Pressure mounts on Kathleen Kennedy to step down as head of Lucas Film?

Snake Plisken

Couple of factors affected Solos poor outing that includes so many star wars movies released so close together, I don't think people wanted to see a Solo back story say compared to an Obi Wan story. I also think it was marketed poorly. First Ad released we didn't even hear Han speak.
Also a lot of fans weren't convinced by Alden Ehrenrrich's casting. I think dislike of TLJ didn't influence the numbers that much.

FunLover18

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

I know you've mentioned it but i disagree & you've not provided evidence for your claim either. The 44% drop in Bluray sales would suggest a sizeable amount, which can't be put down to casual cinema goers.

Where does this figure come from? 44% of what?

I fail to see how TLJ DVD sales has any bearing on the Solo box office?

You're claiming that Solo performance is as a direct result of TLJ's reception, I can't disprove it when you haven't provided sufficient evidence to back that up, you've merely cited financial statistics and expect me to believe that they directly correlate because it has Star Wars in the title. TLJ made 1.3 billion, Solo has made less than 400 million and your argument is that the failure of the latter is due to the dissatisfaction with the former. I've heard of people reevaluating a film but not to the point of 900 million in six months.

Arne_Saknussem

FunLover18 wrote: »

Where does this figure come from? 44% of what?

I fail to see how TLJ DVD sales has any bearing on the Solo box office?

You're claiming that Solo performance is as a direct result of TLJ's reception, I can't disprove it when you haven't provided sufficient evidence to back that up, you've merely cited financial statistics and expect me to believe that they directly correlate because it has Star Wars in the title. TLJ made 1.3 billion, Solo has made less than 400 million and your argument is that the failure of the latter is due to the dissatisfaction with the former. I've heard of people reevaluating a film but not to the point of 900 million in six months.

44% of TFA first week sales.

https://bamsmackpow.com/2018/06/10/star-wars-last-jedi-home-media- numbers/

And i made the point in relation to a poster who said that people who didn't like TLJ were a tiny minority, not in relation to it affecting Solo. And the fact that TLJ lower numbers vs TFA was down to casual cinema goers.

My argument is that a number of factors affected the performance of Solo, chief among them dissatisfaction with TLJ. And i think it's better to compare Saga films to each other, same with Star Wars Stories.

So thats $2.05bn -> $1.3bn for Saga, $1.06bn --> $355m for Solo currently.

Sad Professor

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

My argument is that a number of factors affected the performance of Solo, chief among them dissatisfaction with TLJ. And i think it's better to compare Saga films to each other, same with Star Wars Stories.

So thats $2.05bn -> $1.3bn for Saga, $1.06bn --> $355m for Solo currently.

Okay, so if dissatisfaction with TLJ (a saga film) was the chief cause of Solo's (non-saga film) box office, then by that logic could it not be claimed that the reason TLJ only made 1.3b instead of 1.7b is because people were dissatisfied with Rogue One? You are saying saga films should be compared with each other and then in the same breath claiming that the negative reception to the previous a saga film influenced the box office of a non-saga film.

Arne_Saknussem

Sad Professor wrote: »

Okay, so if dissatisfaction with TLJ (a saga film) was the chief cause of Solo's (non-saga film) box office, then by that logic could it not be claimed that the reason TLJ only made 1.3b instead of 1.7b is because people were dissatisfied with Rogue One? You are saying saga films should be compared with each other and then in the same breath claiming that the negative reception to the previous a saga film influenced the box office of a non-saga film.

You can compare Solo to TLJ if you want, but it only makes the figures look worse.

Non-Saga films don't make as much as Saga films, that's the reason i said they should be compared that way.

Now i don't think Rogue One split the fans the way TLJ did. You can make that argument if you want but it falls down when you see the excellent opening weekend numbers for TLJ($220m to TFA $240), whereas Solo's opening weekend numbers stank. TLJ falloff came later when a lot of the fans didn't return.

conorhal

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I’d actually like to be able to see The Last Jedi through the eyes of those who hate it so much, just out of pure curiosity. I’ve heard all the criticisms ad nauseum (from the wholly reasonable to the utterly hysterical) and I just can’t marry the smart, artful film I’ve seen to the one that conjures up so much unconstrained vitriol. Even allowing for the usual, natural divergence of opinion and views, this one is extrardinary.

Fine. Let's do that so.
Ivan Ortega (a professional editor) had done a pretty damn good in his edit of fixing the problems with the film, of which there are A LOT.
Perhaps take a look at these two scenes through the eyes of a film editor and a fan as explains what is so wrong with them and how to easily fix them.

It would be interesting to know what you make of the changes.

Here he fixes the dumbest and most contentious moment in Starwars that really alienated fans:

Here he deals with the clunky, weird opening and how the tension of the situation and the threat of the First Order are restored:

It's pretty impressive that only using their own footage, a fan can both explain and fix what the best that Disney couldn't even see apparently.

RayCun

Great, more fanfiction from people who are disappointed that Luke isn't a superhero.

Sad Professor

Ugh, more videos of dudes explaining what's wrong with the movie. Just what this thread needs.

He doesn't fix anything. He cuts out some stuff he personally didn't like. In the case of Luke and the lightsaber, in a very obvious and messy way. You can't ADR in Luke saying "take it, you need it more than me" - first because it would be really obvious, and second because you'd then have to reshoot the rest of the movie to make Luke's character match this new, character-defining moment you've created at the start of the film.

If fans did have access to the raw footage, they could probably change the take of Luke throwing away the lightsaber to something less comic, but that's clearly not enough for them. They don't want a movie with the comedy moments left out, they want a different movie.

I get people's issues with Luke - I don't agree with them (I love him throwing away the lightsaber) - but you can't "fix" them by re-editing the movie. That's Luke's character in TLJ. It's in the script, it's in Hamill's performance, it's the movie Johnson chose to make. Even if you had access to all the raw footage, you can't change that without breaking the film. A professional film editor should know this.

I agree with Ray, these fan edits are basically the 21st century version of fan fiction.

ixoy

If Kennedy resigns, I already feel pity for her successor because, no matter what they do, they're going to be doomed to listen to a huge amount of bloody whining - "It's not enough like the original!" "It's too much like the original!" "Wahh, Luke's gone - it's the Skywalker story and never mind the ton of other characters!" It will be a no-win situation.

conorhal

ixoy wrote: »

If Kennedy resigns, I already feel pity for her successor because, no matter what they do, they're going to be doomed to listen to a huge amount of bloody whining - "It's not enough like the original!" "It's too much like the original!" "Wahh, Luke's gone - it's the Skywalker story and never mind the ton of other characters!" It will be a no-win situation.

Well if reports are true, and I think they are, she still has her job only because nobody want's the job thanks to her poisoning the well.
You're sounding like a whiny spoiled child yourself here, would you like to take your ball and go home?

conorhal

Sad Professor wrote: »

Ugh, more videos of dudes explaining what's wrong with the movie. Just what this thread needs.

Well I'm sorry if you think this thread needs less people that disagree with you.

Sad Professor wrote: »

He doesn't fix anything.

Clearly he does. It's a question of whether or not you think his fixes work or not.

Sad Professor wrote: »

He cuts out some stuff he personally didn't like. In the case of Luke and the lightsaber, in a very obvious and messy way. You can't ADR in Luke saying "take it, you need it more than me" - first because it would be really obvious, and second because you'd then have to reshoot the rest of the movie to make Luke's character match this new, character-defining moment you've created at the start of the film.

Your sneering 'can't do attitude' is the opposite of his 'yes I absolutely can', and he has, the edit is consistant with the editorial choices he has made, without 'reshooting the entire film'. I believe he has reshot one scene and dropped in some ADR for Luke and Ackbar. You can splutter 'he can't do that!' all you like, he has done it and the point of doing it was to prove you could have made a better movie out of TLJ not to create some fantasy alternative cannon.

You seem to be treating TLJ as the kind of scripture you accuse fans of doing. TLJ is an objectively bad movie, inconstant, incoherent, bloated and horribly paced, and your neurotic adherence to it as scripture verges on dogma. You sound on the verge of screaming, heretic! In Ivan Ortega I just see a Martin Luthor saying, yeah, reform is possible, and I have the tools.

Sad Professor wrote: »

If fans did have access to the raw footage, they could probably change the take of Luke throwing away the lightsaber to something less comic, but that's clearly not enough for them. They don't want a movie with the comedy moments left out, they want a different movie.

Or even a good one.

Sad Professor wrote: »

I get people's issues with Luke - I don't agree with them (I love him throwing away the lightsaber) - but you can't "fix" them by re-editing the movie. That's Luke's character in TLJ. It's in the script, it's in Hamill's performance, it's the movie Johnson chose to make. Even if you had access to all the raw footage, you can't change that without breaking the film. A professional film editor should know this.

Johnson broke it, you're underestimating Ortega's talent in fixing it (to the extent he can)

Sad Professor wrote: »

I agree with Ray, these fan edits are basically the 21st century version of fan fiction.

You're thinking of The Force Awakens.

TerrorFirmer

I tend not to usually look at fan edits because I do believe that you just have to accept what is given in a final cut for better or worse but while I like TLJ overall, I absolute despise those two scenes mentioned the most - Luke flinging his lightsabre away (not so much the action itself but the way RJ chose to capture the moment) and that opening deck scene with Hux.

In this case I don't think it's so much a 'fan edit' or 'fixing' as it is of simply highlighting a better way that the story should've been told that fits in nicely with the narrative tone thus far (TFA included). It's not particularly eye opening or ground breaking stuff - notwithstanding that I know they were highlighted here for a specific reason - but those two scenes were probably the most divisive among fans and mentioned a lot here on boards on the TLJ thread.

Personally I loathed them and both those exact scenes were repeating in my mind after the movie - in a very negative way. Went a second time and I could forgive them a little easier knowing the film itself was fundementally solid. I'm more or less OK (ish) with alot of scenes other people had gripes with to various extents - the milking, Snoke, Cantino Blight, the face-off, Lukes demise, or Yoda, whatever. Even Leia's spacewalk.

But I was annoyed at the cheap spoof style gags that were inserted for no real valid reason than a cheap laugh in those two particular scenes.

In a wierd way JJ succeeded, for me, where Rian Johnson failed...but the same statement works in reverse in so many ways also. Between both of them is a mind-blowingly good Star Wars film - but both are just flawed in radically different ways. Time, and multiple viewings, has convinced me that while TFA is easily the better overall film, the actual high points of TLJ are on a different level.

So frustrating, this new trilogy. I wish there was just better creative control over where it was going rather than allowing people total license to pick and chose what they want to continue, tease or outright ignore as long as they adhere to a pretty wafer thin framework.... leading to what I feel is an entertaining, hot mess that we'll look back on in 20 years as mere passable blockbuster sci-fi of it's day, rather than a classic trilogy.

conorhal

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I tend not to usually look at fan edits because I do believe that you just have to accept what is given in a final cut for better or worse but while I like TLJ overall, I absolute despise those two scenes mentioned the most - Luke flinging his lightsabre away (not so much the action itself but the way RJ chose to capture the moment) and that opening deck scene with Hux.

In this case I don't think it's so much a 'fan edit' or 'fixing' as it is of simply highlighting a better way that the story should've been told that fits in nicely with the narrative tone thus far (TFA included).

Well Ortega is a pretty talented guy and that was his point, they say you can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear, but he could at least make a decent Moore St. knock off version

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

She's turned a franchise that was basically a licence to print money, with the original cast returning, into one that not only does not dominate the box offfice but one that investors can't rely on and that's why people are asking if she should leave.

I think a lot of people overestimate just how big Star Wars really is. Don't get me wrong, it has huge appeal but traditionally most of Star Wars money was made from licensing. The films while successful have always seen a downward trend in profits with each sequel. The first part of each trilogy cleans up and then the subsequent films do less box office.

So much of this debate over Kennedy is because she is a woman. Fans praise Kevin Feige for what he did with Marvel but so far the trajectory of each Star Wars release has been similar to the early Marvel films, Solo is pretty much the Hulk, a decent enough film but one that just doesn't connect.

It's funny reading all the real fans opinions of what is happening, a bunch of sad and lonely 40-year-old men crying because that evil woman isn't making directors do what they think they should. I thought that the Last Jedi was a bad film, it had an awful script and quite possibly the worst opening scene in a film in maybe 50 years, the prank call was just cringy and sad but at the same time, I recognise that they didn't do it for me. They did it for the 10-year-olds in the audience who thought it was hilarious.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

So much of this debate over Kennedy is because she is a woman.

Nah i don't think so, if she was in charge of the business side with someone like Dave Filoni in creative control nobody would have a problem. Even if Filoni was given creative control now and Kennedy stayed most would be cool with it.

She has hired and sacked directors for 4 of 6 productions so she's created a rod for her own back there.

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

Nah i don't think so, if she was in charge of the business side with someone like Dave Filoni in creative control nobody would have a problem. Even if Filoni was given creative control now and Kennedy stayed most would be cool with it.

She has hired and sacked directors for 4 of 6 productions so she's created a rod for her own back there.

So it's nothing to do with her being a woman but if there was a man working alongside her then you don't think anyone would have an issue with her.

OMG, she like fired 4 guys. OMG guys, I cannot believe that an executive actually did their job instead of sitting back and hoping to save it in post. Getting rid of dead weight is seen as a positive, here sacking of Tank was 100% the right move given that Fox knowing the extent of his actions didn't as they hoped to save it in post. Anyone who had Tank in mind for a film quickly dropped him and the Miller, Lord thing is unfortunate but it may have had to be done. There are hundreds of stories of directors let loose and than panic when the studio tries to salvage something, Kennedy just cuts the leg off rather than save face with some sad fanboys.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

So it's nothing to do with her being a woman but if there was a man working alongside her then you don't think anyone would have an issue with her.

No if there was someone the fans know has a proven track record of understanding the franchise and has made widely popular shows.

Sort of like a Star Wars Feige.

Deleted User wrote: »

Kennedy just cuts the leg off rather than save face with some sad fanboys.

If she keeps hiring and firing people Disney will ask questions like any other business should, as they would of any head of the company male or female.

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

No if there was someone the fans know has a proven track record of understanding the franchise and has made widely popular shows.

Sort of like a Star Wars Feige.

But Feige had an incredibly rocky start with the Marvel universe and I notice that no one called for him to be fired when Hulk bombed. Why is that?

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

If she keeps hiring and firing people Disney will ask questions like any other business should, as they would of any head of the company male or female.

You do know that she doesn't hire people but rather a board do, multiple people have a say in who gets to direct a film.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

But Feige had an incredibly rocky start with the Marvel universe and I notice that no one called for him to be fired when Hulk bombed. Why is that?

Dunno i didn't follow Marvel back then, because he's a man is your argument?

What about Jon Berg & Geoff Johns at DCEU after BvS & Justice League? Misandry?


Look at the massive amount of stick George Lucas took for the prequels & Special Editions?

It's just Nerdrage.

Deleted User wrote: »

You do know that she doesn't hire people but rather a board do, multiple people have a say in who gets to direct a film.

So she doesn't hire people but she fires people and she's right to do it. Good argument.

She's head of Lucasfilm, buck stops with her.

pixelburp

Truly we are through the looking glass if the sacking of Josh Trank is held against someone.

It's a classic problem of management when dealing with a bad hire, the easy - and disastrous thing - is to soldier on regardless. Hiring and firing won't look bad if the choices turn out to be Tranks or Trevorrows. Recognising a mistake and taking action is the smart choice.

Arne_Saknussem

pixelburp wrote: »

Truly we are through the looking glass if the sacking of Josh Trank is held against someone.

It's a classic problem of management when dealing with a bad hire, the easy - and disastrous thing - is to soldier on regardless. Hiring and firing won't look bad if the choices turn out to be Tranks or Trevorrows. Recognising a mistake and taking action is the smart choice.

True enough, constantly making mistakes and having to correct them not so good though.

pixelburp

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

True enough, constantly making mistakes and having to correct them not so good though.

So maybe your definition of "constantly" is not the same as a Hollywood executives; and given how many movies have been 'saved' in post, when the smarter move was to sack the deadweight during production, it's obviously a novel approach. Mentioning Josh Trank is deeply apt considering his role as the bad hire for that Fantastic Four debacle.

I may have said it earlier here before but to me, Kennedy deserves praise for saving Solo, seeing that Lord & Miller were the wrong choice and parachuting in Ron Howard to retrofit the production. It's a glass half full/empty scenario but I respect the person who makes the smart choice eventually than the person who persists with the bad one.

Arne_Saknussem

pixelburp wrote: »

So maybe your definition of "constantly" is not the same as a Hollywood executives; and given how many movies have been 'saved' in post, when the smarter move was to sack the deadweight during production, it's obviously a novel approach. Mentioning Josh Trank is deeply apt considering his role as the bad hire for that Fantastic Four debacle.

I may have said it earlier here before but to me, Kennedy deserves praise for saving Solo, seeing that Lord & Miller were the wrong choice and parachuting in Ron Howard to retrofit the production. It's a glass half full/empty scenario but I respect the person who makes the smart choice eventually than the person who persists with the bad one.

We obviously see things a little differently, which is fair enough.

As for KK i think Ep IX will be her last Star Wars film, i think it'll be announced she's leaving before it opens in cinemas.

She won't be 'sacked', it'll be announced she's stepping down to pursue other opportunities.

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

Dunno i didn't follow Marvel back then, because he's a man is your argument?

What about Jon Berg & Geoff Johns at DCEU after BvS & Justice League? Misandry?


Look at the massive amount of stick George Lucas took for the prequels & Special Editions?

It's just Nerdrage.

So you are using Kevin Feige as an argument as to how it should be done and when it is pointed out that he had just as shaky a foundation as Kennedy your response is "I don't know, I no like Marvel back then."

Removing Berg and Johns on the back of Justice League was a ridiculous decision given that they proved with Wonder Women that they can produce hits. That said, the level of vitriol directed at them was tiny compared to what Kennedy is getting. Every youtuber and sad 40 year old Star Wars fan seems to know how to run a billion dollar company better than her.

You can dress it up all you want but a large part of the outrage over Kennedy is because she is a woman. The amount of crying fans have done over the SJWs and the new women added to the films says a lot about the mindset that they have.

Fans are fickle, how many of them are out there calling for Lucas back. The biggest problem with Star Wars is that the most vocal fans seem to think that Disney owes them something. There is a sense of ownership that is sad from many fans.

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

So she doesn't hire people but she fires people and she's right to do it. Good argument.

She's head of Lucasfilm, buck stops with her.

You want to go back and read what I wrote again.

Kennedy hires and fires people based on meetings with executives. She is not some dictator who makes the decisions but rather the head of a team all of whom have input. Any decisions made at Lucas are made by the board and not solely by Kennedy. She may be the head and the buck will stop there but there are dozens of people involved in every decision made there.

A good manager recognises a problem and takes action, a bad manager sits back and hopes for the best which is why we have the Fantastic Four in the state it was released in.

Sad Professor

I don't ever remember anyone calling for Lucas to be removed during the prequels. Fans wanted someone else to write and direct but they still wanted him overseeing it and writing the story. Most fans at the time believed in the "yes man" theory that claimed McCallum was to blame for not standing up Lucas the way that Gary Kurtz supposedly did, though in reality neither were creative producers.

I don't see a lot of evidence that Kennedy is acting as a creative producer in the way that Feige does. Yes, she's hiring and firing people, but usually under the advice of other people. Kasdan seems to have been responsible for getting Lord and Miller fired, yet I don't see anyone blaming him. If anything I think the fact that it took Kennedy so long to realise that there was a problem with Lord and Miller is proof that she isn't all that creatively involved once there's a director onboard.

If there is a problem with Kennedy it's probably that she's an old school producer who believes in auteur theory when increasingly movies are being made under the guidance of tv producer-like executives such as Feige. But that's the direction Disney choose with these movies and it's a bit late to turn back now. I doubt the Johnson and GOT guys films wouldn't have gotten the go ahead under a Feige-like producer.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

So you are using Kevin Feige as an argument as to how it should be done and when it is pointed out that he had just as shaky a foundation as Kennedy your response is "I don't know, I no like Marvel back then."

No i was saying that Filoni would please fans because he has a proven understanding of the source material & track record of making franchise content popular with fans. A status currently enjoyed by Kevin Feige.

Deleted User wrote: »

Removing Berg and Johns on the back of Justice League was a ridiculous decision given that they proved with Wonder Women that they can produce hits.

Besides the point, which was that fans were demanding they go as they didn't like the direction they were taking the franchise.

Deleted User wrote: »

That said, the level of vitriol directed at them was tiny compared to what Kennedy is getting.

Because Star Wars is a bigger franchise and the Nerdrage tends to be strong with them. Like i said look at the stick Lucas took and he created the thing, ditto that for Hayden Christensen & Jake Lloyd.

And as i've already said Rian Johnson has taken more abuse than anyone in Sequel era.

Deleted User wrote: »

You can dress it up all you want but a large part of the outrage over Kennedy is because she is a woman. The amount of crying fans have done over the SJWs and the new women added to the films says a lot about the mindset that they have.

.

How are you measuring that? They Youtube channels you're referring to are all over 10 times smaller than the one you dismissed as "click-bait nonsense from a Youtuber desperate to boost their views".

The only people bringing up SJWs & gender in here are people who are pro KK, to assign that to everyone unhappy with the current direction is nonsense.

Deleted User wrote: »

Fans are fickle, how many of them are out there calling for Lucas back. The biggest problem with Star Wars is that the most vocal fans seem to think that Disney owes them something. There is a sense of ownership that is sad from many fans.

Fan's are fickle, and irrational a lot of the time.

Deleted User wrote: »

Kennedy hires and fires people based on meetings with executives. She is not some dictator who makes the decisions but rather the head of a team all of whom have input. Any decisions made at Lucas are made by the board and not solely by Kennedy. She may be the head and the buck will stop there but there are dozens of people involved in every decision made there.

A good manager recognises a problem and takes action, a bad manager sits back and hopes for the best which is why we have the Fantastic Four in the state it was released in.

She's the head of Lucasfilm, head of a board that keeps making costly decisions that need to be corrected. So she needs to put someone in creative control who understand the source material and will make better choices, just like i said

FunLover18

Were Trank/Trevorrow's films actually in production when they were dismissed? I didn't think they were.

I fail to see what costly decisions they have made which has cost them money, looking at Solo and based on it's theatrical run it is estimated to lost 50 million which means that based on streaming and broadcast rights that it is already in profit and that's before you factor in DVD and Blu sales or rentals. It may not have made billions but calling Solo a flop or a costly mistake just shows how little you know of how Hollywood operates. Also, it is important to remember that even if Solo lost 300 million it would not lose Disney any money given the way in which Hollywood accounting works.

pixelburp

FunLover18 wrote: »

Were Trank/Trevorrow's films actually in production when they were dismissed? I didn't think they were.

Nope, IIRC Trank was attached to the Fett movie, which aside from remaining in limbo was last attached to James Mangold. I think we can all agree that's a significant improvement in terms of directorial talent. Trevorrow was to direct Episode IX but got the heave ho long before production started on that.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

It may not have made billions but calling Solo a flop or a costly mistake just shows how little you know of how Hollywood operates.

It's production costs were over $250m before promotion is taken into account. It's absolutely a box-office flop.

Even Scott Mendelson over at Forbes who's staunchly pro Kennedy Lucasfilm is calling it a bomb.