Second Anthology movie: Han Solo

[Mange]

The second (of three) Anthology movies will be about Han Solo. It'll be directed by Christopher Miller and Phil Lord with a script by Lawrence and Jon Kasdan:

Christopher Miller and Phil Lord to Helm Han Solo Anthology Film
The duo behind The LEGO Movie will direct an early tale of the smuggler-turned-hero, with a screenplay by Lawrence and Jon Kasdan.

The next adventure in the Anthology series of Star Wars films will be directed by Christopher Miller and Phil Lord, whose credits include the critically acclaimed The LEGO Movie and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, as well as 21 Jump Street and 22 Jump Street. Among the most sought-after filmmakers working today, the two have proven a formidable duo on the multiple films they’ve collaborated on and are looking forward to applying their unique creative chemistry to the Star Wars universe.

This is the first film we’ve worked on that seems like a good idea to begin with. We promise to take risks, to give the audience a fresh experience, and we pledge ourselves to be faithful stewards of these characters who mean so much to us. This is a dream come true for us. And not the kind of dream where you’re late for work and all your clothes are made of pudding, but the kind of dream where you get to make a film with some of the greatest characters ever, in a film franchise you’ve loved since before you can remember having dreams at all.”

The screenplay is written by Lawrence Kasdan and Jon Kasdan. The story focuses on how young Han Solo became the smuggler, thief, and scoundrel whom Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi first encountered in the cantina at Mos Eisley.

Lawrence Kasdan, the writer and director known for Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Big Chill, and Grand Canyon, is familiar to Star Wars fans for having co-written the screenplays for The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and The Force Awakens. His son Jon Kasdan wrote and directed The First Time, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, and In the Land of Women, as well as writing for the television series Freaks and Geeks and Dawson’s Creek.

“We’re so excited to be working with Chris and Phil, who will bring a fresh new dimension to the Star Wars universe,” said the Kasdans. “They’re two of the smartest, funniest and most original filmmakers around, and the ideal choice to tell the story of Han Solo, one of the coolest characters in the galaxy.”

Kathleen Kennedy, who will be producing, says she can’t wait to discover what’s in store from these two extraordinary teams of directors and writers.

“It’s not just any filmmaker who can tell the story of such a beloved icon like Han Solo, and I’m excited to say we’ve found the perfect team to handle the task. Larry and Jon know all there is to know about the character, and Chris and Phil will bring their wit, style, energy and heart to tell Han’s story.”

Slated for a May 25, 2018 release, the film will be executive produced by Lawrence Kasdan and Jason McGatlin and co-produced by Will Allegra.

StarWars.com

[DesertFly]

Don't you mean second (of ∞)?

Boring. I would have much preferred an Obi-Wan standalone. I mean, maybe they'll make it some sort of heist movie or something, but I still don't have high hopes for it. Of course we'll be getting the obligatory appearance by Boba Fett too.

[Channel72]

It's funny how in the 20th and 21st century, memorable film characters are usually created entirely by the actor who plays them - as opposed to, say, Superheroes or Shakespeare characters who were created by some preexisting narrative. But memorable film characters are pretty much inextricably connected with a particular actor, to the extent that a veteran audience is likely to scoff if the actor is every replaced. At one point it really seemed absurd to even dare try to replace Shatner as Kirk, for example. And then they did it, and... whatever, blah.

But it seems that after a certain amount of time passes, classic film characters become detached from their original actors, and then they get recast, rebooted, recycled, etc. This is all great for movie studios, because characters who aren't attached to a particular actor (like ... James Bond or pretty much all superheroes), are a lot easier to recast, reboot, recycle, etc.

Still, I can't recall an instance where the recast version of a classic film character actually surpasses the original, and to a certain extent, this would almost be paradoxical, because the character is literally defined by the original actor, so either you get a recasted actor who basically just tries to ape the original actor, or you get a "fresh new take" which sort of just sucks (e.g. Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka). It's not like a case where some new actor gets to take a crack at playing Hamlet, or the Joker, or whatever - a new actor trying to take a crack at Han Solo is basically trying to take a crack at playing Harrison Ford.

[Batman]

Thing is James Bond, me, Clark 'have' been played by different actors. Han Solo has not.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's funny how in the 20th and 21st century, memorable film characters are usually created entirely by the actor who plays them - as opposed to, say, Superheroes or Shakespeare characters who were created by some preexisting narrative. But memorable film characters are pretty much inextricably connected with a particular actor, to the extent that a veteran audience is likely to scoff if the actor is every replaced. At one point it really seemed absurd to even dare try to replace Shatner as Kirk, for example. And then they did it, and... whatever, blah.

But it seems that after a certain amount of time passes, classic film characters become detached from their original actors, and then they get recast, rebooted, recycled, etc. This is all great for movie studios, because characters who aren't attached to a particular actor (like ... James Bond or pretty much all superheroes), are a lot easier to recast, reboot, recycle, etc.

Still, I can't recall an instance where the recast version of a classic film character actually surpasses the original, and to a certain extent, this would almost be paradoxical, because the character is literally defined by the original actor, so either you get a recasted actor who basically just tries to ape the original actor, or you get a "fresh new take" which sort of just sucks (e.g. Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka). It's not like a case where some new actor gets to take a crack at playing Hamlet, or the Joker, or whatever - a new actor trying to take a crack at Han Solo is basically trying to take a crack at playing Harrison Ford.

Its nonsense that a character is "...created entirely by the actor...",a s if writers and directors and everyone else involved in a making a film's characters are fucking meaningless.

And while you may not find any replacement superior to the original, you are hardly the definitive judge of artistic merit and your attitude comes off as typical nostalgia-blinded "its new so its bad" fan whining. I keep seeing this God damn stupid tribalistic aversion to change, and it irritates me.

Take, oh, Mad Max: Fury Road. Now, I haven't seen the old Mad Max films, so I can't compare it to them, but there was nothing wrong with the guy who played Max this time around, and I'm glad the world wasn't denied that film because some asshole said only Mel Gibson could ever play Max.

Edits: Also, Doctor Who has gleefully and triumphantly proved you wrong for decades.

[Batman]

The Doctor is also completely irrelevant as he was never meant to 'be' the same character throughout the franchise. Him 'not' being was one of the core concepts of Doctor Who.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm.

The thing is, while another person playing Han would have to do as good a job as (youngish) Harrison Ford at 'daring action chancer,' it's not like there haven't been plenty of other daring action chancers in fiction, or plenty of actors to successfully play them.

The thing that makes the transition from 'this role is defined by one person' to 'this role can be played by many' difficult is simply finding that second good actor to play the role. James Bond became a role 'anyone' could play after he'd been successfully played by Roger Moore (who, I will note, was seriously considered as an alternative to Connery when they cast Bond in the first place). Moore did the job quite differently from Connery, in part because he got different scripts but in part because he was a different man.

Once Moore had done it, it wasn't a question of "find someone who can play Bond like Connery," it was "find someone who can play Bond." Very different task.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Doctor is also completely irrelevant as he was never meant to 'be' the same character throughout the franchise. Him 'not' being was one of the core concepts of Doctor Who.

I honestly don't know weather they intended to recast the part when the show started. Probably not though, because how could they have known how long the show would run?

Or do you mean that each iteration of the Doctor is meant to be a distinct character? If so... debatable. Their are differences between them, but also commonality.

Of course, Doctor Who's science fiction premise allows it greater options than would normally be possible for explaining such changes, but I would hold that it nonetheless demonstrates that it is possible for a character in film/television can transcend the original actor who played them.

[Batman]

I don't know if they meant to do it that way when the show started, but by nuWho at the latest, yes, the Doctor changing with each regeneration is part of the narrative.

[Anacronian]

There goes all my hopes for an IG-88 murder spree movie

[Batman]

Who the hell would want that?

[FSTargetDrone]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, they have an entire universe to explore and once again they go back to the same characters/planets. Let's see something NEW!

[Channel72]

Its nonsense that a character is "...created entirely by the actor...",a s if writers and directors and everyone else involved in a making a film's characters are fucking meaningless.

You're not getting the point, or being pedantic, or whatever. The fact is, certain film characters are pretty much entirely associated with the actor who played them, in the popular mindset. That's an observation, not an argument.

Edits: Also, Doctor Who has gleefully and triumphantly proved you wrong for decades.

I see you missed where I mentioned James Bond as a counter-example because you're in a bad mood or something.

The thing that makes the transition from 'this role is defined by one person' to 'this role can be played by many' difficult is simply finding that second good actor to play the role. James Bond became a role 'anyone' could play after he'd been successfully played by Roger Moore (who, I will note, was seriously considered as an alternative to Connery when they cast Bond in the first place). Moore did the job quite differently from Connery, in part because he got different scripts but in part because he was a different man.

Yeah, that seems to be true. Whether or not that transition is successful determines whether a film character remains defined by the actor, or becomes defined by the character. Still, it seems that it's pretty rare for that transition to be pulled off successfully, especially if the original character is widely known/memorable (and not in a robot suit or something like Darth Vader.) Studios obviously know this, which is why they'd rather cast a 90 year old Schwarzenegger or Harrison Ford, rather than risk a recasting. I'm trying to think of examples apart from Bond where a memorable film character (that wasn't already part of some widely disseminated media, like comic-book characters) has been recasted in a role that surpasses or at least rivals the original, and I can't think of many. I hear there's a TV series with a pretty good recasting of Hannibal Lecter, but I haven't seen it.

[Purple]

The problem is more complex than just that. Basically more often than not a new actor brings a new style to the role. And that usually means that the character in question gets "reimagined". Now this in it self is not a bad thing (as seen in the James Bond example). With a good crew and a good actor it can work out just swell. Problem is that the movie industry today is not the same industry that filmed the old James Bond movies. Instead hollywood today seems to be built around 1% good movies and 99% exploitation flicks designed to cash in on existing intellectual property by providing low quality crappy stories that people will pay to watch anyway because of the IP. From the perspective of movie fans reimagined can and often does simply mean a divorce from the original and its level of quality in favor of jumping into bed with the proverbial Whore of Babylon. From that perspective the act of hiring on the same actor and thus ensuring continuity of character and safety from reimagining is in essence a message to the fans and assurance that the story will stay true to the original and thus preserve quality.


Note: All numbers, percentages and values used in this post are made up for the sake of providing a thematic aid in making the point and do not accurately reflect reality. The post also uses metaphors, expressions and biblical allegory to convey that point. The post it self is thus a complete whole and not a compilation of individual statements to be dissected and replied to individually. Doing so would be missing the point.

[Batman]

Which is a bit of a problem when the actor in question last portrayed that role 30 years ago.

[biostem]

Personally, I would have preferred a movie about a "nobody" character that could give us a different perspective on the original trilogy's events. That being said, it could be interesting to see Han portrayed as being born a little before the Empire's rise to power, and having several timeskips, concluding with the events leading up to him arriving in Mos Eisley.

[Purple]

Which is a bit of a problem when the actor in question last portrayed that role 30 years ago.

Bottom line is this. Would you prefer the same actor with some makeup doing his best or risking to allow a "reimagining" that might end up looking like the bayformers?

[Batman]

I don't give a damn about the Transformers franchise but I 'would' prefer a nuTrek take on Han Solo over Harrison Ford with half a metre of make-up, yes.

[Purple]

I don't give a damn about the Transformers franchise but I 'would' prefer a nuTrek take on Han Solo over Harrison Ford with half a metre of make-up, yes.

You actually liked the new ST movies? I thought they were stupid with their IPhone starships and characters reimagined as half opposites of the proper ones and the frankly stupid time travel red matter plot. I watched the 1st movie and thought it was as stupid as Nemesis. And that was it for me.

[Batman]

The original nuTrek was pretty blergh, I agree, but I happen to think 'Into Darkness' was a much better (and much more Trek) movie.

[Purple]

The original nuTrek was pretty blergh, I agree, but I happen to think 'Into Darkness' was a much better (and much more Trek) movie.

Basically I lost interest because of two things. The art direction was just not for me and the characters were too far removed from their originals. I did not expect to see a clone of the old Kirk. But I do believe that if you want to still call the character "Captain Kirk" he should be no more removed from the original than the various incarnations of James Bond were from one another.

[Adam Reynolds]

The original nuTrek was pretty blergh, I agree, but I happen to think 'Into Darkness' was a much better (and much more Trek) movie.

In general I though the writing wasn't very good. I mostly agree with some of the criticisms of that element. Though I did somewhat like that Into Darkness was a deconstruction of Kirk as a maverick, this was negated by the pointless decision to kill and revive Kirk immediately. This is a major problem shared by Marvel. While it is fine in a single instance, as in The Winter Soldier with Fury or with Groot in Guardians of the Galaxy, as a part of a trend it is extremely problematic at it takes death off the table for main characters. And when someone really does die, there will now always be an element of doubt as to whether that person is really alive somehow.

This is an issue in fiction that I have been thinking about lately after watching all of Community over the last couple weeks. One interesting thing the show does extremely well is adapting other genres to the setting of a wacky community college. So they have had parody/homage episodes to Law and Order(about a murdered yam), mafia movies (about a scheme to control access to chicken fingers in the cafeteria), war documentaries(involving a pillow fight between a pair of blanket forts) and the space race(the race to be the first community college to pretend to put a man in space using the KFC 13 herbs and spices simulator). This is rather impressively done in their various paintball episodes which elevate the games to the stakes of an action movie without weapons that actually kill people*. This succeeds by being a setting that is never taken seriously be anyone. If you expect a setting to have real genuine stakes, death has to mean something in the narrative.
* Amusingly they were each directed by the same people that made the Fast and Furious movies and Captain America: The Winter Soldier respectively.

This is also arguably a storytelling problem in video games, one reflected in the somewhat disappointing ending to the Groundhog Day style science fiction war movie Edge of Tomorrow. Because character death is generally not possible*, which would require becoming invested in a new character, it is almost never used. Thus character death in the story is impossible and thus meaningless from a strictly story perspective.
* Though in Mass Effect 2, there are two examples that come to mind. Both the vanilla game ending and the Arrival DLC both feature the possibility for Shepard to die and not trigger a conventional game over screen. But even then it is only at two significant points that this is possible, not throughout the game.