Solo

I'm the type who never has gotten enough Star Wars, so I'm gonna be seeing this one. The new Star Wars movies have all done a surprisingly good job of reflecting different directorial visions, even if they are kind of like gilding the lily. I'll probably like it too, but I like the prequels, so that probably doesn't mean much to any of you.

The troubled production with this one does have me worried that it could be a train wreck. For as much as I like Rogue One, it's the sort of movie where you can see the seams, especially in the storytelling. I'm guessing this will have the same issue, only more so. But the trailer got me interested, so I know what I'll be doing in May.

Blade Runner was a complete production disasater, but the resulting product is a legendary film. I wouldn’t rule out Solo being a solid product because of that.

also worth noting that Star Wars itself, the 1977 movie, is only remembered because of Marcia Lucas in the editing room.

I’m sure that Solo’s production woes pale in comparison to Apocalypse Now...and that turned out pretty good.

Rogue One had quite a bit of production issues, no surprise as Edwards is a subpar director (see the coma inducing Godzilla and Monsters for more). HThe first trailer had swaths of footage that was cut or changed entirely in the final film. Not just dialogue stuff like the “I rebel” line, but expensive scenes like the TIE rising to meet Jyn and Chirrut and Baize dodging the legs of the walker, as well as stuff we’ll probably never see. Disney kept a tighter lid on it and didn’t do anything so flashy as firing Edwards, though I wished they had.

It’s not much favorite Star Wars movie, but it’s pretty damned watchable, and there this group with a hard on for warfare and who are okay with paper thin characters with illogical jumps in development who think its the best thing the franchise has ever offered, so theres that.

Rogue One is a funny one for me. I want to like it so much more than I do. I went to see it twice in theatres and literally fell asleep both times shortly after they got the band together. It has some great moments and I like the idea of it on paper, but the execution of it is a little boring for me.

I'm wondering if Solo will feel a little multiple-personality with the switch in director, like when you go back and watch Superman 2 with its drastic shifts in tone anytime it wasn't Donner making the decisions. Blade Runner and Apocalypse Now may have been troubled productions, but they each did have the consistent vision of an auteur that elevated them above the behind-the-scenes wreckage.

i don't know why I liked it so much. I don't know why i had never even considered the question, "would you like it if they made a war movie in the Star Wars theatre?" and I sure as hell did.

Oh, that part of it is great. Hell, I think exploring different sub genres is necessary to keeping so many Star Wars movies interesting. Surely a lesson they learned from the second wave Marvel movies, ie Winter Solider is a spy thriller, Ant-Man is a heist movie. I hope Solo continues that tradition as a crime/mob movie, and I hope Kenobi is a western.

BUT it has no characters and, like I said, illogical development. “I don’t care about the Empire or the Rebellion, but the Empire just killed my dad who I never really knew, so fuck it, I’m in.” They can put Star Wars in whatever genre they want, but characters are the inalienable element. It’s not science fiction, it never was, it’s space opera and that means characters. Say what you will about the new core movies, but they’ve got characters, new ones that feel fresh at that. I had to Google the names I dropped from Rogue One.

bfkiller got to in before me, but that's what I was going to say. "Troubled production with cost overruns" can turn into a great film. Some directors just work that way by default. But is there an example of "director merry-go-round" that ends up as a great film? I'm coming up blank.

Not Sure wrote: bfkiller got to in before me, but that's what I was going to say. "Troubled production with cost overruns" can turn into a great film. Some directors just work that way by default. But is there an example of "director merry-go-round" that ends up as a great film? I'm coming up blank.

Ant-Man is a really solid, fun movie.

Superman II is probably my favorite Superman movie.

There’s also a couple of lesser known films called The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind that swapped directors after shooting had started.

In my experience, choice of director usually doesn't kill or create the film. The screenplay does that. As the saying goes: "You can make a bad film out of a good screenplay. You can't make a good film out of a bad screenplay." Many people would suggest that the screenplay for the original Star Wars is average-to-bad and I'd agree with them. The film itself is not really good. It's meteoric impact on culture and visual arts is what made it the phenomenon that it is today.

Choice of director can make a film better than it otherwise would be. But I think the screenplay is often going to define how good or bad a film turns out to be, more than anything else.

Josh Look wrote:

Not Sure wrote: Is there an example of "director merry-go-round" that ends up as a great film? I'm coming up blank.

Any-Man is a really solid, fun movie.

Superman II is probably my favorite Superman movie.

There’s also a couple of lesser known films called The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind that swapped directors after shooting had started.

All good examples of counter-points.

I should say that I love Superman II, but those goofy, jokey bits do stand out as misplaced.

Ant-Man is good, but I do think would have been better and more unique if Edgar Wright stayed on. (Scott Pilgrim might be my favourite movie of the past 10 years.)

It still blows me away that The Wizard of Oz changed directors. It is such a consistent and superlative movie.

Josh Look wrote: There’s also a couple of lesser known films called The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind that swapped directors after shooting had started.

Although in the studio system at the time, most directors were considered as interchangeable as the boom operator.

I am so sophisticated and intelligent that I can tell when a movie changes boom operators halfway through. It's very very distracting.

It might obvious pointing this out, but I think the most noticible thing that a director lends to a movie, regardless of era made in or quality of screenplay is cohesion. Why do the Hobbit movies, The Wolfman remake, or Justice League feel like a mess? Because somebody stepping, had to take the reins be it with their own direction or at the behest of the studio, and had to push the project forward. They bring their own vision and personality and oftentimes that is at odds with what they walked into. That’s also the reason why I think a director matters over screenplay. Why are Zack Snyder movies consistently shit? Because he has terrible vision and his intelligence prevents him from understanding anything past surface level. On the inverse, many of John Carpenter’s classic films do not have the best screenplays. But here we are, 3+ years later on most of them, still talking about them.

TL;DR - The right hands at the reins can overcome dull screenplays and hack directors are always going to produce a crap product.