ST Colin Trevorrow NOT directing Episode IX

Pablo Hidalgo deletes Tweet and apologies again
https://twitter.com/pablohidalgo/status/876830696500641792

 

I can be patient. ;-)

Well, at least insider folks like Barr and Gray are having this discussion, so LFL is clearly aware of it. If that puts a focus on making sure there is a critical read of CT's script for these types of issues, that may be enough for me.

PS I think Gray is the best addition to the NEU and I can't wait for her next. <3

 

Well to be fair Barr and Gray are still authors and the authors are not really insiders as they are more the hired help....I mean the more popular ones probably have some friends and definitely influence in the fan base but how much pull they have in the studio is another matter.

 

Claudia Grey has been superb. Sorry for slight tangent, and I know he's divisive on here, but between Claudia Grey and Chuck Wendig, the post ROTJ era has been brilliantly served in terms of the writing as far as I'm concerned

 

I'm guessing this is a joke, right? He's not going to walk away from a once in a lifetime opportunity just because we don't like his newest movie, a movie that has a limited release and is largely unknown to the general public.

 

Yep-things are on the verge of changing. It is going to be very interesting. I'd say Disney and Lucasfilm is putting a muzzle on Colin and I can even see BOH being pulled from wide release. No interviews from Colin because LF/Mouse KNOWS interviewers are going to try and snag Colin.

Now Pablo is showing restraint. I'd be very shocked if don't get a major shake up VERY soon. The "Very" is an indefinite amount of time though.

 

I meant insiders insofar as they have personal and professional relationships with people in LFL and are having these discussions, however informal, in that circle. I wasn't suggesting they have any pull, per se. I was just noting that at least we know that this is on the radar.

 

So sometime between now and May 2020.

Fair point.

 

Throw this into the mix too:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Show_(film)


To achieve instant fame,[5] eccentric millionaire Dan Sherbondy[2] funds his own reality show.[5] His Craigslist advertisements invite 10 women to compete for the title of "America's Craziest Party Girl".[5] Sherbondy, his best friend, 10 women, a midget, and an inexperienced production crew travel to Baja, Mexico,[2] but the millionaire's tough treatment of the cast and crew causes them to rise up against him. The film is narrated by Dean Welsh.[4]

Production Edit

The project began production in 2003,[5] as a self-produced[6] pilot for a reality television show[7] titled Rock the Party.[5] The pilot was funded by entrepreneur Dan Sherbondy,[2] who also hosted a late-night television show in Las Vegas, Nevada.[6]

According to director Colin Trevorrow, "It's footage of a real thing that happened, which is this guy, who is kind of a lunatic, and really just the world's biggest *******, took a crew off of Craigslist, and a bunch of women, and told them they were on a reality show. He took 'em down to Mexico, hired a bunch of guys for nothing to shoot it, and he was really just...I don't know what he was doing; he was really down there to sleep with all these women, essentially. And I was hired to direct that. It was my first thing, you know: "I'll pay you $500!" "Great! I'll do it!" And it turned into this absolute disaster."[8]

Filming locations included a hotel in the Mexican city of Rosarito Beach. Trevorrow said, "The shoot at the hotel was the seediest, worst experience of our lives…we made the worst reality show in history."[6] Sherbondy ultimately gave Trevorrow all the footage. The crew then filmed each other giving interviews about the troubled production. Trevorrow cut the interviews and footage together to form the documentary.[8] Trevorrow said "I have interviews with the crew, where they discuss this preposterous bull**** that went on. It's a strange doc about how people use this reality show medium to take advantage of people."[6]

Release Edit

Sherbondy allowed the film to be released after securing an executive producer credit and any future profits.[2] The film was first shown at the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival on November 21, 2004.[3] In 2006, the film was shown at San Francisco's DocFest and the Milwaukee Film Festival.[2][9]

In 2012, Trevorrow said the film was no longer available: "The guy it's about -- the movie is basically a documentary about how awful he is -- he actually lost a job or something over it, so he made us take it down everywhere and you can't find it anymore."[8]

 

I doubt there is anything to this but if there is then I'd love Gareth Edwards and Tony Gilroy to be rushed in.

 

Bring in the guy who needed his movie reworked and the guy who reworked it? Seems ... inefficient.

 

Meanwhile, The Book of Henry has 72% RT user score with an average rating of 7.6/10 (3.8/5).

By reading the user reviews, it seems this movie either completely connects, or completely infuriates.

 

This continues to fascinate me. I don't like the idea that CT is in charge, but I am intrigued that a movie can be so roundly detested by critics and so warmly received by general audiences. Perhaps it's a question of self-selection. People that would be most likely to dislike this movie are simply skipping it.

 

Those 72% most likely not Star Wars fanatics

 

I'm not massively informed about how this stuff works, so what's the usual correlation between critic review scores and public review scores when there's a film that's critically panned? And what equivalents are there of misjudged/misconceived films rather than just classic bad movies? This strikes me as perhaps being a Life Is Beautiful style terrible, rather than 50 shades or Adam Sandler terrible.

 

Well, Edwards and Gilroy aren't that good.

I can't remember ever seeing the themes of a filmmaker's work used against him or her to the extent that are in this thread. The stories one wants to tell are not necessarily a reflection of personal attitudes. Otherwise, we should be worried about a lot of filmmakers!Also, I'm not sure that flawed female characters (eg, a bad mother) are evidence of sexism. Strong female characters isn't what feminism ultimately wants anyway, rather I've heard it said that women would like to see a wide variety of female characters and not just caricatures.

 

This has already been addressed. There are no complaints about "flawed female characters" as a bad thing; the criticism is about what is developing into a characteristic of Trevorrow'a film making of being unable to write women. For example, the issue with Jurassic World isn't that Bryce Dallas Howard's character at the start, or at the end, was a character that shouldn't have been created - the issue was that by presenting the journey she went on as redemptive, the film itself was then inadvertently saying something about women. It got a bit of a pass at the time as a misjudgement, but the incidences keep building up.

There's definitely a discussion to be had, so if you disagree, try articulating a defence of Trevorrow's choices rather than arguing against what you think people are saying (because from your post, it's not clear that you've genuinely engaged with the issues being discussed)

 

I don't know what's standard, but just for some comparisons:

Mummy: 16:43
Wonder Woman: 92:91
Pirates of the Caribbean: 29:67
All Eyez on Me: 24:69
Cars 3: 66:79
Rough Night: 49:43
50 Shades Darker: 9:51

The thing is, these all have varying sample sizes. It probably makes the comparisons completely useless, but oh well, here they are anyway.

 

Batman vs Superman: 27:63
Suicide Squad: 25:62

Critics are more focused on the artsy/intellectual aspect of film making, audiences are more pragmatic.

 

Anecdotally, these surprise me. I haven't seen these movies, but no one that I know that saw them liked them. I encouraged a couple people I know to give WW a shot after they wrote it off due to disliking the DC Universe thus far. I would expect a movie well received by audiences to leave that impression out in the ether. I only ever encounter BvS or SS fans on the internet… which might itself be kind of telling.

 

Is it pragmatism? Or is it that critics are more likely to predict a film's long term reputation (with some glaring exceptions) while audience reviews may be positive immediately afterwards, but will eventually, generally hold a film in a similar regard to critics, in terms of how much they like it relative to other films?

 

Very likely, yes. But there is also the effect of the critic score on the long run as well.

 

It's pretty much the Internet and the fanatics who tend to vote on these things in droves while the rest of us stay home.

 

Indeed. I liked Rogue One well enough but after hearing how it was shot it's a small miracle that it turned out as well as it did. From my understanding Rogue One went through multiple writers and then Edwards went out and shot a bunch of footage and cobbled together the story after the fact.That could've gone badly soooooo easily. If they replace Tervorrow, (which they won't) I'd prefer they pick somebody that is working from a finished script instead of somebody that's trying to figure out what the story is while they're sitting in the editing booth.

 

Self-selection bias. Who's going to go see and have motivation to rate, say, Fifty Shades than someone who's inclined to like it in the first place? Critics provide a broader range of potential opinion on a given film. Of course, none of this is objective nor can it be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk