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

[Galvatron]

Kennedy will never be able to say Star Wars is her personal sandbox, the way Lucas did when he ran Star Wars.

Big deal.

I see George Lucas as being akin to Gene Roddenberry. They both painted the broad strokes and got the balls rolling, but both wound up being liabilities to their respective properties over time. I don't think it's any coincidence that TESB and ST2:TWoK are widely regarded as the pinnacle of both franchises since both films represented what they could be when their creators took a back seat to their development.

[ray245]

Kennedy will never be able to say Star Wars is her personal sandbox, the way Lucas did when he ran Star Wars.

Big deal.

I see George Lucas as being akin to Gene Roddenberry. They both painted the broad strokes and got the balls rolling, but both wound up being liabilities to their respective properties over time. I don't think it's any coincidence that TESB and ST2:TWoK are widely regarded as the pinnacle of both franchises since both films represented what they could be when their creators took a back seat to their development.

It's a big deal (monetary wise) for Disney because this mean conflicts with directors will continue to occur every so often. Look, I'm not saying Star Wars movies under Kennedy will be less successful (financially anyway), or the actual value of the movies will be inferior. SW under Kennedy is likely to produce well-reviewed movies after movies, box office success after success for a long time. Even poorly-reviewed movies will be successful at the box office.

The question is whether Lucasfilm will end up spending more money than necessary because Kennedy will not be able to fully communicate her vision of Star Wars to her directors. We have two directors that thought they were making a comedy movie because of poor communications. We have one Oscar-winning writer leaving EP 7 because of creative difference. We have extensive reshoots in R1 because Edwards thought he isn't allowed to kill off the main cast. We have the problems with the Boba Fett movie ( a movie that nobody actually wanted to see). And now we have the director of Ep 9 leaving.

This isn't a one-off incident or something that could easily be swept under the rug. This suggests that there are major communication problems between Kennedy and her directors. And given the long-standing traditions of Directors butting heads with producers because of their ego, this are signs that Kennedy doesn't fully command the respect of the directors she personally hired.

On the other hand, look at Lucas' handling of the Clone Wars series production. He hired Filoni, gave him wide responsibility for the show, and make sure Filoni can understand his creative vision without too many creative differences.

[Galvatron]

Try not to forget that Kennedy has resources like the Lucasfilm Story Group to assist and advise her in guiding the franchise in a respectful way. Your presumption that she has some sort of despotic stranglehold on the Star Wars brand is laughable, IMO.

[Q99]

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.

You do know she's a highly respected name in the company and her moves have won her a lot of regard for the recent success? And heck, far before that for her work as a producer. She is highly respected and listened to.

... honestly this sounds like some kind of sexism thing. "Oh sure, she has the job, she has success, critically successful movies that happened arguably as a direct result of her calls like the Rogue 1 reshoots, and a clear history of exercising her positional authority well, but she doesn't have respect because mumble mumble!"

Who you chose to respect has approximately jack and squat to how she's viewed within the company. Kathleen Kennedy is one of the most respected names in the movie industry.

Try not to forget that Kennedy has resources like the Lucasfilm Story Group to assist and advise her in guiding the franchise in a respectful way. Your presumption that she has some sort of despotic stranglehold on the Star Wars brand is laughable, IMO.

And I really don't think she wants a despotic strangle hold- Despotic strangle hold is where a lot of the PT's flaws came from. A boss who has people to disagree with and bounce off of is a more effective boss.

This is a person who has worked on over 60 films and was chosen because she does know how to work with people and make the calls to make a successful movie happen.

[ray245]

Try not to forget that Kennedy has resources like the Lucasfilm Story Group to assist and advise her in guiding the franchise in a respectful way. Your presumption that she has some sort of despotic stranglehold on the Star Wars brand is laughable, IMO.

Lol, I am saying the opposite. I'm saying she doesn't have the full respect of the directors she hired because she doesn't have a stranglehold on the Star Wars brand. The very moment she created the Lucasfilm story group is an act that will be used by others to undermine her vision. That act can be interpreted as being reliant on others in a way Lucas never was.

You do know she's a highly respected name in the company and her moves have won her a lot of regard for the recent success? And heck, far before that for her work as a producer. She is highly respected and listened to.

... honestly this sounds like some kind of sexism thing. "Oh sure, she has the job, she has success, critically successful movies that happened arguably as a direct result of her calls like the Rogue 1 reshoots, and a clear history of exercising her positional authority well, but she doesn't have respect because mumble mumble!"

Who you chose to respect has approximately jack and squat to how she's viewed within the company. Kathleen Kennedy is one of the most respected names in the movie industry.

What a sad troll-baiting attempt. Sure, it's so easy to call someone sexist when you conveniently ignored all the argument I am saying. Instead, you continue to rely on a very limited definition of respect and authority.

Is she a highly respected name in the industry and Lucasfilm? Sure, I'm not an idiot that denies that. Are TFA and R1 critical and financial success? Sure, those are undeniable facts. Is this about who I chose to respect? No. I'm not involved in Lucasfilm in any way, so I don't need to care who I ought to respect.

However, there are directors that have disrespected her authority as a producer. The Han Solo movie directors refused to budge and would rather walk the plank than give in. Josh Trank was fired before production even began. Trevorrow walked out of Ep 9. Michael Arnt walked out of Ep 7 as the writer. The ending of R1 was reshot with another director taking control for the reshoots.

Those are stuff that did happen. Those are creative differences that are big enough that directors and writers will rather walk away from the project than to listen to her and reshoot/rewrite everything. If she truly had sufficient influence as the creative head of the movies, all those directors and writers will probably not walk away from her in quick succession.

But NOOOO, I'm sexist for pointing out that a number of SW directors have walked away from her. It will be nice if you could actually acknowledge this isn't a one-off isolated incident. That's 4 directors and 1 writer sacked in a very short space of time. And those directors and writers are her personal hires. So either she has weak creative authority, or she is horrible at hiring directors/writers.

And I really don't think she wants a despotic strangle hold- Despotic strangle hold is where a lot of the PT's flaws came from. A boss who has people to disagree with and bounce off of is a more effective boss.

I would argue that Lucas's personal authority is why the PT succeeded in other areas. Whether you like it or hate it, the PT had vastly expanded the cinematic scope of Star Wars. No more backwater planets. No more vague details about organizations. Designs that feel sufficiently different from the OT-era while retaining the SW feel. Vastly increase the scale of the Star Wars universe with massive armies and fleets.

This is a person who has worked on over 60 films and was chosen because she does know how to work with people and make the calls to make a successful movie happen.

Those are different skill sets from running a cinematic universe. Compare Kevin Feige with Kennedy in regards to the number of directors fired. The former is vastly more successful in communicating his vision for the cinematic universe than the later.

[Galvatron]

I would argue that Lucas's personal authority is why the PT succeeded in other areas. Whether you like it or hate it, the PT had vastly expanded the cinematic scope of Star Wars. No more backwater planets. No more vague details about organizations. Designs that feel sufficiently different from the OT-era while retaining the SW feel. Vastly increase the scale of the Star Wars universe with massive armies and fleets.

I doubt we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this because you actually liked the prequels while I thought they were utter shit.

You obviously want more of what Lucas gave you with the PT and I don't, so you're already predisposed to interpret the "chaos" at Kennedy's LFL as evidence that she doesn't know what she's doing and will therefore ruin Star Wars. I obviously don't see it that way, but I also don't think that you're motivated by sexism. You're just motivated by admiration for George Lucas and I doubt that'll change any time soon no matter what Kennedy does.

[The Romulan Republic]

Personally, I think they're doing fine with the films. We haven't had an Empire Strikes Back, but we've also avoided another Phantom Menace. The films are not extraordinary, but they're solid, and they've done a couple key things largely right: how they handle diversity in casting, and portraying female characters as characters, not as well-meaning but hamfisted messages or sexual objectification; and their portrayal of Vader in both Rogue One and Rebels.

[Q99]

But NOOOO, I'm sexist for pointing out that a number of SW directors have walked away from her.

More because insisting someone has the job but not the authority or respect is something I've only ever seen applied to women in positions of authority.

It's a bizarre argument that doesn't make a lot of sense, and it just-happens to be directed at a woman in charge who's got a rather impressive track record of making good product dating back 30+ years and is a highly respected figure in the field.

When you're calling the producer of ET, Jurassic Park, and, well, two successful Star Wars films illegitimate to fill her own job, it raises questions as to what exactly you're meaning here.

It will be nice if you could actually acknowledge this isn't a one-off isolated incident. That's 4 directors and 1 writer sacked in a very short space of time. And those directors and writers are her personal hires. So either she has weak creative authority, or she is horrible at hiring directors/writers.

Yea, there's a lot, which does raise questions as to the initial hiring process, but in all the cases it frankly sounds like the second move was a right call/improvement. Maybe it's taking risks that don't pan out some of the time or something.

Which, interestingly enough, has absolutely nothing to do with the authority of her job, which is still a bizarre tangent that originates with you.

There are ways to criticize someone without attacking their basic legitimacy in rather questionable terminology, phrased to attack who she is and her status of ever holding that position, much more than what she does.

I mean, you call my response troll bait, but I assure you, I brought it up not to troll, but because I found your argument to be completely weird in your very, very eyebrow raising choice of angle of attack. You didn't start with 'isn't it kinda questionable instincts that she picked wrong in the first place, even if she cleans it up later?' nah, you flat-out called her illegitimate in her job. That is not normal criticism for producers or creative directors.

[ray245]

I would argue that Lucas's personal authority is why the PT succeeded in other areas. Whether you like it or hate it, the PT had vastly expanded the cinematic scope of Star Wars. No more backwater planets. No more vague details about organizations. Designs that feel sufficiently different from the OT-era while retaining the SW feel. Vastly increase the scale of the Star Wars universe with massive armies and fleets.

I doubt we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this because you actually liked the prequels while I thought they were utter shit.

You obviously want more of what Lucas gave you with the PT and I don't, so you're already predisposed to interpret the "chaos" at Kennedy's LFL as evidence that she doesn't know what she's doing and will therefore ruin Star Wars. I obviously don't see it that way, but I also don't think that you're motivated by sexism. You're just motivated by admiration for George Lucas and I doubt that'll change any time soon no matter what Kennedy does.

And I think you are just motivated by your hatred of the PT that you consider everything non-PT as good. I don't think the prequels are perfect films in any way, but Lucas did drag the creative designers screaming and kicking by actually creating new design that isn't more TIE fighters and X-Wings. He also moved away from the typical backwater planets that most fans are used to.

Everything under Kennedy so far has been about recreating the OT in some form. The cancellation of the Clone Wars doesn't really help her case, as we know that the production team clearly wanted to produce more season.

More because insisting someone has the job but not the authority or respect is something I've only ever seen applied to women in positions of authority.

It's a bizarre argument that doesn't make a lot of sense, and it just-happens to be directed at a woman in charge who's got a rather impressive track record of making good product dating back 30+ years and is a highly respected figure in the field.

When you're calling the producer of ET, Jurassic Park, and, well, two successful Star Wars films illegitimate to fill her own job, it raises questions as to what exactly you're meaning here.

And that means this must clearly be something sexist? In my opinion, the same criticism goes to all the WB executives trying to build the DCEU (before Geoff Johns stepped in) and failing at that task, especially with all the directors walking out from the various DCEU projects. The reason I talked about authority is that anyone who knew about movie production is aware of the creative conflict that often occurs between the producers and the directors.

Directors screaming about producers having no authority to intervene in film production is not a new phenomenon. Kennedy perceived weakness has nothing to do with her gender, but her history of not writing or directing anything. She has always been a producer, a well-respected producer, but only a producer. She also have no direct history in the production of Star Wars(prior to taking over Lucasfilm) in any way, which is problematic when she is hiring all the fanboys who grew up on Star Wars as kids.

All it takes is a director that thinks he is a bigger Star Wars fan than her, and he thinks he knows what is better for the SW film for the creative relationship to fall apart. We know that the Han Solo directors were given a choice to listen to her or walk away. They chose to walk away rather than to respect her.

Yea, there's a lot, which does raise questions as to the initial hiring process, but in all the cases it frankly sounds like the second move was a right call/improvement. Maybe it's taking risks that don't pan out some of the time or something.

Which, interestingly enough, has absolutely nothing to do with the authority of her job, which is still a bizarre tangent that originates with you.

I'm not talking about her authority as the head of Lucasfilm. I think everyone respects her ability at running the company and making sure the company is profitable. The problem is in her relationship with the group of directors she is hiring. Right now, the only two directors that seem to have a smooth creative relationship with Kennedy is JJ ABrams and Rian Johnson. Every other director have some sort of creative difference with her in some ways.

There are ways to criticize someone without attacking their basic legitimacy in rather questionable terminology, phrased to attack who she is and her status of ever holding that position, much more than what she does.

Except I'm not. This isn't about her as the president of Lucasfilm and whether she is the right person to run the company from the financial side of things. This is about whether she has an ability to make Star Wars directors listen to her and understand what she is trying to get out of a SW film as a film producer. If 4 directors and 1 writer didn't walk away from her, we won't be having this conversation at all.

The problem is SW is a franchise that many people held dear to, with many Hollywood directors being heavily influenced by the film as kids. This is a franchise where everybody has their own interpretation of what is the best SW. Some fans like the prequels, while others hated them. So who is right and who is wrong? The only person that has that authority to basically shut fans up is basically George Lucas because he created the whole thing.

Almost everyone else who isn't George Lucas himself will have massive problems with imposing their creative authority in the production of any new Star Wars films. The people who might have some form of that authority might be Kasdan because he wrote ESB. Other than that, maybe Filoni because he worked so closely with Lucas during the Clone Wars.

Do directors respect her as a well-known producer of so many hit films? Sure, I don't doubt that. But do directors respect her as the producer of a Star Wars movie? Now that is a very different issue.

I mean, you call my response troll bait, but I assure you, I brought it up not to troll, but because I found your argument to be completely weird in your very, very eyebrow raising choice of angle of attack. You didn't start with 'isn't it kinda questionable instincts that she picked wrong in the first place, even if she cleans it up later?' nah, you flat-out called her illegitimate in her job. That is not normal criticism for producers or creative directors.

Questionable instinct is only true if that happens on a one-off occasion. Producers make mistakes in the career. Nothing wrong with that. But to make the same mistakes over and over again in a span of a few years? I think any other lesser-known producers would've been sacked a long time ago. Kevin Feige made one major mistake in picking a director. But that's one director among 14 directors he hired for the MCU.

I've never called her illegitimate in her job. That's something you made up in your mind. What I said was that the directors she hired don't respect her authority to tell them what is the right interpretation of Star Wars. Whether she is running Lucasfilm is not the issue here. Those directors clearly respected her authority as Lucasfilm president to walk away from the project without raising any sort of legal fight.

Her gender has nothing to do with this, so don't try and turn it into this discussion. It's the fact that she isn't George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars that makes it hard for her to gain authority over a bunch of SW fanboys. On top of that, her creating the storygroup basically just send a message to directors/writers that she isn't good at storytelling herself. Then that is the issue of her not having any history of writing a script or directing a film personally. Lucas could have told them off because he directed SW movies himself, and wrote the scripts for Star Wars himself. He might not be the best at directing actors, but his experience as a director meant that any new directors he hired will not be willing enough to challenge his authority.

This sort of thing will always happen whenever there is a passing of the torch from the creator to someone else. Especially when George Lucas himself is happily undermining Kennedy's authority with all the public comments about how he disagreed with her approach towards TFA.

[ray245]

Article on why Trevorrow was fired:
http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/star-war ... ation.html

The clashing of ego seems to be the main cause, especially if Trevorrow's claims that he was personally chosen by Spielberg himself makes him hard to work with. So in other words, this is a director that respects directors, but not necessarily producers and studio execs.

[Mange]

JJ Abrams is to write and direct Episode IX: StarWars.com

[Vader]NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO[/Vader]

[eMeM]

OK, I'm done with the sequels.

[Galvatron]

Star Wars Into Darkness.

"My name...is...Thrawn!"

[Q99]

Not ideal, but hopefully VIII will handle the worldbuilding, and Abrams does get the character end.

The Force Awakens was good, especially in the character department, so hopefully this'll turn out well.

[Adam Reynolds]

That's that then.

I would say hopefully he gets a decent writer, but that didn't really help TFA all that much. Abrams may be descent at setup, but he generally is not at payoff. So much for this trilogy having a decent ending given what we have seen out of Abrams so far. The best I can say is that hopefully we will be pleasantly surprised.

[Q99]

I do think it helps that the SW group will, if necessary, do re-writers/additional shoots to polish things off if his thing is *almost* there.

[Galvatron]

Maybe he can bring in Damon Lindelof to help out.

[generator_g1]

Welp. Abrams will be back to write and direct Episode 9. Also the May date for the movie has been pushed back to Dec again.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/with-j-j-abrams- ... 1803866994

[The Romulan Republic]

Mixed feelings about this on my part. I stand by my previous statements that Abrams appears to be a competent (though not brilliant) director, and a mediocre-to-poor writer.

Don't mind it getting pushed back to December. Rogue One and Force Awakens were both winter releases. I'd say the tradition of Star Wars movies coming out in summer is well and truly dead, and it makes sense for Disney. Their two biggest franchises are presumably Marvel and Star Wars. The Marvel films are generally summer releases, so this lets them cover both seasons without their major blockbusters competing with one another for viewership (given my limited finances, I know I wouldn't want to have to choose between seeing the latest Marvel film and seeing the latest Star Wars film, for example, or see both but miss something else I wanted to see).

Edit: And of course, with the change in director, we wouldn't want them to rush things. Best to give Abrams a little time to get back up to speed, maybe.

[Iroscato]

OK, I'm done with the sequels.

Might you kindly squeeze a few delicious, salty tears into a cup for me on your way out?

Force Awakens was excellent, fuck the haters. He's a solid and proven choice to helm IX, and I certainly prefer him to Trevorrow personally.

[NecronLord]

And to think you all laughed at me when I said in a couple years you'd all be hating the sequels as much as anyone did the prequels.

[Adam Reynolds]

And to think you all laughed at me when I said in a couple years you'd all be hating the sequels as much as anyone did the prequels.

I wonder when the equivalent of Red Letter Media for the sequel trilogy will come out, and it will be cool to hate them as much as the prequels.

[Ender]

Ok, I'm out. Awakens was shit, everything else he has done has been repetitive derivative shit.

[Gandalf]

Ok, I'm out. Awakens was shit, everything else he has done has been repetitive derivative shit.

This was going to be repetitive and derivative anyway, regardless of whichever director was installed.

[Mange]

OK, I'm done with the sequels.

Might you kindly squeeze a few delicious, salty tears into a cup for me on your way out?

Force Awakens was excellent, fuck the haters. He's a solid and proven choice to helm IX, and I certainly prefer him to Trevorrow personally.

That's your opinion and the juvenile "fuck the haters" aside, what was so "excellent" with TFA? As much as I dislike TPM, it still feels like a seperate story though it's a variation on ANH.
TFA, on the other hand, feels like a bland remake of ANH, with TESB and ROTJ mixed in, with almost the exact same story with the same or very similar settings but with different characters.

JJ Abrams is also a poor visual storyteller. His shots are derivative, poorly framed and poorly setup. Compare how the Star Destroyer was introduced in ANH to how the new Resurgent-class was introduced in TFA. Heck, compare to how the ships were shown. In TFA you don't get a sense of the ship or its scale. Granted, it's all CG, but the director calls the shots. Also, Lucas is poor at numbers but understands and shows scale. Abrams is poor at both. And the in-your-face nostalgic shots were tedious and didn't feel natural.

Abrams is less than a stellar writer and seldom knows where he's going and can't wrap things up. The ridiculous scene (and the villain's motivation) in Star Trek (2009) where Romulus is destroyed by a supernova and Spock watching Vulcan being destroyed from afar was repeated in TFA (not the planet destroying part per se but that it could be viewed from across the galaxy). The scenes that needed some emotion lacked it.

Abrams is a poor writer and director who hasn't come up with many original ideas. He has directed and written a television series that in the end went nowhere (though he can't take all fault for it), a poor E.T. remake (sadly his best movie IMHO), a soft reboot of Star Trek, a remake of TWOK and a soft remake of Star Wars. Most of his work have no pay-offs and are derivative so I really don't have much hope for IX.