Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Placing the blame upon the shoulders of Kennedy for how the Star Wars sequels turned out is indeed a bit silly. There's plenty of people involved to share the blame for the mess those rubbish movies became.

But I'd still maintain that while she is, probably, a good bean counter, a creative she is not and the further in the background she remains the better. If what I heard about her insistence on that stupid flying Leia scene from 'The Last Jedi' is correct, then the less she has to say about the creative side of a project is more than likely a good thing.

But you're right, the "suits" have always been largely a scourge on film makers at some level. But these days it appears, with all the umph given to focus groups and data driven "analysis", they are even more likely to become involved to the detriment of the movie. It's different to yesteryear, where you have a single mogul interfering with a director's vision. Nowadays, there's armies of "producers" all vying to have their input, mostly in an effort to keep their jobs.

I can't recall who said it, but some director once remarked that you could eliminate half the names on the credits of most movies and still get them made.

pixelburp wrote: »

A good producer can be more than a "bean counter" though, often as much a people manager as the director - especially with the more mercurial of either - and both usually have a close working relationship in terms of the day-to-days (especially if the producer is also the star, ala Tom Cruise and the MI films). Plus, I daresay before Episode VII the vast majority of Star Wars fans had never even heard of Kennedy. I'm not going to pretend I did, or that I know her particular methods across the decades she has work - but equally I'm not going to single her out either for an apparent choice to extend "space wizard magic" to include Mary Poppins powers. It was a bit hokey but ... yeah. Star Wars.

And in any case, the fact we're even (still) talking about her is because of this continued demented obsession as Kennedy being some kind of creative millstone - or mark of death on a production. When the reality is so far from the truth as to be laughable. Especially given Star Wars was sullied enough by its own Father, one Mr. George Midichlorian Lucas, and yet Kennedy's the pariah? Id' certainly trust her to know more about what works than the average podcaster. Anyone who brought Who Framed Roger Rabbit into this world gets a lifetime pass IMO.

For sure, a good or bad producer can make or break a film. I get the impression, though, that these days there's more "producers" than are needed and, more often than not, interfere in a film project in a bad way rather than a good way. Careerist types looking to move up a ladder of some sort.

"Producer" is a much varied term though as you know. It can mean anything from Howard Hawks or Roger Corman to some faceless exec who's been given more power than they deserve.

Not to labour on Kathleen Kennedy, but I think her problem was that she became so front an centre that she was the obvious aiming point for a lot of the criticism (just and unjust) fired at the Star Wars sequels, while the likes of Abrams ducked for cover and let her take the shots. In my mind she certainly has her part to play, but as said earlier there's loads more people involved.

As for "still talking about her", she's still the head of Lucasfilm. So she'll still be a topic of conversation, even if that conversation includes unreasonable hair pullers using her as a reason to issue a click bait rant on YouTube.

Tony EH wrote: »

Placing the blame upon the shoulders of Kennedy for how the Star Wars sequels turned out is indeed a bit silly. There's plenty of people involved to share the blame for the mess those rubbish movies became.

But I'd still maintain that while she is, probably, a good bean counter, a creative she is not and the further in the background she remains the better. If what I heard about her insistence on that stupid flying Leia scene from 'The Last Jedi' is correct, then the less she has to say about the creative side of a project is more than likely a good thing.

But you're right, the "suits" have always been largely a scourge on film makers at some level. But these days it appears, with all the umph given to focus groups and data driven "analysis", they are even more likely to become involved to the detriment of the movie. It's different to yesteryear, where you have a single mogul interfering with a director's vision. Nowadays, there's armies of "producers" all vying to have their input, mostly in an effort to keep their jobs.

I can't recall who said it, but some director once remarked that you could eliminate half the names on the credits of most movies and still get them made.

She may be a fine producer, but she's a dreadful head of Lucasfilm, objectively.
Any studio boss that hires and fires directors from projects in production, reshoots entire films, thus making one film for the price of two and divides the audience with creative decisions because they don't understand the IP is the wrong person to be in charge.

I've seen some insiders refer to Kennedy as 'Spielberg's set wife', and no, that does not imply she is where she is because 'you know', it's a reference to the fact that her role on his productions was largely limited making sure the meals were on the table, the ironing done and the kids got off to school. In other words, she looked after the nuts and bolts of production so that the creative side of the production could operate without concerning themselves with them.
She was never a 'creatively involved producer' like say, Saul Zaentz for example, those kind of old school producers have gone the way of the Dodo. As head of Lucasfilm she has however inserted herself into the creative process and that's an area of expertise that she's clearly not suited to.

Disney hasn't been run by creative producers in a very long time now, it's run by corporate suits with marketing degrees and Kennedy still has her job because she aligns with that current Disney ethos.

As for Indy 5. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my all-time favourite movies but I have no interest in seeing this latest outing, the last one was bad enough and I've never cared for Mangold's movies.
Indy, like Bond or McClain are action architypes brought to life by the actors. I don't think anybody is interested in watching a near 80yr old Harrison Ford doff the fedora again.
I suspect aged Indy is going to be little more than a framing device (like in The Young Indiana Jones Cornicles) for a soft reboot introducing the *shudder* 'new generation', something I'm also utterly disinterested in.


This is just another member-berry cash grab and that's a trend that can't die soon enough.

the third Star Wars film had half the box office of the first of the 3, contrast with MCU that batted it out of the park on their finale. Or Hunger Games where the third film was in the ball park of the first film. They cant have been happy

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If only there was precedent for the second and third films in a Star Wars trilogy earning substantially less than the first... if only...

The fact that 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi' made less money than 'Star Wars' doesn't really mean that it's ordained that the Disney Star Wars movies would do the same.

pixelburp wrote: »

I never said Solo didn't flop, I said we don't know the final budget so can't know just how much of a failure it was in dollar terms.

Ok. Well, it failed and failed hard so.

pixelburp wrote: »

And as Johnny already eluded to, it's pretty standard behaviour where diminishing returns applies with trilogies, the last part often showing a drop-off from the original's success. Interest wanes, audiences attention moves elsewhere, it's just how it goes. In fact I'd be so bold as to say the average trilogy trends downward or holds steady, not upward. Ignoring the parallel, internal expectation of exponential growth as budgets increase.

And I'll repeat that nothing is ordained in that respect.

I'll add, too, that the film series at the heart of the thread bucks that idea. Last Crusade made more than Temple and Crystal Skull beat them all.

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm sure the new trilogy will be debated many years from now; and once the dust settles it'll be very interesting to see where the critical / popular consensus lies with ̵Last Jedi in particular. IT wouldn't be the first film, or series of films, that find itself having revised appraisals.

I'm sure it will. But right now, I'd lay bets that the overwhelming consensus is that the sequel trilogy was, at best, disappointing to the vast majority of viewers.

Probably going against the tide here, but I’m looking forward to Indy 5. I also have confidence that Mangold knows what he’s doing and will give Harrison Ford a decent send off as Indy. It looks like there’ll be young Indy flashbacks interwoven with old Indy pieces, so the action scenes will be age appropriate.

Regarding Ford’s age, well, he’s doing daily 40 mile cycles as he’s filming this, so he’s fitter than most people are in their 50’s, so his age is really just a number. Everyone knows this will be Ford’s final outing as Indy, so you can be sure the pressure is on to make sure he goes out on a high note.

Also, if you haven’t already, have a look at his last movie ‘Call of the Wild’, Ford gave a great performance and showed how he can still deliver age appropriate action scenes.

Disney's Galaxy's Edge theme park was an unmitigated disaster. But the main reason, as I understand it, was the Star Wars "period" they chose to set it in. They found that few people were actually interested in visiting a Star Wars theme park that didn't include the most popular parts of it, like the original stuff.

If you go to a Star Wars theme park, you'd be expecting to find Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader at least knocking about somewhere.

The simple fact is that "old" Star Wars has an enduring appeal that the "new" stuff sorely lacks. The original Star Wars elements have stood the test of time, while the Diswars is a flash in the pan. It's telling that Disney's biggest successes, in terms of positive feedback, are 'Rogue One' and 'The Mandalorian', both of which draw very heavily from the original movies.