Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

[Galvatron]

The Hollywood Reporter

Colin Trevorrow is no longer directing Star Wars: Episode IX, Lucasfilm said Tuesday.

"Lucasfilm and Colin Trevorrow have mutually chosen to part ways on Star Wars: Episode IX. Colin has been a wonderful collaborator throughout the development process, but we have all come to the conclusion that our visions for the project differ. We wish Colin the best and will be sharing more information about the film soon," read a Lucasfilm statement.

Rumors of Trevorrow’s departure have dogged the project since early June, weeks before the opening of The Book of Henry, his thriller that was panned by critics and failed at the box office.

Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that script issues have continued to be a sore spot throughout Episode IX’s development, with Trevorrow having repeated stabs at multiple drafts. In August, Jack Thorne, the British scribe who wrote the upcoming Julia Roberts-Jacob Tremblay movie Wonder, was tapped to work on the script.

Sources say that the working relationship between Trevorrow and Lucasfilm head Kathleen Kennedy became unmanageable. Kennedy, who had already been through one director firing/replacement on the Han Solo spinoff movie, was not eager for a sequel and tried to avoid this decision.

In June, Phil Lord and Chris Miller were fired from the Han Solo stand-alone with only a few weeks left in principal photography. The two were later replaced by Ron Howard, who is finishing out production in London.

Rumors are already circulating as to possible replacements for Trevorrow. Rian Johnson, who is in post for The Last Jedi (Episode VIII), has been mentioned as a possibility, returning to the franchise. J.J. Abrams, who successfully helmed Star Wars: The Force Awakens, has also emerged as a top contender.

Trevorrow's departure now marks the fourth time directors have been replaced on a Star Wars project. Tony Gilroy took over from Gareth Edwards for massive reshoots on 2016's Rogue One. And Josh Trank was taken off of a Star Wars anthology film after reports arose about the helmer's disturbing behavior on the set of Fox's Fantastic Four reboot. Like Trank, Trevorrow's exit occured before the movie has started shooting.

Trevorrow first made waves with Sundance hit Safety Not Guaranteed. The indie sci-fi dramedy caught the attention of Steven Spielberg and Universal, who put Trevorrow at the helm of the Jurassic Park reboot, Jurassic World. The movie went on to gross a mammoth $1.6 billion at the global box office. After that success, the director was tapped to write and direct Episode IX, the supposed end to the Skywalker saga that would follow Johnson's The Last Jedi (due out Dec. 15).

Trevorrow has several projects in various stages of development, including a Jurassic World follow-up, which he co-wrote and executive produced. Prior to getting Episode IX, Trevorrow was attached to direct Intelligent Life, a sci-fi thriller set up at Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment that he wrote with writing partner Derek Connolly. (Rebecca Thomas has since taken over as director.)

Back in July, THR spoke to Trevorrow at the Ischia Global Film and Music Fest and asked about the then-recent Lord and Miller exit from the Han Solo film. "Movies are very personal, and art is very personal, and for people to try to turn that into something that is salacious or something that will get clicks is frustrating and sad for me because I know that [movies] mean a lot to everyone involved," he said. "And everybody involved in that movie is passionate about it and worked on it very hard and continues to work on it very hard."

I hope Joe Johnston gets it since he lost the Solo movie to Ron Howard.

[Gandalf]

I wager they'll try for someone who's doing well at Marvel. But I base this on nothing.

[Ender]

Good. Trevorrow is terrible

[Q99]

Can we get a woman director? It's got a woman lead and there's enough directors in the shuffle that it's an odd lack, and I bet it'd go over well.

Anyway, yea, wasn't enthusiastic about Colin Trevorrow and this is probably going to be a step up regardless.

[Adam Reynolds]

I mostly liked Safety Not Guaranteed, but Jurassic World was mostly crap and only successful because dinosaurs, and while I haven't seen Book of Henry it sounded terrible. Which I guess makes this probably for the best. But it is worrying that Star Wars is firing directors for two movies in a row.

I especially have a feeling that the Han Solo movie is on its way to a trainwreck, with Lord and Miller likely wanting it to be a deconstructive comedy while Lucasfilm wants it to be played straight. Not sure why they expected anything else from those two as directors, but anyway. I also heard that the actor they chose for Han Solo needed an acting coach, which is also odd. Though Abrams also said that Daisy Ridley was wooden in her performance, so maybe it's fine.

This is really illustrating the probem with the lack of mid budget films to allow directors to gain experience before being given $200 million budgets to play with. These directors end up being thrown into the deep end, far too many are failing utterly. While there are plenty like the Russo brothers with the MCU that do fine, Star Wars is not doing very well in this department, having replaced four directors already (besides Trevorrow as well as Lord/Miller, Josh Trank also left the spinoff film he was set to direct after Fantastic Four failed utterly) and done extensive reshoots for Gareth Edwards on Rogue One. Besides Abrams who already had successful blockbuster experience, only Johnson seems to be doing very well.

Though one almost wonders if this is a directorial or a producing problem. 4-5 directors doing this poorly means that Lucasfilm is either bad at picking them or bad at letting them do their jobs.

[eMeM]

Anyone but Abrams, please.

[Crazedwraith]

I wager they'll try for someone who's doing well at Marvel. But I base this on nothing.

They seem to be suffering the same thing as the MCU did around phase 2. People like Jon Favreau, Joss Whedon, Edgar Wright leaving projects/not returning because the upper level corporate types were having too much influence, changing too much for their personal visions to match the needs of the shared universe.

I have no opinion on Trevorrow but the turnover of directors is worrying. Is this an unusual rate of change, or does it just feel this way because of Star Wars' publicity.

[Q99]

I also heard that the actor they chose for Han Solo needed an acting coach, which is also odd.

That's not unusual, especially considering he's playing an existing character.

Though one almost wonders if this is a directorial or a producing problem. 4-5 directors doing this poorly means that Lucasfilm is either bad at picking them or bad at letting them do their jobs.

That said, the first two movies ended up with good results. It could represent a sign that they're willing to give directors room to breath when working, and then judging if that works & making big changes if it doesn't, as an alternative to micromanaging. Which is an unusual approach but R1 did turn out well.


That said, maybe it'd help if they started dipping into additional talent pools *points at the underused world of women directors*

[Ender]

It is Star Wars. It could be 3 hours of black screen and it would break even. Go ahead and bring in someone who will attempt something wild

[ray245]

The problem lies in Kennedy ever since she was picked by Lucas. The problem is she will not have the story-telling respect being given to her by directors because she never wrote a script or directed a movie. Yes, she produced tons of movies but those roles are different from being directly in charge of the storytelling itself.

Lucas had the authority to say no to directors because he created Star Wars. They have to respect his vision because he owns the company and created the franchise. People may bitch about him, but he is someone that can stamp his authority down on other directors if they have differing vision.

Kennedy, despite TFA and R1 financial success, has yet to become something that really stamps Kennedy's authority as a storyteller in any way. She already delegated most of the storytelling to Abrams and Kasdan for TFA, created a story-group because she does not want to be directly in charge of handling all the story-telling elements.

SW needs to be run like a TV show franchise, with head-writers heading the show while directors are merely around to help and tell the story. You cannot create a sequel trilogy if every movie will have a different director/writer with different ideas about how the story is going to end. What's the end goal objective for the sequel trilogy? Is it the end of the FO?

[Q99]

Having personally written a script or directed has nothing to do with it- being able to make sure the director's stories succeed and match does. And she's done a good job of it so far, so I find saying she doesn't have the 'authority' after two successful movies to be questionable. If TLJ turns out good, all the more-so.

[Galvatron]

Quite frankly, I admire Kennedy's commitment to getting these movies right whether it means replacing directors or ordering extensive reshoots. She has such an extensive filmography of successes that I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

[Adam Reynolds]

Having personally written a script or directed has nothing to do with it- being able to make sure the director's stories succeed and match does. And she's done a good job of it so far, so I find saying she doesn't have the 'authority' after two successful movies to be questionable. If TLJ turns out good, all the more-so.

While Ray has always been hostile to the sequel trilogy from the beginning, he does have a point about the inconsistent nature of writing like this, and how it is often problematic in the long run due to lack of focus. The Marvel movies work largely because they are only loosely connected and each film is independent enough that it is fine if they are each slightly different in feel. For something like Star Wars episodes, this doesn't work as well.

For an example of how this can go bad, look no further than the Mass Effect trilogy, in which the writing staff almost entirely changed between the first game to the third. While the ending of the third game was the part where everyone noticed, it was really a problem starting from the second game, in which the setup from the first game was thrown out in favor of the largely crap Cerberus vs the Collectors plot that was only good because of generally excellent side missions that strongly focused on mostly interesting characters and an ending that felt heroic(but should have been saved for the third game). The third game is the one remembered as bad because it was where the lack of development of the main Reaper plot as a result of the bad direction of the second game became apparent, especially as it was coupled with some other generally bad writing in the context of a follow up to the first game.

I actually came up with a recent RPG campaign based upon the premise left by ME1, in which it was about a desperate attempt to find answers about the Reapers and build up enough of an enhanced tech base that the galaxy actually has a fighting chance. Meanwhile you also need to build up allies in the face of Reaper indoctrination, which complicates the above problem further. I have no idea why the Collectors were added when they already had a perfectly interesting setup for whatever plots they wanted in that context. Anything from the loyalty missions to the Leviathan DLC or dead Reaper(literally the only good part of the story missions) could work within this context.

This could have also allowed for whatever game engine changes they wanted without the idiot plot of Shepard dying and being rebooted by Cerberus. Due to the post-Sovereign arms race, everything from biotic amps to weapons output is massively upgraded. Thus Shepard gets a full set of new abilities without dying and the Normandy refit that also takes place due to these changes allows the galaxy to change slightly while you are out of action and researching the Mars archive with Liara. Upgrading the Normandy in play would also fit nicely within this context.

I could go on for far too long on this issue, so I should probably stop now before I get even more distracted by this comparison, but the point remains that having different writers leads to major storytelling problems down the road. I would not be surprised if the Star Wars sequel trilogy gets remembered in this fashion as well. Though ME1 legitimately had the best writing in terms of the overall story, which I seriously doubt is true with TFA.

[The Romulan Republic]

Anyone but Abrams, please.

My impression of Abrams is that he's a decent director, but not a very good writer.

[Galvatron]

He's also a shitty closer. He's good at setup, but terrible at endings.

[houser2112]

Though ME1 legitimately had the best writing in terms of the overall story, which I seriously doubt is true with TFA.

I fervently hope that TFA isn't the writing high water mark for the sequel trilogy, considering how utterly derivative it is of ANH.

[ray245]

Having personally written a script or directed has nothing to do with it- being able to make sure the director's stories succeed and match does. And she's done a good job of it so far, so I find saying she doesn't have the 'authority' after two successful movies to be questionable. If TLJ turns out good, all the more-so.

Authority to run the company sure? No one doubts her ability in this regard. Making movies that are financially successful? No one doubts her. But those are different from having the authority to actually decide if the writer/director is worse than her. You know all the constant complaints about studio executives constantly meddling in their art? Well, this is what Kennedy represent to them.

She will always be under constant challenge from directors over who is better at storytelling itself. George Lucas? Well, you can question his strength and weakness as a director, but I don't think most directors would really want to challenge Lucas over what Star Wars is really about. If Lucas is still running the show at Lucasfilm, and he thinks the First Order is a stupid idea, is Abrams really going to challenge him on that?

Quite frankly, I admire Kennedy's commitment to getting these movies right whether it means replacing directors or ordering extensive reshoots. She has such an extensive filmography of successes that I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Those are vastly different from actually running an interconnected storytelling universe/franchise like Star Wars. A 1 sequel movie every two years is always a ridiculous goal/approach. Realistically speaking, you want a 3-year gap between movies because it actually allows the same director or the same writing staff to expand upon the story in a consistent manner.

Not this full-speed ahead, damn the torpedos approach Kennedy seem to be using. You are only making it more difficult to convince more directors to be willing to direct for Lucasfilm/Disney. You will eventually run out of enough "up and coming directors".

[Galvatron]

Kevin Feige seems to be doing just fine as Kennedy's counterpart for the MCU under Disney's reign. Sure, there have been some minor missteps and they've lost a few directors, but the overall franchise keeps on trucking.

I also think we'll never see the day that they have difficulty finding any up and coming directors that are willing to film a Star Wars movie.

[ray245]

Kevin Feige seems to be doing just fine as Kennedy's counterpart for the MCU under Disney's reign. Sure, there have been some minor missteps and they've lost a few directors, but the overall franchise keeps on trucking.

I also think we'll never see the day that they have difficulty finding any up and coming directors that are willing to film a Star Wars movie.

The Marvel movies are often adaptations of comic-book storylines. Unless you are saying that the sequel trilogy is an adaption of the EU novels, I think they are quite different kinds of stories. Also, Feige is able to ensure a vast amount of directors is listening to his every word or they have to walk the plank.

This isn't the same for Star Wars. Every single film bar TFA and TLJ have run into major studio interference. R1 have the problems of the director making the wrong assumption that Disney is too afraid of killing off the main cast, forcing major reshoots. The Boba Fett movie had its director(Josh Trank) sacked. The Han Solo movie directors were sacked. And now Ep 9 director is also effectively sacked.

That means 4/6 SW movies under Disney have problems with directors not fully grasping Kennedy's vision for the movies.

[Galvatron]

It sounds to me like the vision is as much (or even more) Kasdan's as it is Kennedy's, which means the story arc is in good hands.

http://screenrant.com/han-solo-movie-di ... nce-kasdan

This is also why I'd like to see Joe Johnston get the gig. He has a Star Wars pedigree that reaches all the way back to ANH, has proven himself a capable director more than once and he's already given Disney one good MCU movie.

[eMeM]

R1 reshoots weren't about killing the crew (Edwards said they never filmed the family friendly variant), it was much more extensive: www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/1/15 ... ony-gilroy

Edwards also said that the sfx budget got a big boost, and the number of special effects shots got almost tripled, from 600 to 1700.

[ray245]

It sounds to me like the vision is as much (or even more) Kasdan's as it is Kennedy's, which means the story arc is in good hands.

http://screenrant.com/han-solo-movie-di ... nce-kasdan

This is also why I'd like to see Joe Johnston get the gig. He has a Star Wars pedigree that reaches all the way back to ANH, has proven himself a capable director more than once and he's already given Disney one good MCU movie.

Kasdan got the Han Solo movie made as a pet project of his. He isn't involved in the writing for Ep 8 and 9.

[Galvatron]

Then maybe he can direct Episode IX too.

[Q99]

But those are different from having the authority to actually decide if the writer/director is worse than her.

No, she not only has such authority but has already exercised it well- the reshoots of R1 showed she knows exactly what she's doing. And authority is a matter of job, she already had that, but what she's done is proven she can wield it well.

This strikes me as a weird semantic game to undercut her position in your personal view. When you're talking someone who has already used this power well, you seem to be arguing about closing the barn door after the horse has already left and won the race.

She will always be under constant challenge from directors over who is better at storytelling itself.

She really isn't.

I don't think you have a good idea of how the studio system works, plus there's the matter of her having a proven track record.

You may think otherwise, but the job and related authorities has nothing to do with what you think.

[ray245]

No, she not only has such authority but has already exercised it well- the reshoots of R1 showed she knows exactly what she's doing. And authority is a matter of job, she already had that, but what she's done is proven she can wield it well.

This strikes me as a weird semantic game to undercut her position in your personal view. When you're talking someone who has already used this power well, you seem to be arguing about closing the barn door after the horse has already left and won the race.

Nope, that isn't true. That's only if you assume that authority is solely about whether the person dared to sack a director. I'm talking about authority in the form of respect, whereby directors don't need to be threatened by being sacked to listen to her opinions and direction for the series.

Do you think Irvin Kershner will ever threaten to walk away from ESB if George Lucas wanted something different? Or do you think that a Lucasfilm run by Lucas will ever be forced into a situation where they have to fire the directors of the Han Solo movie after most of the scenes have already been shot?

A lot of people have criticised Lucas for creating a Yes Man culture during the production of the prequels. But this kind of culture arose from Lucas's personal authority as the creator of Star Wars, and it goes beyond being the current managing director of Lucasfilm. Kennedy will never have the same kind of authority Lucas had. Kennedy will never be able to say Star Wars is her personal sandbox, the way Lucas did when he ran Star Wars.

She really isn't.

I don't think you have a good idea of how the studio system works, plus there's the matter of her having a proven track record.

You may think otherwise, but the job and related authorities has nothing to do with what you think.

Lucasfilm has always operated outside of the typical studio system. It's why few people even remember who Richard Marquand was, and why it's impossible to tell how much of ROTJ was directed by Lucas himself. What Lucas envisioned for Lucasfilm has always been something akin to the Marvel Studios.

If Kennedy truly has authority and respect from her directors, she will not be forced to sack so many of them or rely on last-minute reshoots to ensure her vision is being realized.