Lucasfilm‘s HR department has been pretty busy this summer. Between Phil Lord and Chris Miller exiting the Han Solo spinoff earlier this year over creative differences, while the movie was in the production no less, and Colin Trevorrow removing himself from “Star Wars: Episode IX” for reportedly similar reasons, the keepers of the franchise haven’t come off looking so good. In fairness, there’s no doubt that Kathleen Kennedy’s primary job is to protect the value of the brand at all costs, but it does make you wonder why you’d hire young filmmakers with bold new cinematic voices in the first place, only to mute that talent. Well, it’s certainly something that a director watching from the sidelines has some questions about.
READ MORE: J.J. Abrams Will Return To Direct ‘Star Wars: Episode IX’
Collider recently caught up with John Landis, and the director rather awkwardly dragged Lucasfilm into his response when asked if he had any movies in the works. Essentially, he compared the lack of risk-taking at Lucasfilm with the rest of the industry as a whole.
“I have many things that I’m working on, whether or not they’ll ever become real, I don’t know. You know, Joe Dante and myself and a few other guys I know are in the same position. They’re not hiring people who have opinions,” Landis said.” They think, ‘He knows what he’s doing, I’m not hiring him!’ Look at ‘Star Wars.’ They keep firing guys. Phil Lord and Chris Miller, those guys are really talented. They’re really funny and original guys. They shot 75% of the movie and I gotta tell you, it doesn’t speak well for the new Lucasfilm. How many directors have they fired? Four. How many writers? Twelve.”
“It’s very worrying. Remember when George Lucas said that he felt like he sold his kids into white slavery? Well…,” he added.
READ MORE: Taika Waititi Throws Playful Shade At Lucasfilm’s Director Drama
In case you forget, almost two years ago, Lucas called Disney “white slavers” when referring to their purchase of Lucasfilm, only to quickly (and wisely) roll back those comments. I’m not sure it’s a great idea to dredge up that comparison again, but it does illustrate how little Landis regards the regime at Lucasfilm at the moment.
Thoughts? Hit up the comments section.
I agree with his assertion about the lack of risk taking (it apparently doesn’t hurt them at the box office) but I’m curious how he would handle a director (Trevorrow) or anyone else who by all accounts was an asshole? Is having to deal with a nasty person worth it if he has an opinion?
Trevorrow, asshole or no, is a bland director. There was very little in the way of aesthetic style in Jurassic World. Although the screenplay had some interesting ideas much of the dialogue was woeful and the filmmaking was dull. I do not want a boring director in charge of one of the most treasured franchises of all time.
Trevorrow put the white in rice on Jurrassic World. Bland to the point of forgetful.
I have more and better memories of Jurrassic Park III, than I do of JW.
It’s not that Trevorrow was fired because he was a Maverick. It’s more like they thought they’d get someone who’d direct a committee approved film without any resistance. That in a nutshell is why a number of indie film makers are hired to direct modern blockbusters. The directors get hands on experience with the big studios. The studios get a respectable product with factory controlled aesthetics. Sometimes it works (see Chris Nolan) sometimes it crashes and burns (Josh Trank)
I’m sorry, but I think recent history (the last 20 years) has pretty much proven that both Landis and Dante were fluke directors, who’s greatest contributions to the world of cinema were both made more than 35(!) years ago.
And both contributions were then brutally scared by utterly terrible sequels that had little or no understanding of what made the original a classic in the first place.
John, you’re 67. Time to retire.
A fluke? Are you kidding me?
Even being kind, Landis had 9 years of quality. Dante had 3.
And none of that makes what he said untrue.
Have you seen Gremlins, Gremlins 2 or the Burbs? All three of those were great comedy/horror films.
Yes, I have. Which is what leads me to my statement.
Gremlins – a true Classic in every sense of the word.
Gremlins 2 – a horrible sequel with little or no connection to the original in terms of tone. Also, it’s a 6.3 on IMDB. Gremlins is a 7.2. Nuff said.
The Burbs – I loved, loved this film growin’ up. But that being said, it hasn’t aged all that well. And is a far cry from being a classic in any sense. It is funny though, I’ll give you that. Bruce Dern falling off the roof cracks me up every time. But still, it is a mediocre comedy that just happens to have my sense of humour. It isn’t proof of any directorial genius.
Phil Lord and Chris Miller did not author Star Wars, so people shouldn’t give them so much ownership of it