Kathleen Kennedy's Lucasfilm Deal Extended for Three Years

Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
14
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-chief-kathleen-kennedys-lucasfilm-deal-extended-three-years-1147653


Kathleen Kennedy has reignited her lightsaber. The lead producer and architect of the Star Wars franchise has renewed her contract to remain president of Lucasfilm for another three years, through 2021, The Hollywood Reporter has learned.

The move is a vote of confidence in Kennedy, who took command of Lucasfilm after Disney’s $4 billion acquisition from George Lucas in 2012 and has overseen the relaunch of Star Wars, one of the most revered movie properties in cinematic history. Disney's four new Star Wars films have grossed almost $4.5 billion at the worldwide box office. Ancillary and merchandising have brought billions more into the studio's coffers.
:whistling:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 24, 2016
Messages
231
Reaction score
1
Location
Texas
Faith in your new president, misplaced it may be. As is your faith in the sequels.

~

Horrible news.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
7
Surely this means the release date for the Rian Johnson trilogy is right around the corner!
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Messages
208
Reaction score
1
With today's post of Gary Kurtz's passing, it would've been a much better omen if the passing of the manifestation/personification of the opposite of Kennedy's Star Wars impact coincided with Kennedy's removal, rather than her extension.
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
1,661
Reaction score
0
Beat me to it. Well I guess that ends the discussion on her being fired along with Rain Johnson.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
2,241
Reaction score
35
Location
Philadelphia
It's almost as if the person who said "Cray Cray KK" was going to be fired by the end of September didn't have the first damn idea what he was talking about.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
12,529
Reaction score
0
I'll just simply quote one of Decepticon Blitzwing's line from the Transformers episode "Triple Takeover"

Coach: "Sorry, I got a contract!"
Blitzwing: "Contracts, like traitors....are made to be broken.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,534
Reaction score
167
Location
NJ
"But it hasn’t always been easy money. Kennedy has had to replace directors on two movies that were either in production or post-. Chris Lord and Phil Miller were fired from Solo: A Star Wars Story on June 20, 2017, less than a year before the film's release. Kennedy also effectively replaced Rogue One: A Star Wars Story director Gareth Edwards with helmer Tony Gilroy, though Edwards kept his directing credit. Last year, Colin Trevorrow, who was to have directed Star Wars: Episode IX, was fired and replaced with the series' Episode VII helmer, J.J. Abrams, a week later. "

Kennedy's deal extension also follows a polarizing reaction to Last Jedi — which sits at 91 percent fresh on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes but was flooded with unusually angry fan complaints on social media about key plot choices. The reaction to Last Jediand Solo is resulting in a shift in studio strategy, with Disney making plans to slow the output of movies. "You can expect some slowdown," Disney CEO Bob Iger told THR in an interview published on Sept. 20, adding, "but that doesn't mean we're not going to make films."


At least they are acknowledging the fact that TLJ had had some negative impact on the franchise (unlike a bunch of delusional fans) and hopefully they keep that in mind on future projects.

I also see "potential" when referencing the Rian Johnson Trilogy...so hopefully that ends up canned.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
7
Lucasfilm is developing feature projects from Game of Thrones creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, as well as a potential trilogy from Rian Johnson, the filmmaker behind Last Jedi. Johnson, however, is currently prepping to shoot a detective thriller that is to star Daniel Craig.
Potential? Why did they use the word potential, when we all know the Rian Johnson trilogy is 100% guaranteed? Maybe they meant to say it has the potential to be super wonderful?
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,792
Reaction score
69
Location
Oregon
"But it hasn’t always been easy money. Kennedy has had to replace directors on two movies that were either in production or post-. Chris Lord and Phil Miller were fired from Solo: A Star Wars Story on June 20, 2017, less than a year before the film's release. Kennedy also effectively replaced Rogue One: A Star Wars Story director Gareth Edwards with helmer Tony Gilroy, though Edwards kept his directing credit. Last year, Colin Trevorrow, who was to have directed Star Wars: Episode IX, was fired and replaced with the series' Episode VII helmer, J.J. Abrams, a week later. "

Kennedy's deal extension also follows a polarizing reaction to Last Jedi — which sits at 91 percent fresh on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes but was flooded with unusually angry fan complaints on social media about key plot choices. The reaction to Last Jediand Solo is resulting in a shift in studio strategy, with Disney making plans to slow the output of movies. "You can expect some slowdown," Disney CEO Bob Iger told THR in an interview published on Sept. 20, adding, "but that doesn't mean we're not going to make films."
This right here is what bothers me, she hired them in the first place. If they weren't right for SW, wouldn't you have been able to determine this prior to? Just like Actors have to audition for a role. Directors have to give some kind of body of work and a treatment for what they plan to do for your story. You don't exactly hire some rube off the street and give them 100% freedom day one.
So IMO, her track record on SW isn't exactly stellar. I get that some people don't work out, aren't a good fit. It's happened with Marvel a few times.
But she doesn't fill me with confidence at all, which is why I have zero expectation for Star Wars anymore.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Messages
208
Reaction score
1
the taste of bigots' tears is delicious
The delusion of those individuals who (mistakenly) believe they're entitled simply because of sad SJW dogma including the "everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot" victim-mentality baloney is simply outrageous. Sad.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
8
The delusion of those individuals who (mistakenly) believe they're entitled simply because of sad SJW dogma including the "everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot" victim-mentality baloney is simply outrageous. Sad.
only people playing the victim card are the angry white males that think women and minorities are incapable of doing anything unless some hidden agenda forces them upon the masses. Sorry if my post hit too close to home for you. Spout some more alt right buzzwords and acronyms to make yourself feel better.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Messages
208
Reaction score
1
only people playing the victim card are the angry white males that think women and minorities are incapable of doing anything unless some hidden agenda forces them upon the masses. Sorry if my post hit too close to home for you. Spout some more alt right buzzwords and acronyms to make yourself feel better.
Ain't gonna happen.

I'm not even a white male. I'm not even that against all Kennedy's decisions.

I am, however, against the hypocrisy of racist, sexist poor sports like you who think you can get away with your trashy, illogical, all-or-nothing identity statements (i.e. "white males") that a certain part of the media/culture has made you feel comfortable with.

So, yeah, in the way of you bringing "bigotry" into this thread giving anyone like yourself the option of relegating movie/franchise criticism to the raving of bigots did hit too close to home. I'm disgusted to see what our culture has become.

I'm not afraid to educate you with the truth... in issues like this, you should be focused on movie/franchise reviewing.

Instead, you are a delusional SJW muddying the waters of franchise discussion by playing the race and gender card. Nothing more, and likely less.

EDITED TO ADD: Acronym too off-putting? If it makes you feel better, replace the "SJW" acronym with "individual possessing high amount of (typically baseless) passion on issues of social justice"
Grow up.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,327
Reaction score
153
Location
Pennsylvania
only people playing the victim card are the angry white males that think women and minorities are incapable of doing anything unless some hidden agenda forces them upon the masses. Sorry if my post hit too close to home for you. Spout some more alt right buzzwords and acronyms to make yourself feel better.

WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! I'm going to stop you right there...you know what an acronym is? ;)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
8
Ain't gonna happen.

I'm not even a white male. I'm not even that against all Kennedy's decisions.

I am, however, against the hypocrisy of racist, sexist poor sports like you who think you can get away with your trashy, illogical, all-or-nothing identity statements (i.e. "white males") that a certain part of the media/culture has made you feel comfortable with.

So, yeah, in the way of you bringing "bigotry" into this thread giving anyone like yourself the option of relegating movie/franchise criticism to the raving of bigots did hit too close to home. I'm disgusted to see what our culture has become.

I'm not afraid to educate you with the truth... in issues like this, you should be focused on movie/franchise reviewing.

Instead, you are a delusional SJW muddying the waters of franchise discussion by playing the race and gender card. Nothing more, and likely less.

EDITED TO ADD: Acronym too off-putting? If it makes you feel better, replace the "SJW" acronym with "individual possessing high amount of (typically baseless) passion on issues of social justice"
Grow up.
Well you didn't say a single thing about the movies. You just ranted about social justice warriors and saying women and minorities only get parts because of "entitlement". As usual, people like yourself can dish it out but can't take it. You can't spout a bunch of buzzwords from fox news and not expect to be called out for it. There's not a single thing that I've posted that's even close to racist or hypocritical. The vast majority of the people that use right wing buzzwords are white, male, and angry. That's a fact. It has nothing to do with not liking the movies. The people that genuinely dislike them actually talk about the movies instead of ranting about Cray Cray Kennedy and Ruin Johnson (how clever!!!) every single post.

Enjoy the salt, being on the wrong side of history, and your personal pride in your ignorance and bigotry.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
12,529
Reaction score
0
This right here is what bothers me, she hired them in the first place. If they weren't right for SW, wouldn't you have been able to determine this prior to?

IDK, but I believe that a proper cinematic chemistry has to develop between the directors and actors. This article pretty much sums it up, particularly considering Lord/Miller's script largely remained unchanged after their departure.

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/03/solo-actor-phil-lord-chris-miller-werent-prepared-star-wars-alden-ehrenreich-not-good-1201943599/

Eventually, it comes to the getting the tone right for the movie, which apparently Kennedy/Kasdan weren't happy with. And like the Sophia Coppola example, actors should feel that they have a significant contribution in the director's vision, but it seems it never developed in this situation. Lord/Miller themselves have said they didn't believe in 'creative differences' which they believe was a cliché, but maybe imposing that on a over 40 year franchise might have presented a challenge for them. Plus, their novice experience in live-action coming out of the animation industry may have contributed to that as well. Eventually, Kennedy made the call perhaps going on the conservative/secure route....maybe too little/too late in lieu of The Last Jedi.

Now my co-workers have 'accused' me at looking at the world through rose-colored glasses and the glass half full, so it's my hope Kennedy spends the next couple of years truly reflecting on the life-lessons learned on her taking the reins in finding new, creative and APPEASING ways to maintain the franchise in an ongoing and forward momentum. But at the same token, going on a conservation/secure route might take a toll on future Star Wars projects losing a bit of grandness and epic-ness in them. She might be a product of old corporate Hollywood, but I think she might to exercise some trepidation if she wants to take the franchise at all in some progressive direction.

 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
1,661
Reaction score
0
This right here is what bothers me, she hired them in the first place. If they weren't right for SW, wouldn't you have been able to determine this prior to? Just like Actors have to audition for a role. Directors have to give some kind of body of work and a treatment for what they plan to do for your story. You don't exactly hire some rube off the street and give them 100% freedom day one.
So IMO, her track record on SW isn't exactly stellar. I get that some people don't work out, aren't a good fit. It's happened with Marvel a few times.
But she doesn't fill me with confidence at all, which is why I have zero expectation for Star Wars anymore.
and just like in real life sometimes you hire the wrong person. This happens in movies quite a lot really where an actor or director isn't working or they have a different view on what the movie should be. \|


Famously Eric Stotlz was Marty in Back to the Future but it wasn't until several days into filming that they realized he wasn't working.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
7

Now my co-workers have 'accused' me at looking at the world through rose-colored glasses and the glass half full, so it's my hope Kennedy spends the next couple of years truly reflecting on the life-lessons learned on her taking the reins in finding new, creative and APPEASING ways to maintain the franchise in an ongoing and forward momentum. But at the same token, going on a conservation/secure route might take a toll on future Star Wars projects losing a bit of grandness and epic-ness in them. She might be a product of old corporate Hollywood, but I think she might to exercise some trepidation if she wants to take the franchise at all in some progressive direction.
Whether she reflects on it or not, that's the direction the franchise is headed anyways. The recent articles and comments all state that they're slowing down and taking a more disciplined approach to new projects. I wonder how many more SW films will even be released by the end of her contract in 2021. Obviously, she'll influence the ones in production during that time period, too, but Iger seems to be very interested in correcting the course for Star Wars, and his contract is currently also secured through 2021.

and just like in real life sometimes you hire the wrong person. This happens in movies quite a lot really where an actor or director
isn't working or they have a different view on what the movie should be. \|


Famously Eric Stotlz was Marty in Back to the Future but it wasn't until several days into filming that they realized he wasn't working.
The key word in your statement is "sometimes." The BTTF analogy would only be accurate to the mass replacements at Lucasfilm if they recast Marty, Doc, Lorraine, and Biff. It's happening way to frequently at Lucasfilm to be able to write it off as one of those odd things that happens once in a blue moon.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
12,529
Reaction score
0
and taking a more disciplined approach to new projects.
This is the part that I'm most interested in more than time-scale. I just can't say for sure if the time frames allow for wiggle rooms in the event of reshoots and such if they struggle to fix the 'discipline' aspect of it (as in the case for Solo).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
8
Definitely shouldn't have put out Solo so close to The Last Jedi and stuck it in the middle of the Infinity War hype. Should have put it out this fall or something.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,792
Reaction score
69
Location
Oregon
Maybe, but IMO Solo is one SW movie that belongs in May. The others don't matter so much because technically they aren't related to the OT the way this movie is. So I see the reason. It's not Solo's fault that other movies we scheduled in May too. lol
I mean it's not like it should matter, how many times do people go to the movies time and time again?

Whether she reflects on it or not, that's the direction the franchise is headed anyways. The recent articles and comments all state that they're slowing down and taking a more disciplined approach to new projects. I wonder how many more SW films will even be released by the end of her contract in 2021. Obviously, she'll influence the ones in production during that time period, too, but Iger seems to be very interested in correcting the course for Star Wars, and his contract is currently also secured through 2021. .
The sad part is that their ignorance will not allow them to admit it isn't about quantity, but quality of content in the story. If they continue to push the same BS infused movies, only reducing the number of movies per year. Then nothing is really changing, just their "appearance'' of slowing down and trying to get it right.

At the end of the day I just want to watch an enjoyable movie with characters having a fun adventurous ride, untainted by strategically infused PC BS.

If you want to tell a story about people who've had it rough in life, it's called Schindler's List! Those are the types of movies I go see when I'm in the mood for an authentic or a true story based events.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
74
Definitely shouldn't have put out Solo so close to The Last Jedi and stuck it in the middle of the Infinity War hype. Should have put it out this fall or something.
Why? Because people are only allowed to see one film a month?

'Solo' was out for AGES. If anyone actually wanted to go, they could have easily gone to see it.

Nobody went, cos nobody was interested.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
3,965
Reaction score
5
i will probably watch one more movie. if i dislike it like the prior ones, i wont watch anymore. i dont care who is in charge/who makes it, i just want a good movie. i did not enjoy ep8, and while i watched solo and liked it a little bit, i just dont enjoy them like i used to
honestly, other than rogue one, i havent really liked most of the new movies
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
8
Why? Because people are only allowed to see one film a month?

'Solo' was out for AGES. If anyone actually wanted to go, they could have easily gone to see it.

Nobody went, cos nobody was interested.
Not at all but there are a good sized chunk of the movie going audience that only goes a handful of times a year.. If there's a bunch of good stuff out at once, they may only pick one of them.

Ages is a stretch. The poor opening resulted in a much quicker drop in number of screens and the overall run was maybe a month long.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
8
Maybe, but IMO Solo is one SW movie that belongs in May. The others don't matter so much because technically they aren't related to the OT the way this movie is. So I see the reason. It's not Solo's fault that other movies we scheduled in May too. lol
I mean it's not like it should matter, how many times do people go to the movies time and time again?

I've been over the whole Star Wars in may crap for years. It's just too fan manufactured for my tastes.

There's plenty of people that go multiple times but fact of the matter is that Infinity War got that money. There's also lots of people that rarely go to the movies because it's cheaper to buy the movies and watch it in the comfort of their own home on a killer TV.

There wasn't any one thing that killed Solo in the theaters, it was just a bunch of things all combined together. Just for starters....

- competing against Avengers
- not wanting to see anyone but Ford play Solo
- some just didn't want a Han movie to begin with
- filming issues essentially being a red flag
- too close to The Last Jedi
- and sometimes good movies just do bad at the box office

I will be pretty curious about what the blu ray and digital sales are.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
74
Not at all but there are a good sized chunk of the movie going audience that only goes a handful of times a year...
Even at that. If they REALLY want to go, they'll go.

It's no excuse for Solo's terrible BO returns.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,792
Reaction score
69
Location
Oregon
Well, i only go to a handful of movies a year. They all consist of MCU, SW/Star Trek, and DC being as I'm a fan of those properties. Some aren't as good as others, but I still go out of pure curiosity and of course loyalty i guess. However, recently that loyalty has been severely tested by three of those properties. For me, MCU is the only one getting it right. So i can see where some people would flat out choose not to go.

In the end though I usually end up going, and am often rewarded with lackluster boredom as my reward. lol
That's what happens when I ignore my instinct, and am hesitant about seeing a movie in Theaters.

I don't see them as "excuses" on why Solo under performed, just reasons why. And they've all been discussed. I do feel it's a combination of many things. But not "oh I've seen way too many movies this year". In the end, if you're a Fan you will go. Simply out of pure curiosity, and love for the brand.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
8
Well, i only go to a handful of movies a year. They all consist of MCU, SW/Star Trek, and DC being as I'm a fan of those properties. Some aren't as good as others, but I still go out of pure curiosity and of course loyalty i guess. However, recently that loyalty has been severely tested by three of those properties. For me, MCU is the only one getting it right. So i can see where some people would flat out choose not to go.

In the end though I usually end up going, and am often rewarded with lackluster boredom as my reward. lol
That's what happens when I ignore my instinct, and am hesitant about seeing a movie in Theaters.

I don't see them as "excuses" on why Solo under performed, just reasons why. And they've all been discussed. I do feel it's a combination of many things. But not "oh I've seen way too many movies this year". In the end, if you're a Fan you will go. Simply out of pure curiosity, and love for the brand.
That's how I am. I only go to Marvel and Star Wars movies in the theaters but even then I'm a little picky on the Marvel ones. For instance, Ant Man and Wasp is a movie I want to see but I can wait for it on blu ray. I've got a nice tv and watching at home as lots of advantages. Cheaper to own the movie than it is for 2 tickets to see it in 3D, can get food and go to the bathroom without missing parts of the movie, etc.

People like us are why Moviepass is completely changing the theater industry the way that Napster changed the music industry.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
14
Even at that. If they REALLY want to go, they'll go.

It's no excuse for Solo's terrible BO returns.
Not if they can only afford to hit up the movie theater once a month. Infinity War came out at the tail end of April, practically May, and June saw the release of The Incredibles 2, another film that targets families. Scheduling is a great reason why Solo got lost in the shuffle this summer.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,534
Reaction score
167
Location
NJ
Not if they can only afford to hit up the movie theater once a month. Infinity War came out at the tail end of April, practically May, and June saw the release of The Incredibles 2, another film that targets families. Scheduling is a great reason why Solo got lost in the shuffle this summer.
Agreed. Timing had a hand in the failure Solo (way more than any TLJ residue...)
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
74
Not if they can only afford to hit up the movie theater once a month.
That won't account for the low, low turnout in general. There are images of people sitting in cinemas, ACROSS the world, where there are less than ten bums on seats.

People didn't go, because there wasn't any interest in doing so.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
14
Yeah, it would. If people are going to see Avengers one month (again, this was pretty much a May release), and Incredibles 2 another, that would affect how many people go to see Solo. These movies I've mentioned that are competing for the same audience, all came out roughly the same time ACROSS the world.

You're not wrong that lack of interest in a Solo solo movie affected turnout, but you're absolutely wrong that competition from other movies didn't.

I'm just gonna leave it at that, because we all know you've got a raging hate boner for Solo by this point, after having the same conversation multiple times.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
7
Yeah, it would. If people are going to see Avengers one month (again, this was pretty much a May release), and Incredibles 2 another, that would affect how many people go to see Solo. These movies I've mentioned that are competing for the same audience, all came out roughly the same time ACROSS the world.

You're not wrong that lack of interest in a Solo solo movie affected turnout, but you're absolutely wrong that competition from other movies didn't.
Competition can only be part of the equation... otherwise you should be able to flip around those movies you listed and say something like, "Yeah Incredibles 2 didn't make as much because it faced competition from Solo and Infinity War." If there's competition, why did the other movies succeed despite the competition? It's probably more accurate to blame it on competition AND lack of interest, or competition AND concerns over pre-release drama, or any other such popular combinations.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
74
Yeah, it would.
No it wouldn't. It merely accounts for SOME people not attending. Those that couldn't afford the few quid that the ticket cost...and THAT'S ALL.

It does not account for, in any way, the vast emptiness of cinemas the world over for 'Solo'.

People didn't go, largely, because they didn't want to go. It was something they could sit out and wait for on Netflix, or blu.

I'm just gonna leave it at that, because we all know you've got a raging hate boner for Solo by this point, after having the same conversation multiple times.
'Solo' was a mediocre film, that was a bad idea from the start, as evidenced by the muted reaction when it was announced, which received a less than stellar audience attendance, because it wasn't something that people were willing to go and see in the cinema in any great numbers.

It has nothing to do with "hate". But feel free to engage in hyperbole, if you wish.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,534
Reaction score
167
Location
NJ
No it wouldn't. It merely accounts for SOME people not attending. Those that couldn't afford the few quid that the ticket cost...and THAT'S ALL.

It does not account for, in any way, the vast emptiness of cinemas the world over for 'Solo'.

People didn't go, largely, because they didn't want to go. It was something they could sit out and wait for on Netflix, or blu.



'Solo' was a mediocre film, that was a bad idea from the start, as evidenced by the muted reaction when it was announced, which received a less than stellar audience attendance, because it wasn't something that people were willing to go and see in the cinema in any great numbers.

It has nothing to do with "hate". But feel free to engage in hyperbole, if you wish.
I haven't found myself agreeing with Mildoo much these days...but seriously you are making little to no sense.
 
Top