Han Solo Anthology Film - "Solo: A Star Wars Story"*

Curious how much of a gag order the studio has on the two ousted directors; however right or wrong their vision was for the film, the undoubtedly have a *very* interesting story to tell.

 

Nobody seems to know so far. Here's a good article looking at some possibilities:

Han Solo Film Firing May Force Directors Guild to Make Tough Choices

 

Apparently unlike the WGA, the DGA apparently doesn't have a big appeals/hearing process and the DGA just decides cases. So I suppose they could decide to force Lucasfilm to keep the two fired guys' names on the film, or rule that Howard's name goes on instead. The article linked above seems to indicate it's pretty unlikely we'll get all three of their names on the director's credit.

Has that ever happened on a film, where a two-man writing team and their single-director replacement *all* get director credit?

I'm wondering if the two fired guys would have to continue to insist their names be kept on and not demand a pseudonym, because the DGA might be more likely to rule to put Howard's name on it as opposed to "Alan Smithee" or some fake variant like that.

 

Ron Howard!?

No wonder Daniel Day-Lewis has retired from the film industry.

 

Oh, I agree. It definitely calls into question Lucasfilm's judgment in the first place. Why hire these guys? (And I know they did more than Meatballs, but for some reason many commenters seem to think that movie was a work of genius, which baffles me). I just meant that wondering why Kennedy, Kasdan and Howard would remain while the Meatballs/Lego Movie guys have to go seems a bit naive to say the least. They were not directing an indie movie for Sundance but a mega super blockbuster with a budget bigger than the GDP of some countries.

 

That would be the kiss of death for the film. Disney will try their damnedest to ensure this doesn't come to pass.

 

It's official.

Ron Howard is indeed the new director.

Ron Howard Steps In to Direct Han Solo Movie


Edit:

I saw that someone upthread (previous page) had already posted an official announcement.

 

Have you actually read the script? As far as I know, some rewrites are going on and they've been keeping it very, very hush-hush (very typical for Disney).

My bet is that Disney had to spend a fortune to get Howard, since he'll be working night and day for a year to get this movie done by May 2018. And a director at his level is also going to demand profit participation. I think it's safe to say he'll make ten times as much as the original directors. (And my prediction is that all three will get screen credit.)

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Ron Howard: while it's true that his films have varied wildly in terms of quality and commercial success, I think he's a hard-working guy and some of his films have been genuinely entertaining. I also think even Kathy Kennedy is going to think twice before browbeating or arguing with a director who has more experience than she does in the industry. I would also bet Kasdan regards Howard as more of an equal than he did two 30-something tyros, so there may well have been a culture clash there.

I was just talking to a friend of mine this afternoon about it, and I wonder if the two directors (who did the Lego movies and the Jump Street movies) were too oriented towards comedies, and Lucasfilm wanted a Han Solo movie that was a lot darker and more serious. This would explain the industry stories about the arguments about tone, setting the right mood for the entire film.

Very true and well-said. Disney tried to downplay the fact that a completely different director handled the reshoots, but I think that was a sign of trouble... but that original director was not fired.

 

One of the Hollywood Reporter pieces says this:

The creative clash, according to one insider, also came down to differences in understanding the character of Han Solo. “People need to understand that Han Solo is not a comedic personality. He’s sarcastic and selfish,” said that source.

While that's true, a lot of the comedy in Star Wars did come from Han Solo.

 

Opie Cunningham! The last nail in this film's coffin!

 

They should've called The Wolf.

 

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

 

I was talking about The Phantom Menace and how any director couldn't have saved that turkey.

 

I dunno. I think it was doomed because of the casting. The Making of Phantom Menace makes it clear that Lucas was set on hiring the wrong kid (out of the ones who auditioned), and unfortunately the entire movie rested on the kid's shoulders.

And in many cases, the snappy one-liners came from Lawrence Kasdan. (Although Ford did come up with the great "I know" line from Empire.)

 

I can't imagine another kid saving that film either. The mistake was putting too much importance in that role in the script, plus generally poor dialogue for the character, and throughout.

 

IMO, they are 2 for 2 so far. I am loving this flurry of Star Wars releases.

I agree. Ron is a pro and he has a good sense of what works and what doesn't.

That is what I have heard too. They had Han as a ham, instead of a dry, sarcastic alpha male who is a loner reluctantly helping "the cause".

 

It should be noted that "Alan Smithee" was retired by the DGA following the publicity the name got from Joe Esterhas' film Burn Hollywood Burn.

 

For better or worse, I don't think Howard's previous film resume (in terms of the quality of films) is going to come into play much with this Han Solo film. He's going to make the film Kennedy wants made. He may seemingly function as something in between a true "Director" and a sort of "Line Producer" or "Unit Production Manager" (yes, I'm sure the film has others technically filling those roles as well).

I would say the DGA should either force Lucasfilm to actually let directors do their thing (which is obviously not a realistic possibility), or just go all out and let Lucasfilm just credit themselves collectively as directors kind of like the way you might see a songwriting credit at least superficially credited as "Written by the Traveling Wilburys" or whatever. I really think they should just let them put "Directed by Lucasfilm" on the screen and do away with the pretense that a single person is really directing these films.

 

They should have gotten David Lynch. He could come in a shoot a few new scenes and edit it all together. Worked for Mulholland Drive.

 

I always enjoy hear Lynch tell this story:

 

I don't think that's exactly true in that the original directors worked for 4 months, and Ron Howard now has another 6 weeks of production and then 9 months of post-production to get through. From a sheer number of hours, Howard is going to spend far more time on this film that the original directors did.

I would argue that all of them need to (legally and morally) get credited as directors, but there's a huge issue with the DGA on allowing not one, not two, but three names as directors. It's extremely rare for that to happen... though there was Airplane, with Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker directing.

Note also that the central issue that got the first two directors fired was that they wanted to make script changes 4 months into production and clashed with screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan. Kennedy sided with the writer and fired the directors. My guess is that they wanted to be a little more loose with the story and dialogue, and Kasdan is one of those writers who believes you get the script right, then go out and shoot that script, not improvise and change things as they go along.

Line Producers and UPMs do not do the job you say. But I think what you're trying to say that Howard will basically just be a traffic cop, going through the motions and just saying yes to whatever Kathy Kennedy and Kasdan want. I don't think it's as simple as that, and I think there's a difference between being cooperative and willing to negotiate on creative decisions and just rolling over and doing anything they want.

 

The single biggest mistake with Phantom Menace to me was making the kid 8 years old. I never bought into it, because a kid that age couldn't build a robot from scratch and also fly a land speeder faster than dozens of competing alien adults. I could almost buy it if he were 12 or 13 and very precocious. But Lucas had specific reasons for making the character that age. I think they were very contrived, but it was a deliberate decision.

 

The Gungans, Jar Jar, making the film set against the backdrop of the oh-so-exciting topic of trade negotiations, whole scenes that were little more than completely CG advertisements for the toys, criminal underuse (and then killing) of a charismatic villain -- something the prequel trilogy desperately needed -- and pretty bad dialogue. Making the nominal focus of the film an 8 year old played by a miscast actor is, to my mind, merely one of the multitude of problems with The Phantom Menace (and that TITLE). The term "ill conceived" comes to mind...