene until the ending either lol
I think a lot of that will depend on the writer. I know for Jurassic World 4, they're bringing back David Koepp, who co-wrote the Jurassic Park script with Michael Crichton.
I think studios have sometimes hired talented, but young and less experienced directors to control and intimidate into submission, if need be. Then they occasionally come across a Kubrick (Spartacus) or a Fincher (Alien 3) and wonder why these “littler brats” don’t just do what they’re told (probably ‘cause they’re too frickin’ talented to shoot stupid ideas without a fight).
The Solo A Star Wars Story case seems to be an example of producers - one of whom was the head of Lucasfilm lest we forget - not doing their due diligence before they hired their directors. Added to which, although I do like it, there isn't really any reason for it to exist. You can make a case for Rogue One but the character of Han Solo didn't need an origin story
Rather, I think the problem was that they tried to change the core of who the directors were. Looking at the movies Lord & Miller directed, they should've known that they would want to take a similar, comedic track with Solo - and at least that would've made it interesting. Instead, it ended up with perhaps the most forgettable of the films.
Tony Gilroy's words about "Rogue One" have a high level of "everybody are idiots except me" which is quite strange when you think of it. Gilroy saying the things he did couldn't have happened without the blessing from the higher-ups at Lucasfilm and was probably a part of the internal power struggles in the company at the time.
He does seem a bit standoffish, though I guess he does have the skills to back it up. Michael Clayton has what's considered to be one of the best screenplays ever written, and besides also doing the Bourne movies, he seems to be a go-to guy for helping with scripts & story.
@@Syntopikonif I recalled that Tony Gilroy doesn't like maybe hated Paul Greengrass that much during his work on Supremacy and Ultimatum when he got his work on Legacy I believe he tried so hard to surpassed Greengrass but alas it's not meant to be
After all that’s happened it’s crazy to see that Rouge One has literally been the only quality movie, or tv show, in the Star Wars franchise since Revenge of the Sith.
It's interesting to note that it's also the one that seemed to have departed most from the other movies. In the end, it's a movie about sacrifice and working towards a greater good. If the other movies had half as much as courage to depart from the original & prequel trilogies, they could've been better.
Edwards is an odd case. I remember a TON of reports about the reshoots. Then? Radio silence as the film releases and is praised. No one spoke. No one mentioned shit. I also vividly remember reports of Edward's "take" being too gritty with its portrayal of war and that was the cause of the reshoots. I wonder if, potentially, Edwards was in over his head trying to get his creative version of this story made, and in the process the film ended up all over the place, too dark, too gritty, etc. (kinda like Trank with Fant4stic maybe?). Either way, Edwards clearly kept his head low for quite a few years after Rogue One. Thankfully his career hasn't been tarnished, unlike Trank's :/
Edwards, on the whole, seems to be on a good trajectory. While The Creator didn't do well commercially, it was still a really interesting film and showed that Hollywood can do solid VFX-heavy movies at a price below $100 million. Jurassic World 4 also seems to be the right kind of project for him in particular. I can understand why a Star Wars film would be difficult in that he needs to find the right balance between making an interesting film that's also commercially viable. Alas, I think it'll be difficult for Trank to make a comeback unless he tries to go the indie-to-festival route or unless his Teddy Roosevelt biopic is a major success.
Bryan singer has to be one of the biggest "How the hell did he get such a good reputation?" Questions in Hollywood for me personally. Seriously. After the news of his behind the scenes problems dating back to the original Xmen films I've lost alot of respect for them because his name is all over them
I think it's a case of the studio not minding the issues because his movies made so much money. If the X-Men movies were less successful, they wouldn't have put up with him. But The Usual Suspects + the X-Men movies made bank, so they were willing to let some things slide.
The shower scene in apt pupil told you all you needed to know. I was the same age as the actors when it came out and it seemed too sexualized. @@Syntopikon
I'm always somewhat surprised by how revered the Richard Donner Superman movie is. For me, it was an 'ok' movie that didn't come even close to all the other spectacle movies of that era. We had Star Wars, Star Trek TMP, Close Encounters, Alien, the list goes on and on, and for me, the Superman movie felt like almost a caricature movie with barely passable effects that felt closer to the Batman 60s tv show than the later superhero movies. It was colourful and the bad guys were the same over the top joke figures we knew from the Batman series. I remember seeing it in the cinema as a kid and it basically being the only blockbuster movie back then that made me feel 'meh'.
In the past they had scripts and all the various departments that had done all this practical effects and costumes.. it had to be more simple to bring in a new director, and have a “director for hire” who was more “agreeable” to the studio and executives… definitely modern tech makes these late changes possible, and film is such a minor expense comparatively… now it’s a bit of a shell game where the corporation founded to film the movie with funding from a studio rents the digital cameras from said studio (or subsidiary), but there’s not the cost of the physical reels of film.. film was/is expensive, needs development, and editing all of which have become specialized skill sets (which mean even more money these days)… Great video and interesting insights into specific productions!
Yeah, one thing I've learned doing these videos is that there are always a lot more examples than I initially figured. Sometimes, I go in and I'm like "How many can there be?" A lot. A whole lot.
I love Rogue One, except for all of the scenes where Darth Vader was shoe-horned in for no good reason. The corridor scene is especially stupid and contradicts the start of A New Hope.
Spartacus only broke even in 1960/1961. Kubrick chose "points on the gross" over a flat salary and didn't make any money from the movie 🎥. Eventually it made a profit.
I wish the guy who makes these videos knew more about filmmaking. No, Tony Gilroy didn't come in as "2nd AD" on the reshoots. Maybe 2nd Unit Director, but not "2nd AD", which is a totally different (non-creative) job. Also, an "assembly" or "rough cut" is not the same thing as a "director's cut". The director's cut is a lot more polished. The director sees the "assembly" the editor has cut together, then works on it for a few weeks and the result is the "director's cut" that gets shown to the studio.
Objection. Batman is good, very, very good if you are on the right wavelength. But, I can see how you would think it was absolutely execrable if you weren't.
I'd agree that it's a good - even great - movie, but I don't think it was quite the landmark that Superman was. Granted, Superman also had the John Williams score and while Danny Elfman is great, he's not John Williams. But I think this is one where we can agree to disagree.
Superman was surpassed long before Batman Returns. The original Tim Burton Batman, The Crow, Men in Black, Blade, X-Men (the greatest superhero movie every made), Spider-Man, Hellboy, Constantine, V for Vendetta, 300, Iron Man, and Thor were all better films.
The argument that lord and miller are “comedic” directors doesn’t hold water, woody Allen made zany comedies and then Goes on to direct interiors. Adam Sandler made juvenile comedies but was in punch drunk love, Todd Phillips made a documentary about GG allin but went on to direct the joker. Tim Burton had made two comedies before getting Batman. He really shouldn’t dictate what you do or your style, I understand where the producers were coming from. Lord and miller were just being shitty little brats.
The first Tim Burton Batman and Spiderman were both great adaptations. I cant stand how ppl wank off Nolan for making a bog standard mobster film with bad voice acting by Bale as "the standard for superhero films". F Nolan
I disagree on F Nolan, but you're right that Batman and Spider-Man are both great adaptations. And despite what I think re: The Dark Knight, I think someone else can make a strong case for either Batman or Spider-Man being the best superhero movie after Superman.
Love your content but I have to say you're Voice Over is pretty painful to listen to. I strongly suggest hiring someone to read your scripts, great content and you could have an even better channel with some help .
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
hiring lord and miller for your film and getting upset when the movie ends up comedic is truly fascinating...
Oddly since Disney makes bad comedies.
Kathleen Kennedy
#sololostmoney
@@catelynstark9883oh wow you’re really in the know! So glad you commented!
@@nerovondoom6298 I know comedy is subjective, but Emperor's New Groove wants to disagree.
The Han Solo movie is so odd. They hired two comedy directors and were suprised that they made a comedy? Let alone only realizing this after they shot most of it.
Kathleen Kennedy was on a warpath to destroy everything George Lucas have made. Lord and Miller probably made the movie too good and thus she fired them
They probably expected a Lego Movie but realized too late that it's not as edgy when it's live action
So this video is how I find out Bryan Singer pulled a Roman Polanski basically...
Same with Brett Ratner.
Where have you been for the past 20 years?
@@electrojones- I think they meant fleeing the country, specifically.
I also heard he disappeared for a few days during shooting of Superman to have some Jollies at the Australian Mardi Gras 😂
I think one of the biggest examples of that is Josh Trank and the Fantastic Four movie. He shot tons of his own version of that movie, there was apparently tons of craziness that happened behind the scenes, allegedly resulting in him getting fired from the movie and other people coming in to finish what he started. He's since stated that his intended version of the movie is vastly different from the one we got, and it makes me wonder what would've happened if we'd have gotten that version. Then again, maybe Trank wasn't ready for that kind of film yet. He'd only had one feature film credit, CHRONICLE, under his belt when he got F4, so who knows if it was his time yet.
From what I understand re: Trank & Fantastic Four, he got the boot once he was finished filming and he wasn't able to cut the film as he wanted in the editing room. But yeah, I think you're right on that he might not have been ready for a movie like that. He went from a tiny budget to a $100M+ budget. It would've been better for him to go from small to mid to large. To be fair, I suppose Gareth Edwards also had a massive jump in budget from Monsters to Godzilla, but Edwards also seems a lot more mellow and easier to get along with than Trank.
@@Syntopikon I remember that was a thing for a while, where these studios would hire directors who’d made names on the indie festival circuit and slap them onto big tentpole blockbuster projects. Filmmakers like Jon Watts, Ryan Coogler, Jordan Vogt-Roberts, and Cate Shortland were examples of filmmakers who made that kind of jump. I think they stopped doing it after a while, though, probably since a lot of these indie directors wanted to make their own projects, and the studios want to see them make their way with sequentially larger projects before giving them blockbuster stuff so quickly. I remember hearing that Ari Aster got offered some major tentpole project after Hereditary, but turned them down since he wanted to do his own thing. It still happens from time to time (see Barry Jenkins with the new live action Lion King movie and Nia DaCosta with The Marvels), but not as much as it used to.
I think Ryan Coogler had a solid ramp-up that we should see more of: indie (Fruitvale Station) -> mid-budget (Creed) -> big budget (Black Panther), but he seemed to also get a lot more freedom with what he wanted to make as opposed to what other Marvel directors got. Watts & Vogt-Roberts were both impressive in how they seamlessly transitioned to doing big-budget studio movies, though with Watts & Spider-Man, I imagine part of it is also because Marvel was there to help smooth a lot of things over. I think Wolfs will be the first movie he's done in a long time where we'll get to see more of his own voice, and I'm looking forward to it. I do feel bad for Cate Shortland, who got dealt a bad hand with the Black Widow release.
I do hope you're right re: directors turning down offers to work on their own movies. Obviously the allure of big budget movies is strong (and as someone who really enjoys big set-piece movies, I hope they continue to get made), but considering how stifling they can be, I hope the power calculus changes in the coming years. Budgets do need to come down, so I'm wondering if part of that can be an increase in creative control + back end points in exchange for less pay up front. The $400M+ Star Wars movies, for example, are unsustainable - they need $1 billion just to break even. The 2019 Lion King was around $250M, so I wouldn't be surprised if Mufasa was $300M. That means a minimum of $750M to breakeven, which, despite the formers success, I'm less confident of this one making.
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the original film had an interesting aspect that the redo lacked. Maybe it wasn't great but kinda better, maybe awkward but still interesting.
you missed the more epic director firing of them all: THE FIRING OF RICHARD STANLEY FROM THE SET OF "THE ISLAND OF DOCTOR MOREAU. There is a whole documentary about that firing
No The Island of Doctor Moreau, Richard Stanley? Cmon! That story is so great! Val Kilmer at his most shitty, and Brando having lines fed to him in an earpiece. Glaring omission!
They should have a movie based on that.
My mothers least favorite movie ever
the only firing that has it's own documentary
I always wonder what political machinations might be at work in firing directors. The studio might calculate that the cast and key crew they wish to secure are more likely to sign on to work with Gareth Edwards. So they launch the project with him, and then after securing the other people, swap him out for Tony Gilroy, who might be the best man for the job but may not be the most thrilling prospect for younger actors and key crew people.
That's an interesting angle that I hadn't considered. But thinking on it, and recalling that there are, in fact, many actors who do take a steep salary cut in order to work with director's like Scorsese and Wes Anderson, it must happen more than we think. Though I think the studio would probably prefer to let the initial director finish the movie, if only to avoid the drama that comes with a switch. I would think something really has to be off in order for them to take power away from the first director and give it to someone else.
This is a great video, you presented all of the films, directors, scenarios and general info pretty well.
Of all these cases the one I'm most fascinated by is Rogue One. I have a lot of love for that film and Gareth Edwards, but for whatever reason things weren't coming together fully with Edwards at the helm so Tony Gilroy had to step in to fix things. I know we'll never get the full story, but I am so curious considering how much footage in the trailers didn't show up in the final film and how some reports stated that the ending was changed from the original version too.
That's kind of you to say - thank you!
It's the one that's most interesting to me as well, considering Edwards is a genuinely good + impressive filmmaker (and if Jurassic World 4 must happen, there's no one better at the helm than him). My take is that, because Tony Gilroy specifically mentioned leaning into the sacrifice theme of the movie, maybe Edwards version was a bit lighter? I can understand his position - this was only his 2nd major movie after Godzilla, so perhaps he didn't want to overstep what he thought Disney + Lucasfilm would be comfortable with. Whatever the case, Gilroy definitely did a good job.
"The Outlaw Josey Wales" is still Eastwood's masterpiece, his most elaborate production!
Kauffman had already done the meticulous pre production planning that Clint just glosses over with his own productions. Clint has done some good movies, but it's usually great casting and decent writing that saves his films. It's not his directing skills, that's for sure.
Love the videos, man. Keep it up!!!
I thought Solo was such a dissonant mess. The behind the scenes drama definetly took its toll. I feel like they shouldn’t have hired the original directors in the first place knowing what Disney’s vision was. But what Disney would later do to Star Wars with episode 9 comfortably eclipses the sins of Solo so it should be less surprising lol
Feels like the Superman movie license has a curse
Ain't that the truth. Besides the animated show and the Justice League/JLU cartoon, Superman hasn't been done well on the big screen since 1978.
@@Syntopikon I disagree. MoS is my favourite Superman film.
Yay, new video❤
Oh I thought the title said "Directors who died during filming"
That's a really interesting idea. There are several actors that died during filming, but now I'm curious if there are many directors that died mid-movie during production/post-production.
@@Syntopikonit would be a sad watch but interesting. Both actors and directors
@@Syntopikon Andrzej Munk, Polish director who died in a car crash while filming "Passenger" in 1963. It was shot on location, but... look, RUclips is a bit fickle about mentioning certain places here in Poland, so you'll have to look that one up. The film was posthumously assembled with stills, storyboards, narration etc. In truth it's not all that good, but I can hardly blame Mr Munk for that as only half the film was shot and he never edited it. Still, what's there is intriguing. May well have been masterpiece, certainly one of the first films shot on location in "place I'm not sure I can mention on RUclips".
I'll add that one to the list - seems really depressing, but worth highlighting. Thanks for mentioning him - I don't think I'm familiar with any of his work.
@@Syntopikon It wasn't midway through the film, but technically Stanley Kubrick died before he finished *Eyes Wide Shut.*
the lord and miller thing always confused me, but unless that quote from Kennedy was total lies, i can see how a more free form artist wouldnt fit on to a conveyor belt
Yup. It's admirable that they chose to stick to their guns instead of going along with what the studio wanted. But it was a miscalculation on who the right director would be on the studios part.
Great channel.
The Mel Gibson movie "Payback" comes to mind, but brother, the amount of composers REJECTED after completed soundtrack compositions ("original score"), is MASSIVE!! All the big ones have been canned at least twice, and that at top of their game and fame. Howard Shore AFTER Lord Of The Rings was booted big time, Danny Elfman AFTER Spiderman 1 was booted big time, the list is endless
I heard Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen had to have words with Bryan Singer to get the X-Men movies done.
I wouldn't be surprised. He seemed to be something of a diva on set.
I so want to see the Lord and Miller Solo cut. It might not be any better, but it would be fascinating.
It's always interested to consider what might not've been. It'd be nice if releasing alternate directorial cuts on video became practice.
I'm surprised Richard Stanley and the island of Dr mureau aren't on here.
I hope Gareth Edwards can really improve the characters in his movies. He's great at giving something a sense of scale, but the characters in Godzilla 2014 and rogue one were very flat and wooden. Hopefully his Jurassic park doesn't immediately cut away from every onscreen dino scene until the ending either lol
I think a lot of that will depend on the writer. I know for Jurassic World 4, they're bringing back David Koepp, who co-wrote the Jurassic Park script with Michael Crichton.
I think studios have sometimes hired talented, but young and less experienced directors to control and intimidate into submission, if need be. Then they occasionally come across a Kubrick (Spartacus) or a Fincher (Alien 3) and wonder why these “littler brats” don’t just do what they’re told (probably ‘cause they’re too frickin’ talented to shoot stupid ideas without a fight).
The Solo A Star Wars Story case seems to be an example of producers - one of whom was the head of Lucasfilm lest we forget - not doing their due diligence before they hired their directors.
Added to which, although I do like it, there isn't really any reason for it to exist. You can make a case for Rogue One but the character of Han Solo didn't need an origin story
Nah. Han Solo's origin story is interesting. It could work as a series, though.
Rather, I think the problem was that they tried to change the core of who the directors were. Looking at the movies Lord & Miller directed, they should've known that they would want to take a similar, comedic track with Solo - and at least that would've made it interesting. Instead, it ended up with perhaps the most forgettable of the films.
Them not doing their due diligence also explains Rian Johnson and what happened there with the Last Jedi.
Tony Gilroy's words about "Rogue One" have a high level of "everybody are idiots except me" which is quite strange when you think of it. Gilroy saying the things he did couldn't have happened without the blessing from the higher-ups at Lucasfilm and was probably a part of the internal power struggles in the company at the time.
He does seem a bit standoffish, though I guess he does have the skills to back it up. Michael Clayton has what's considered to be one of the best screenplays ever written, and besides also doing the Bourne movies, he seems to be a go-to guy for helping with scripts & story.
No, no. Those are lies. You're being grifted. There was never a power struggle at Lucasfilm.
@@Syntopikonif I recalled that Tony Gilroy doesn't like maybe hated Paul Greengrass that much during his work on Supremacy and Ultimatum when he got his work on Legacy I believe he tried so hard to surpassed Greengrass but alas it's not meant to be
LETS GO !!!
After all that’s happened it’s crazy to see that Rouge One has literally been the only quality movie, or tv show, in the Star Wars franchise since Revenge of the Sith.
It's interesting to note that it's also the one that seemed to have departed most from the other movies. In the end, it's a movie about sacrifice and working towards a greater good. If the other movies had half as much as courage to depart from the original & prequel trilogies, they could've been better.
It isn't. Andor, Mandalorian and other projects have also been solid.
Not sure if this was on purpose but from 16:56 to 17:17 the film footage is turned 90 degrees
Edwards is an odd case. I remember a TON of reports about the reshoots. Then? Radio silence as the film releases and is praised. No one spoke. No one mentioned shit. I also vividly remember reports of Edward's "take" being too gritty with its portrayal of war and that was the cause of the reshoots. I wonder if, potentially, Edwards was in over his head trying to get his creative version of this story made, and in the process the film ended up all over the place, too dark, too gritty, etc. (kinda like Trank with Fant4stic maybe?). Either way, Edwards clearly kept his head low for quite a few years after Rogue One. Thankfully his career hasn't been tarnished, unlike Trank's :/
Edwards, on the whole, seems to be on a good trajectory. While The Creator didn't do well commercially, it was still a really interesting film and showed that Hollywood can do solid VFX-heavy movies at a price below $100 million. Jurassic World 4 also seems to be the right kind of project for him in particular. I can understand why a Star Wars film would be difficult in that he needs to find the right balance between making an interesting film that's also commercially viable.
Alas, I think it'll be difficult for Trank to make a comeback unless he tries to go the indie-to-festival route or unless his Teddy Roosevelt biopic is a major success.
Directors 'who' were fired
Bryan singer has to be one of the biggest "How the hell did he get such a good reputation?" Questions in Hollywood for me personally. Seriously. After the news of his behind the scenes problems dating back to the original Xmen films I've lost alot of respect for them because his name is all over them
I think it's a case of the studio not minding the issues because his movies made so much money. If the X-Men movies were less successful, they wouldn't have put up with him. But The Usual Suspects + the X-Men movies made bank, so they were willing to let some things slide.
The shower scene in apt pupil told you all you needed to know. I was the same age as the actors when it came out and it seemed too sexualized. @@Syntopikon
I'm always somewhat surprised by how revered the Richard Donner Superman movie is. For me, it was an 'ok' movie that didn't come even close to all the other spectacle movies of that era. We had Star Wars, Star Trek TMP, Close Encounters, Alien, the list goes on and on, and for me, the Superman movie felt like almost a caricature movie with barely passable effects that felt closer to the Batman 60s tv show than the later superhero movies. It was colourful and the bad guys were the same over the top joke figures we knew from the Batman series. I remember seeing it in the cinema as a kid and it basically being the only blockbuster movie back then that made me feel 'meh'.
In the past they had scripts and all the various departments that had done all this practical effects and costumes.. it had to be more simple to bring in a new director, and have a “director for hire” who was more “agreeable” to the studio and executives… definitely modern tech makes these late changes possible, and film is such a minor expense comparatively… now it’s a bit of a shell game where the corporation founded to film the movie with funding from a studio rents the digital cameras from said studio (or subsidiary), but there’s not the cost of the physical reels of film.. film was/is expensive, needs development, and editing all of which have become specialized skill sets (which mean even more money these days)…
Great video and interesting insights into specific productions!
I don’t know what it is but I can barely make out what you’re saying, even with obnoxious volume level lol….is it just me?
Yeah, I need to get my room treated + improve my enunciation 😬
@@Syntopikon ahh I see, so I am not crazy as I thought lol. Good video though, two thumbs up
how many quote "quote" end quote, quote "end quote" end quote did this script had?
Many.
You left out the original version of Casino Royale from 1967, as that film had many directors, of who many got fired…..
Yeah, one thing I've learned doing these videos is that there are always a lot more examples than I initially figured. Sometimes, I go in and I'm like "How many can there be?" A lot. A whole lot.
Surprised you didn’t mention the Creator
I love Rogue One, except for all of the scenes where Darth Vader was shoe-horned in for no good reason. The corridor scene is especially stupid and contradicts the start of A New Hope.
Spartacus only broke even in 1960/1961. Kubrick chose "points on the gross" over a flat salary and didn't make any money from the movie 🎥. Eventually it made a profit.
I wish the guy who makes these videos knew more about filmmaking. No, Tony Gilroy didn't come in as "2nd AD" on the reshoots. Maybe 2nd Unit Director, but not "2nd AD", which is a totally different (non-creative) job. Also, an "assembly" or "rough cut" is not the same thing as a "director's cut". The director's cut is a lot more polished. The director sees the "assembly" the editor has cut together, then works on it for a few weeks and the result is the "director's cut" that gets shown to the studio.
Objection. Batman is good, very, very good if you are on the right wavelength. But, I can see how you would think it was absolutely execrable if you weren't.
I'd agree that it's a good - even great - movie, but I don't think it was quite the landmark that Superman was. Granted, Superman also had the John Williams score and while Danny Elfman is great, he's not John Williams. But I think this is one where we can agree to disagree.
@@Syntopikon Gotcha. That was not the first movie titled Batman.
Why does this guy sound like pinklet the rlm character
This is the most interesting voice comparison I've had, though I'm not familiar with the character.
@@Syntopikon red letter media . Idk if I spelled it right but you got a interesting voice that’s for sure
@@SyntopikonAre you sure you're not a robot? 🤔
@bobthebear1246 😂😂😂
@@bobthebear1246😂😂😂
Superman was surpassed long before Batman Returns. The original Tim Burton Batman, The Crow, Men in Black, Blade, X-Men (the greatest superhero movie every made), Spider-Man, Hellboy, Constantine, V for Vendetta, 300, Iron Man, and Thor were all better films.
13:08 didn't Brett Ratner do that as well?
Yup 😬
No Zack Snyder from Justice League?
Me: You wanna write on my forehead? If you don't get the eff out of here. I don't care who you are...lmbo
The argument that lord and miller are “comedic” directors doesn’t hold water, woody Allen made zany comedies and then Goes on to direct interiors. Adam Sandler made juvenile comedies but was in punch drunk love, Todd Phillips made a documentary about GG allin but went on to direct the joker. Tim Burton had made two comedies before getting Batman.
He really shouldn’t dictate what you do or your style, I understand where the producers were coming from. Lord and miller were just being shitty little brats.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
It’s pronounced Rebecca “row-main”
Directors only like the sell of their own
Rouge one is a fan fiction film. Solo is equally bad
Each of those is better than the entire sequel trilogy.
Baffles me how Hollywood put up with Marlon Brando's lazy ass for so long.
Dude was a legend. For some, they just wanted to say they worked with him lol
Romijn, pronounced "Romaine"
The first Tim Burton Batman and Spiderman were both great adaptations. I cant stand how ppl wank off Nolan for making a bog standard mobster film with bad voice acting by Bale as "the standard for superhero films". F Nolan
I disagree on F Nolan, but you're right that Batman and Spider-Man are both great adaptations. And despite what I think re: The Dark Knight, I think someone else can make a strong case for either Batman or Spider-Man being the best superhero movie after Superman.
Narrator is Soooo... BORING 😴
😬
@@Syntopikon Glad you took it well!
Cheers!!! And have a good life. 😊
Love your content but I have to say you're Voice Over is pretty painful to listen to. I strongly suggest hiring someone to read your scripts, great content and you could have an even better channel with some help .
You don't actually speak like this, do you?
In fact, I mostly do 😬
Ad hominem. Incel question.
@@egx161 Why would you admit to being an incel? I don't understand
Fincher, Aliens 3?
Being locked out of the edit is something different. In fact, this RUclips has another video that covers it.
Robotic narration? Check.
AI generated? Er….no.
common, the narrator is clearly not talking in his first language. Give the guy a brake.
😭
At least you don't doubt the authenticity 😬
@@SyntopikonI did.
@@karlkarlos3545 a brake? common?
English isn’t your first language either eh?