You can add annotations within the video itself for these sort of corrections. I can't tell you how, but you tube producers do it all the time.

I wish that were still the case, but KZfaq turned off the ability to add new annotations last year.

Hugo Auditore He left during pre-production, though.

And a writing credit as well.

Marvel handled their situation better,giving Lord&Miller only Executive Producer credits is weird

Marvel's situation was also easier. In the case of Ant-Man, Edgar Wright had worked on the script (and started pre-production) for a movie with essentially the same story as the finished project, but left after realizing that his vision for the movie wouldn't jive with the then-current state of the MCU. He loved his script as it was and didn't want to change, so he left and made his passion project (Baby Driver) when it became clear he and Feige were never going to see eye to eye. Peyton Reen came in and directed the whole film, and used the chunks of Wright's script that he could. By all accounts it was a good script, just not great within the MCU's continuity. With Solo, the script wasn't the problem. Lord and Miller signed on to film the script that Kasdan and Kennedy were passionate about. But as production wore on, it became clear that they weren't directing that script. Not really. Their loose, improvisational style that had served them well on the Jump Street movies didn't work in the context of Star Wars. The script was going to be compromised unless the folks at Disney and Lucasfilm did something. The result wasn't great for publicity, but would at least result in the film that the Kasdans wrote-- the film Lord and Miller promised to make.

C E Three the first ant man was far better than the second. I would have trusted lord and Chris to do what they want. They are very good at crafting a story. Kathleen Kennedy I believe is a control freak and wants to see her vision of Star Wars. There have been many more directors in the Star Wars films slate with creative differences than the mcu. I believe Kevin feige learned his lesson. In phase two there was two directors let go. Edgar write and patty. Both ant man and Thor: the dark world were not the best but then the Russo’s came on board and were given liberty. They crafted a super hero film that follows formula but also fits in another genre.

well these are the same guys that did the 21 jump street films

It wasn't funny. It was just a lot of improv, like Ghostbusters 2016.

It would cool to see a Star Wars movie that's actually funny.

Wow i see you everywhere. I really like some of your videos, they're cool.

Melanie Anne Ahern don’t you mean the SOLO vision (come on, that one was a gimme)

You're right in saying films definitely seem to work well when written and directed by the same person. But film making is a collaborative effort. To use STAR WARS as an example, the reason the original star wars films work miles better than the preqeuls is because Lucas surrounded himself with talented film makers who help takje his vision and refine it into something else. Lucas' rough cut of the original star wars was terrible; his wife had to come in and completely re-edit and re-position scenes to craft it into the masterpiece we know so well today.

RocketJump did an awesome video about this v=GFMyMxMYDNk

Auram's Production Value hey, thanks!!

Bobby Jenkins they got rid of Perlmutter who was the cause of all that. Stuff like that hasn’t happened in the MCU since Phase 2 since they let indie directors have a lot of control over the projects

MNIMnoob Hmm, I guess so, but still the stuff that did happen was worrying, same with what happened with Josh Trank over at Fox.

Wasn't Trank mostly his own problem though? Didn't he show up to set drunk/ high a bunch?

thejfreak93 Was he? I remember it having to do with the stress of being thrust into a big hollywood production too quickly, though I could be wrong.

Welcome to the 1980s.

Is 21 Jump Street one of the "best movies of the recent decade"? Are you high?

@@t.adamcollins2162 Yes, it is

Potato453 Thought the same. But maybe reshoots can be argued to be part of the post-production.

Yeah I was under the impression they had re-shot practically all the film? Ron's re-shoots were almost 3-4 months long, starting from around July 2017 and wrapping in October 2017. No way that's only 10% of the feature film. I also just wanted to point out that I loved this video and everything else ROFS puts out.

I don't think re-shoots are cinsidered "principal photography", even if it isn't considered post-production

It says in that paragraph on screen r.e. 90% business, that "the Employer may not schedule additional photography to avoid the express intent of this.." so I am pretty sure reshoots are "additional photography" and so are not included in the 90%/10% calculation.

Re-shoots are considered part of post-production since they are typically not planned or considered during pre-production. The only things that are considered part of the production phase is principle photography (the actual shooting of a film) and pick-ups (shots that the cast and crew intended and planned to film but had rescheduled) as these were all conceptualized during pre-production. Basically, if it wasn't planned in pre-production or made on the fly during production, it falls under post-production.

She won't. She always says a load of bollocks regarding Lucasfilm and doesn't care the slightest.

The third act was just a lot darker and really, really grim and didn’t have as hopeful as an ending. Gareth, I guess believed that knowing the future of the war and it’s ultimate outcome would make the darker ending more bearable and Disney disagreed.

George Daugherty Damn.. That sucks.. Disney was wrong to take that away from us..

No, they weren't. It's their property and they can do whatever the hell they want to do with it. If they feel it was in their best interests to change it, then it's completely in their right to make that change. I haven't seen Gareth Edward's cut of the film, so I can't properly make that judgement call. Disney's change may have been the right move.

George Daugherty You're right there.. It's still interesting to see how the main creative force of the film wanted to show it...

it was their *legal* right, yes, but that doesn't mean they can be wrong in other ways

Also I'd argue Whedon was the same. Saw the finished cut and was like yeah this is not something I want my name on. Could of easily had both their names as the director, not to mention, when Snyder left the project for his family issues he'd said he didn't want this name on it, hence handing the reigns over to Whedon.

Re-shoots are considered part of post-production. By Hollywood standards, principle photography and pickups have to be planned during pre-production. If it wasn't planned during pre-production or made up on the fly during production, it is considered post-production.

@@frustrated_socialist But Howard came in during production. "Re-shoots" during the production period are still considered part of principle photography.

​@@Clarkthek It doesn't matter if Howard came in during post-production or production, such extensive re-shoots were probably not planned during pre-production therefore they're considered part of post-production. Something is only considered principle photography or pickups when its planned out by the crew, studio, etc during the pre-production process and I think it's safe to assume that Lucasfilms and Disney did not plan to reshoot 70-80% of Solo during pre-production. And furthermore, it's also extremely likely that Solo, like alot of other films, had its production and post-production running at the same time so the distinction really does come down to whether it was planned before production began or not.

The Kasdan’s wrote it (father and son).

Nobody is really "the author" as every person behind the scenes is a part of the movies creation. But the "official" storyteller is the credited director(s). Its like saying who's the "actually musician" in a band? Every band member has a part to play, bult ultimately who ends up lead singing the song is the one(s) connecting with the audience

Cobra Commander that's like saying the script writer is the "author" of the film. But the script nor the lyrics/written musical notes is the end of the presentation. In a book yes, but in other mediums no. Interpretation of the script/written song is also a major factor. The WAY u tell the story, the WAY you sing and play the song makes a major difference for the filan products. It's like saying the blueprint of an architects building should get all the credit, while the people in charge of building and organising the logic behind the production it are only tools. The only time the author is "the author" is when it is written work, in any other cases it's always a much more complicated issue. The moment someone adapts a written work/drawing it becomes something entirely new again

No one, is a manufactured product made to please the necesitys of the market place not to make an artistic statement

I trust Lawrence Kasdan's opinion the most. If he was not happy with the dailies, then there might have been a significant issue that required the switch.

Not to mention vision and creativity

I find it odd it was because of the humor, TLJ had ton of humor and a lot of them felt like mcu movie jokes, a yo momma joke in Star Wars! Really?

i have never laughed at a SW movie, they can make do without the humor

The Abortion Humour in a film doesn't always have to make you laugh you know.

@ The Abortion I agree. I never had a laugh out loud moment in the OT, doesn't mean I don't enjoy those movies though, in fact they're my favorite movies of all time. I don't agree with the forced cringy moments they've tried to pass as humor in the recent movies.

That is exactly why they were fired! They brought their unique brand of storytelling and film-making, hence Lawrence Kasdan who also had an unnecessary issue with them which fulled them being unfairly sacked. She did not allow them any creative freedom and as Donald Glover stated recently there was miscommunication which added more chaos to the chaos that was already there. The bottom line is that Kathleen Kennedy and the franchise used them, I mean they even called George Lucas on-set to calm things down after the chaos, what a cheap shot! And I know the difference between a comedy and a space western thank you!

Then the franchise shouldn't have hired them in the first place. For your information these are guys are not amateurs! Their filmography includes 21 Jump Street, The Lego Movie and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. Come on! They're artists with a unique take on storytelling and cinema, in addition they're everything this franchise is not which is brave, open-minded, ambitious and artistic. Thank goodness they didn't reign themselves in, they have an honest view of what they want and they stuck by it like true artists. They are exactly what contemporary cinema needs today regardless whether it's a massive or small budget. Oh please! George Lucas came on-set because him and Ron go way back, please! Who are you kidding! The reality is that Phil Lord and Christopher Miller could've elevated the franchise but they (Star Wars) were too controlling and let's face it not brave enough. The question that will plague fans is what could've been? There's plenty of evidence that they were not allowed creative freedom. After they were sacked, an acting coach was called on-set to "help" Alden Ehrenreich who is a great actor and the great Michael K. Williams lost his appearance in the film because of their actions. The moral here is that they did them wrong, furthermore they're just concerned with money nothing more. This is not a fanboy speaking, I'm a cinephile for your information. Lastly let's respect each other, we don't want to turn this into a swearing match. So mature up!

Coverage in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Some of the greats do that. What I think the problem was is that Disney didn’t understand Lord and Miller’s process. It’s not at all like most directors. Either that, or they were just doing a shitty job, which is probably more likely.

Getting basic coverage is not a bad thing, in fact it's pretty standard and incredibly smart to have your shit covered when you get to the editing room, so you're not forced down one pipe that may not have turned out the way you want. Their style probably didn't match up with the kind of movie they were hired on for.

TheCrazyMarkman that's not what I said and you're strawmanning me

I have legitimate second hand info from someone that worked on the film that it wasn't working out

You clearly haven't seen a Ron Howard film if you believe what you're saying about him. Not getting enough coverage usually the directors don't know what the hell they're doing. They were trying to get fired, anyway. They were fired from Cloudy and a Chance of Meatballs 2 and said they purposely trying to get fired after realizing that they made a mistake in signing up to do that project. The same thing likely happened with Han Solo. Coverage is NEVER the reason why some blockbuster films suck, though.

I think he used the clip in the context of the shoot having been, by all accounts, very smooth. Rian Johnson and Ram Bergman, his producer, delivered the film on schedule and on budget, staying true to the script Rian had presented, and had (again, reportedly) a solid relationship with cast, crew and studio. I've seen this pointed out somewhere else, but this would be one of the reasons why the behind the scenes feature was "allowed" to go into some details regarding Mark Hamill's reservations with the direction of Luke's character, because otherwise, there was no real drama in that production, since it was (again, reportedly) so well run.

He directed Willow after that which Lucas wrote and produced

Howard has said that Lucas had also offered him the director's chair for "Episode I", but he refused right away (before even reading the script), because he thought it wasn't his film to make, but Lucas's.

Domenic Serena It's fucking Star Wars. Everybode wants to work on it...

Not under Kathleen Kennedy's watch...

The Logomaker Damn I can see why

CR I agree with you,Lucasfilm should hire directors based on their previous work and if it matches their vision of the project,not hire people and fire them because their vision don't match.

CR besides that,they should know that any film with that kind of director change affects the audience trust.

CR sorry for the English,it's a second language.

It goes both ways. How good is she a producer if she didn't realize the kind of films Lord and Miller make and how their style would clash? I could've seen that from a mile away. She's old-school and they're meta-modern.

An interesting analysis. But what's more likely: That Kathleen Kennedy - near-lifelong film producer of some of the biggest franchises in the history of cinema, who has worked with, and coordinated, and employed thousands of people over the years - is incapable of correctly judging creative professionals and working relationships that are so incredibly obvious to everyone else? ...Or ...that you're naive and uninformed on this issue? I'm telling you (and every other armchair film producer in the world), there is NO WAY that Disney made the decision to switch directors based off of KK's personal preference. They did not defer to her in this case. There was a huge debate about it, I guarantee you. KK did not have final say in this matter. She had a say, for sure. But she doesn't get to make these decisions on her own. No way. She didn't decide to HIRE them on her own. She didn't decide to FIRE them on her own. Of course, that being said, major studios like to hire cool young directors for THREE reasons: 1. They bring a lot of creative, hip ideas (and talent, like actors and so on) to projects. 2. They don't have the juice in Hollywood to push back against the studio too hard and ultimately have to do what the studios wants... or be fired (which can actually be helpful to young directors because most of them have never worked on these scales before). 3. They're CHEAP. It happens all the time. FOX is particularly fond of hiring young, cheap, intimidatable directors.

They are.

CaptainRidley, no. That's tons of time and money still waisted. She should have known and decided sooner. The substantial amount of money lost there is nothing to brush off, especially when Star Wars is hitting a big down trend already.

CaptainRidley, because TLJ is a direct numerical sequel. Yet TLJ made around 1 billion less than Force Awakens. 1 billion dollars. It did bad enough that they couldn't get toys to sell, toys that that Toys R Us was depending on. Now the chain store is no more. The movie got bashed by critics. It alienated fans and the creators continue to alienate even more themselves by the week, including Kathleen. Now, interest in the following Star Wars movies is plummeting. Interest ratings in Solo is just about an all-time low and even the pre-release ratings are far less than stellar to say the least. If Kathleen replaced a near whole other movie with one that many critics are calling "mostly boring"... oh boy, things are not looking good for Solo. Yes, it'll make development money back. The Star Wars brand made sure of that even for its bad prequel movies. In the end, they were still widely known bad movies that didn't make as much as they could have, same as TLJ. Likely the same as Solo too. Time will tell with that one.

CaptainRidley , and his trust was misplaced. She turned on Lucas not long after she took over. In an older interview with him present, she was saying "we're doing this for the fans, keeping the characters as they were originally intended," ect, ect... then later came nothing but interviews of them dismissing fans and scripts changing characters. Oh, now that the results are in: Solo bombed. It may have hit 4th biggest opening for 2018, but it is still the worst selling SW movie and still has yet to make up for production values, being that it is the most expensive SW made to date (which it wouldn't be if Kathleen didn't call for most of the movie to be re-shot). Original box office predictions were for it to hit 200 million for the weekend sales, which would've made up for 90% of the production value. Instead, it barely hit 85 mil in the US and a total of 100 international. Granted, quite a few are saying "it's bland and unneeded, but it's still better than TLJ." But that's not really going to help put butts in seats after how bad TLJ was and how many people clearly want someone more qualified in charge. Perhaps the people who run the Marvel movies, who tend to respect fans, source material, and still manage to put butts in seats. I mean, Infinity War crushed it with a well over 200 million at the weekend box office. In fact, I went to see it again last weekend.

That was Ram Bergman, producer on The Last Jedi. He produces all of Rian Johnson's movies.

Just imagine hot garbage. There you go, Snyder cut.

Hey there's no need for immaturity. It's fine if you're not a fan of Zack Snyder's work, but there are people who admire him. There's no shame in showing some respect. Let's be adults.

Walter Scott yeah at least we can laugh at the cheesiness in the prequels

Rush

MNIMnoob - "Cinderella Man" is better than anything Lord & Miller will ever be involved with.

octagonproplex Well, The Lego Movie and 21 Jump Street (along with the rest of Lord and Miller's movies) have been better than anything Ron Howard has come out with in years. Fun creative minds like Lord and Miller would of been perfect for Star Wars.

LUXKIO I heavily disagree. Lord and Miller make entertaining movies but Howard makes truly great movies. I love the LEGO movie but it’s not art in the same way that Howard’s work is.

+Liam Ryan No, but I think it almost equals it. Plus, doesn't some of the stuff feel like it is like a live-action stop motion movie? How is that not artsy?

There's really nothing to say that the Lord & Miller film would have been any better. Just because the Howard version isn't getting great review doesn't automatically mean that the alternative would have been an improvement, and with all the production issues I'm personally more inclined to believe that there was good reason behind the director switch. Ron Howard directed Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind (both very solid films), and we still got what seems like a lackluster movie, so the success of the Lego Movie doesn't necessarily say much. Besides, I'm not sure a Star Wars movie with the same tone as The Lego Movie and 21 Jump Street (which from what I've heard is what they tried to do) would sit very well with Star Wars fans.

Except that wasn't a video of Lord & Miller lol...

The mixed reviews to Ron Howard's cut of Solo is not an indication of the quality of the cut Lord and Miller would have produced. And this isn't to disparage either Howard or Lord and Miller, I think all three men are brilliant creative minds when put into the right circumstances but Solo was not the right circumstances for any of them. Also the sacking of Lord and Miller is just the reality of the industry, onset disagreements can often lead to people being shuffled through positions. Even Marvel is no exception to this as we never got to see an Edger Wright Ant-man (which I would have greatly preferred). Think of it this way, if studios stick too hard to their directors and talent, they end up like the DCEU, trapped under the weight of Zack Snyder (Who I actually like as a director). I haven't seen the film but I would venture to say that it would be better for the still developing Star Wars Extended Universe if Solo turned out to be meh then absolutely terrible. And this is just speculation on my part, but after seeing the hardcore fanboy backlash against the humor of the Last Jedi (Which I actually liked), I feel that the humor from Lord and Miller would not have been well received by a good portion of the audience.

72% on Rotten Tomatoes is not bad! Lol! There are plenty of beloved cult classics at that ranges. The main thing is is the that you, yourself enjoy it.

Raul Torres Read this article. It will give you a much better perspective of why they were fired: www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-why-han-solo-movie-directors-were-fired-1015474 I don't think their "creative vision" wouldn't have worked in a Stars Wars movie, let a alone a Han Solo movie. I think they are better on their own, and making original movies...rather than messing with franchises of studios like Disney. BTW I really liked the Lego Movie, and 21 Jump Street is solid, but thanks to the writing...the direction of the movie is meh. The same with 22 JS, is good and entertaining but nothing else, certainly not better than de first one. Cheers.

A director who makes Rush, Apollo 13, and a Beautiful Mind is never somebody who should be considered a hack.

+Aldrich Leblanc Maybe not, but, jeez...do you just hate school or something? If ya don't like "pretentious" stuff, which it has some pretention in there, in that it isn't meant to be that loose, then fine, but these were considered good films for a reason. You don't need to be a jerk to say your opinion.

Aldrich Leblanc No, by film critics who liked the movie for technical stuff, like its craft and it's technique.

+Aldrich Leblanc Except he already directed a movie that's considered a classic, called Apollo 13. Those are often remembered within a little more than that.

+Aldrich Leblanc What do you mean a lot of critics don't? They do! It's even got its own 20th anniversary celebration on how much of a classic it is! It's not the biggest classic ever, but it has some status as a somewhat important film.