Colin Trevorrow Won't Direct Ep. IX

Please provide me with a link to a news magazine that specifically labelled Kathleen's comment as sexist. She might have been criticized on forums like these in the same way, but that's not how it's portrayed in the media.

Personally, I think none of their comments are sexist.

 

Sorry, I have exaggerated the reaction to her comment. None of the sites use the word "sexist," but here are a few links to thinkpieces on her words (THR, Indiewire.) However, I do have a question - you've said that Colin made a similar statement and that may be somehow related to his layoff. While the former part is true, his comment (at least the one I believe you're talking about) was made even before Kathleen Kennedy said anything like it (Variety's article of Colin comes from mid-August 2015 while the one on Kathleen is from late October 2015.)

 

Well, of course it might just be a bunch of rubbish. Nobody seemed to bat an eyelid about Colin's remarks (because they didn't know about them) until he was fired from Episode IX. That's when news sites brought his remarks back into the spotlight and started to speculate about them being a reason for why he was fired. And now, I see people on TheForce.net writing stuff like "Glad we got that sexist away from Star Wars". People are sheep.
And no worries about the exaggeration, I understand your point and thanks for bringing it up.

 

U can also count the number of films RJ did on 1 hand also.

 

There is little to no chance of him being fired for saying this (or similar remarks). This is a billion dollar franchise, not a kindergarten. Remarks like this could have played a role in the firing (although I doubt it), but were very certainly not the sole reason for the decision, since it barely caused any reception from the media at the time (just now, in retrospect). The real reason was probaly a lackluster script and the faliure of Book of Henry.

 

It's a billion dollar franchise, but it does sound more and more like a kindergarten for adults. With Lord and Miller being fired for having too much fun on set, and Trevorrow being fired for being too confident and egoistical. Then again, these are just reports and obviously not the full answers to why they were fired.

Since when aren't actors and film crew members allowed to have fun on set? Since when aren't directors confident in their visions? The more I read about the reasons for them being fired, the more ridiculous I start to feel about it. To me it just seems like Kathleen Kennedy couldn't get along with them for personal reasons.

 

I got the sense Trevorrow and Lord/Miller were fired because they weren't team players. Like it or not, when you sign up to do anything Star Wars you are part of a bigger team. Sounded like these guys wanted to make the film their way and pushed back on any other input. When you have heavyweights like Kathleen Kennedy or Lawrence Kasdan, you listen to them. I'm not suggesting future directors flock behind Kennedy and the rest of Lucasfilm, but it's reassuring to me they are bringing on filmmakers like JJ, RJ, Edwards, and Howard who are willing to collaborate and not dominate.

Not to go prequel bashing, but I think those films could have been far superior to what they were if there had been more equal collaboration with George on the story, character development, and overall tone of the films. That's why I think future Star Wars films will be special, because they are coming from a team of talented artists, not just one person.

That's not to downplay what Trevorrow said. It's sexist and ignorant. Not too crazy about KK's remarks either.

 

Why do people think Star Wars is some sort of holy grail of filmmaking? Yes, its my favorite movie series, but if we are going to be realistic it's not like being part of Star Wars is "so much different than any other movie series".

When you are working on a big movie, you're always going to be part of a bigger team. It's not exclusive to Star Wars, for god sake. Both Trevorrow, Lord and Miller have previously done successful movies. If they are such bad team players, why weren't they fired from their previous movies? If they're so bad directors, why were they able to make successful movies?

The prequels were a collaboration of thousands of people - it didn't just come from one person (George). That's such a ignorant way of seeing things, and disrespectful to all the people who contributed with their talents to those films. What would the prequels be without Doug Chiang and his amazing designs, for example? He made them, not George. Did George compose the music?

And by the way, these new Star Wars films are being overlooked by studio executives whose main goal is to satisfy their shareholders - this is something that didn't exist when George owned Lucasfilm. If you say I'm wrong you don't understand how the studio system work. That being said, if you're hoping for more talented artists to work on Star Wars films - maybe you shouldn't be so quick in dismissing artists like Trevorrow, Lord and Miller.

EDIT: Btw, you dislike the prequels for having George control too much? Take a look at this:
"To appease Lawrence Kasdan, who was unhappy with scenes not being filmed "word for word... Lord and Miller would do several takes exactly as written and then shoot additional takes"
That doesn't sound like excessive control to you? Personally, I think this makes Kasdan look like the biggest a-hole. Scenes do not have to be filmed word for word. Improvisation is the source behind many of history's greatest movie scenes.

 

I think you need to take it down a notch.

I was very specific when I referred to what George could have used help on with the prequels. Story, character development, and overall tone (specifically, directing) of the films. Please do not refer to my views as ignorant. We are having a discussion and my opinion is just as valid as yours. There's nowhere in any of the responses to your aggressive posts where anyone disrespects you or tells you your views aren't valid.

I'm not being dismissive of Trevorrow or Lord and Miller. I loved Safety Not Guaranteed and thought it was one of the most original science fiction films in years. The Lego Movie was also great. That said, I'm not trying to make Star Wars sound like some untouchable, holy scripture. It's not, but it's incredibly important to millions of people and I'm glad there is a team in place ensuring these films are quality, rather than putting that on ONE person. Checks and balances.

Sure, we may disagree, but that gives you no right to call my views ignorant and again I suggest you take it down a notch. We're all here just to talk and share ideas. Try to think of it like that. This isn't a contest.

 

Surely, we are having a discussion, and if you find my arguments too "aggressive" perhaps you're just being sensitive. You choose to read my words as you want to read them. Forgive me, but you're the one who brought in criticism about the prequels for no particular reason. If you're going to defend Kasdan, remember that the most famous line from ESB (Han's "I love you") was completely improvised - which is something Lord and Miller allow their actors to do. To me, that sounds more like teamplaying than sticking to the script "word for word".

 

Wasn’t criticizing the prequels and actually started my sentence with “not prequel bashing”. I feel like they could have been better, for the reasons I stated, but did not mean to come across as critical.

Kasdan was on set during TESB and improvisation is great. He was also on set during the Solo production and from what was reported did not like where Lord/Miller were taking his script. I’ll trust the judgment of the person who wrote TESB,ROTJ, TFA over the directors of The LEGO Movie any day. His, as well as Kathleen Kennedy’s.

 

You have poor judegment about the situation then. No one in those positions gets fired merely for having fun or being egoistical. No one wants the bad press and/or the risk of dissapointing the shareholders for no real reason. Billions of dollars are at stake here...

Why not? Star Wars is an american (and worldwide) gem. It used to be the shining beam of creativity, intransigence and fascination.
Many Hollywood artist grew up adoring Star Wars and would do anything to be part of it. This is especially true recently imo. Among all the crappy blockbuster series, Star Wars is probably the last one that still gets me excited.

This ridiculous antagonising of Kennedy is the reason to why your judgement is poor.
She's one of the greatest producers ever to work in Hollywood. We never heard any real problem regarding her attitude to her coworkers before the salty Star Wars fandom took over. Just look at her filmography: E.T., Back to the Future, Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, The Sixth Sense, The Curious Case of Benjamun Button etc. One does not have such long and incredible resume if that certain person is unable to work with.
She was the personal choice of Geroge Lucas to run Lucasfilm ffs...

Imo she simply wants the best for the saga and does everything she's capable of to ensure the quality and longevity of Star Wars.
Tell me, when did she give you any reason not trust her decisions? So far no bad Star Wars film was released under her leadership.
If her experience told her the best decision was to change directors, I'm pretty sure it wasn't without a real reason. Studios change directors all the time, yet some people act like this is something unusual...

Lord and Miller were fired for having creative differences with Kasdan and not because of Kennedy. And no, the writer insisting on the best iteration of his creation is absolutely nothing "a-hole". These are sensitive artists we are talking about here, not robots. And Kasdan has already put down his signature in Star Wars. The best episode was written by him after all... The creative differences seemed to be insuperable, and Kennedy chose to favour Kasdan.

Treworrow is a different question. Him being fired had nothing to do with being egoistical. Most, if not all people in those positions are extremely egoistical. The problems arise if the ego affects the work of the artist in a harmful way. But I doubt it was the case with Treworrow. Most fans had their doubts about him directing ep IX from the very beginning. Kennedy still trusted him. But it seems the fans were right this time. The utter faliure of Treworrow's passion project, Book of Henry and a lackluster script for ep IX were problably the real reasons behind the decision.

I absolutely agree. Imo Kennedy's supervision alone would've made the prequels far superior, not to mention what if they also had Kasdan and Spielberg...

Lucas had been everything you accuse Kennedy with. Once Lucas got too much power, problems started to arise with SW. Lucas made all the important decision regarding the prequels. He sorrounded himself with yes-men and no one dared to challenge him creatively, resulting in the PT being far inferior (to say the least) to the OT. But not just with the PT. Gary Kurtz left the saga for unclear reaons: RotJ is far under the previous two in quality.

People dislike the prequels for being bad movies (in their opinion of course). And they look for the reasons leading to that. Had the prequels been better (or better to more people), no one would've cared about Lucas having too much control. Stanley Kubrick was a dictator when it came to his movies. He wasn't the type that needed creative challenge. Lucas needed it. Not because he was a bad filmmaker, he was just better in a collaborative environment.

 

My judgement is not poor, you're just showing off your complete ignorance if you believe "creative differences" is always the reason for directors being fired. Hollywood studios love to announce "Creative differences" as their official reason to why directors get fired, but you have to be fool to believe that's always the correct answer (because, bad press and shareholders). That's why news sources report other factors, and that is why we're having a discussion. That is why we are discussing whether there could have been other factors that played a vital role to them being fired.

Calling other blockbuster series crappy is still, just your opinion. James Bond would like to have a word with you.
Many artists have certainly grown up adoring Star Wars, Star Wars being their source of inspiration and why they chose to become filmmakers in the first place. But every generation has their source of influence, and now it just happens to be that people who were kids when the OT came out are at the height of their directing careers.
I'd argue that the things that came from George Lucas has had a bigger influence on the cinema industry than Star Wars itself - especially the development of special effects that wouldn't have happened if it weren't for George Lucas.

The reason why we never heard any problem regarding her attitude before was because she basically only worked with Spielberg and Lucas. Also, many people seem to give her credit for movies in which she was only "executive producer", which really isn't saying much. For comparison, Spielberg was a executive producer for Jurassic World (2015) and he did basically nothing. Here's a list for you to read about what an executive producer does:

• Just have their name on the production to get the credit and (hopefully) money. This often happens when that person owns or owned some share of the property, or was involved in a previous version of it, etc.

• Lend their name to the production to attract money, essentially lending their weight to getting it done. (A great example is Guillermo del Toro on The Orphanage)

• Do some vaguely producerly things that just help the film get made.
  
  All in all, what a executive producer actually does is extremely vague.

"No bad Star Wars film was released under her leadership". Man, we're just 2 films in of what is going to be decades of countless Star Wars films. Besides, "bad" is still a point of view and TFA has received more than enough backlash.

It's funny how you can refer to Kasdan as a "sensitive artist", but the same does not apply for Lucas, Trevorrow or Lord/Miller? Do you see your own hypocrisy?
He wrote the best episode? He also wrote ROTJ, which you describes below as "far under the previous two in quality".

Listen, Lucas did not have "yes-men" around him. It's a silly misconception. Lucas was surrounded by people who respected him. He was the creator of Star Wars, people saw him as a genius. But most importantly, they saw him as a risk taker. When he made the first Star Wars film, it was seen as a huge risk - nobody believed it would succeed, even the actors themselves said they thought it would flop. But it didn't, and that's why people saw him as a genius. So when George made the prequels, the people involved in the production were not "yes-men" who were afraid of criticising him, they were people who genuinely believed in what he was doing. Perhaps they didn't agree with some things, but they knew George was a risk taker so they had to trust his decisions. You can't blame Lucas or the people in the production for anything.

The people who utterly dislike the prequels still belong to a small minority of fans with high voices who simply love to spew out their disapproval and hate for Lucas in the media. But it's hard to notice the prequelhate when looking at the majority of people: Looking at YouTube videos for Battlefront II for example, where every top comment is someone asking for more prequel content. Or when Hayden Christensen was the one at Star Wars Celebration who sold out his autographs faster than anyone else.

 

I think the one that shows off complete ignorance and conveys foolishness is the one that thinks being egoistical or having fun is a reason to fire a leader from a billion dollar project. This is Hollywood we are talking about here. Money is the only thing that matters. The reason they were fired is beacause the decision maker ruled that the work of those people endangered the quality of the movies, thus the enitre brand. Creative difference very likely isn't the only reason they were fired, but it's very likely the one that ignited the fire...
Kasdan didn't want change, and Treworrow's work was inferior. That is creative difference. You can also add Rogue One's reshots there as well.

News sources "report" anything that causes sensation and clicks whether it's true or not. In 2017 you should know that already.

Yes, imo most recent blockbuster franchises are beyond terrible to say the least. The whole superhero movie factory, the Transformers series, The Fast and Furious franchise, the crappy horror stuff, the infinite amount of failed reboots and unnecessary sequels, prequels etc. Only a handful of them are worth the money.

James Bond is a vague and heavilty limited action franchise that involves the same british character wondering around the world and doing essentially the same thing over and over again. It's not even remotely close to the potential- fountain that is Star Wars... And yes, all of this is just my subjective opinion that I try to support with arguments, not a mathematical truth. You don't need to point out the obvious and echo this boring argument over again...

So? Star Wars is still the most special among all the franchises today. I don't think there is anything that's Star Wars caliber nowadays. There are occasional waves, but not the phenomenon that Star Wars was and is.
My local theather never experienced the amount of people that basiaclly overrun it when TFA was released. In the last 20+ years since I'm visiting the same theater I've never seen lines that long, especially on a midnight premiere. I's a large plaza, yet we could barely get into the building...

I know very well what an executive producer does.
She wasn't "just" executive producer for E.T. (the highest grossing movie of all time at the time), Jurassic Park (the highest grossing movie of all time at the time), The Sixth Sense, or the Curious Case for Benjamin Button among many other examples. The thing is, once she got incredibly succesful after E.T. she could allow herself to be "just" an executive for some projects.
She worked with Spielberg and her husband mostly, so what? She was smart enough to chose the right people. But she also worked with David Fincher, M.Night Shyamalan, Scott Hicks and many others.

The claims that she's some kind of feminist overlord (even though she never did anything feminist before Star Wars) and that her success is only associated with her working with Spielberg, or that the 100s of millions of net worth, the 120+ Oscar noms., the cumnulated 6+ billion dollars (which is far higher than Lucas's btw) of domestic revenue for her fims are only the result of sheer luck or that she basically did nothing, Spielberg only gave her money for doing nothing are all ridiculous and even offensive. The length of her career alone proves that wrong. If she was unable to work with she would've quit far long ago.

I've found this misogynist, insecure, beta-male, borderline fascist "argument" many times on the internet, but thankfully never on this or any civilized forum (until you of course).
I worked with many women in leading positions in my life. Trust me, they are far smarter than you think.

Two movies yet, true, but those two gave no reason for doubt, that is what I said.
The backlash to TFA is only because thanks to the internet we now have more forums for loud idiots to spew their crap. The same people would shout feminst to Leia or copy to RotJ if those came out today. The fact is that critics and audiences loved TFA. Otherwise it would've tanked after the opening weekend. And before you sart the "it's Star Wars so it makes money" mantra, take a look at the similarly hyped, yet completely tanked Batman v Superman.

There is no hypocriy. I never said those people weren't, I just exaplained to you what and why happened there.

We all know that he couldn't write what he wanted. He wanted to kill Han for instance, Lucas only prevented him beacuse "dead people can't sell toys". Had he got full control, who really knows how it would've turned out... I still find many aspects of RotJ outstanding though. And the key lows (i.e: the Ewoks) are all associated to Lucas.

I don't even need to listen. As I've been busy at my job in the last couple of months I wasn't really active here, so I haven't really seen any of your comments since you're here. But even without looking up any of your other posts I can easely tell that you're the typical salty prequel fanboy who thinks prequel trilogy- Lucas is some kind of misunderstood genious. I know your reponse to my comments before you even read it. I've been on Star Wars forums for more than 15 years. You won't going to show me anything new.

As for myself, I think Lucas is someone that was indeed a risk taker and a creative artist at the beginning of his career. But a huge part of his success is connected to the fact that he sorrounded himself with the proper people who helped to properly present his vision and held back his ideas when it was necessary. Among many others: Gary Kurtz to produce all the three good movies he made (American Graffiti, ANH and ESB), John Williams who elevated Star Wars to a whole other level, actors who's characters and imput carved Star Wars to be the masterpiece it is (Cushing, Guiness, Ford etc) Ralph McQuarrie who's basically the guy behind the look and feel of Star Wars and of course the editors who saved the movie from the disaster it initally was. If you read the original drafts and watch some of the deleted scenes you'll see why everyone (rightfully) doomed the movie before the right people at the right times did their imput.

It's not a misconception. Regardless of fear or respect, the people around him at the time were yes men who were too scared to sit down with Lucas and tell him that his scripts made no sense at all.

Switch "prequels" and "Lucas" with "sequels" and "Kennedy" and you have the same.

It's not that hard really. While I think the most active people on the internet (20-ish people) are blinded by prequel- nostalgia (which ironically is the same argument they use for any opposition), "Prequel-hating" has pretty much become a phenomenon as soon as TPM was relelased.
Just think about Simon Pegg, The People vs George Lucas, or the most famous film criticism ever made, the RedLetterMedia reviews. The most popular film channels on Youtube are also "prequel-haters", like Chris Stuckmann or Jerehmy Jahns.

This of course dosen't mean people hate everything associated with the prequels. Other prequel related materials that have little to nothing to do with Lucas (the Clone Wars series, games and many books) are really good. It's just the movies that suck (not according to everyone of course, before you start your rant). Obviously people want to play the prequel era more than the OT era in Battlefront. The PT era itself is far more fitting for a game like BF.

I'm not really sure what do you mean by "sold out". I doubt that he prepared the autographs in advance and sold them for money...

 

Money is indeed the only thing that matters, which is why "creative differences" is the most light-hearted way of describing these sort of firings without creating panic among the shareholders.
Creative differences happens all the time on the set in every production. To give you a well-known recent example, Mark Hamill disagreed with everything Rian Johnson said about Luke's character at first. Granted, Mark is "just" an actor and should do as he is told, but as history has shown us before sometimes actors provide very insightful information about their characters to the director.

You actually described it pretty well yourself. The creative differences are very likely the thing that ignited the fire, but it was not the only reason they were fired. As for the example with Kasdan, Kennedy could have chosen to listen to Lord/Miller instead. What was the best choice? We will never know. But personally, I was very keen to see what Lord/Miller's vision would have been.

If you think it's so obvious and boring for me to discuss it, why do you continue to discuss it then? I get it, nothing is as great as Star Wars, but please, I was hoping you could be a bit more humble than that...
As you said its subjective and like it or not, but if you ask a James Bond fan he won't agree with you. And no matter what you think about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, for example, it's both critically and commercially successful. It's not surprising that you choose to name the most critically panned examples such as Transformers and Batman v Superman. You specifically choose the failed reboots and sequels, and not the successful ones.
I'm not telling you this because I think those are better than Star Wars, because I personally love Star Wars more than anything. But I'm not delusional to the point that I believe Star Wars needs extra caring compared to other film series, which is a ridiculous statement made by previous posters - whose arguments you are currently defending. Remember that...

Yes, we all know that TFA was a special thing - the first sequel to the original trilogy. That is something that's never going to be repeated in history again.

I didn't say she was an executive producer on those specific movies, I said some (like Back to the Future series, for example). And of course she could have allowed herself to "just" be an executive, but she continued doing something that she liked. Nothing wrong with that.
When she worked with David Fincher and M. Night Shyamalan she was still doing it together with her husband, so I suppose your conclusion is that she chose the right husband? I do believe two heads think better than one, and that's why its important to have both men and women involved - which is something Kennedy has provided to those productions.
Now Kennedy is out of that comfort zone and is the head of Lucasfilm, and in direct charge. She is firing directors to the left and right (4 out of 6 Star Wars movies so far), which is something that didn't happen previously in her career.

I never said she is a feminist overlord, I haven't even said anything about feminism in my posts. This is clearly your triggered self speaking, because you can't handle when someone criticizes a woman. I'm talking about Kennedy as a person and a producer and head of Lucasfilm, not about Kennedy as a woman. If you can't have a sensible discussion without jumping to offensive taunting, I think I don't need to say who's the insecure person here.

2 movies out out of 6, and 4 out of 6 "fired" directors. (I use "" since all of them weren't technically fired).
So backlash to TFA only consist of loud idiots who spew out crap? But backlash to the prequels is always sensible people who make valid points? There are loud idiots who spew out crap on both sides, and there are sensible people who make valid points on both sides. I try not to see the world as black and white as you do. In fact, your way of writing shows that you're not open to look at both sides of the same coin.

And if Han was killed in ROTJ we wouldn't have had Ford reprise his role in TFA, whose role was described as a "highlight" by many critics. Many people went to see TFA just because it had Han Solo and Chewbacca in it, so who knows how it could've affected the overall performance of the film.

You don't need to tell me how long you've been on Star Wars forums. This is not a contest. In a discussion I must be allowed to bring up old information to present my arguments, and if you have a problem with that - that's your problem.
I understand that you don't want to listen, you're so sure about your things and so shut in your bubble that you're completely incapable of listening. You have already decided what to think before I write, which you state in your above post. That is the epitome of ignorance.

You can call me a prequel salty fanboy if you like, but that's not what I am. This is clearly your anger talking (which I can tell easily by the many typos in your posts, you're writing fast and your heart is pumping with hate). I'm a Star Wars fan, and I believe you have simply watched too many angry documentaries about people discrediting Lucas who share the same opinions as you. I try to look at the big picture. Before the Special Editions and the prequels, noone in the fan-community discredited Lucas. But because they were convinced that Lucas "ruined their childhood" they began to do deep investigations and skew the information to their advantage in order to make Lucas look like he had nothing to do with the success of Star Wars (Which is completely wrong, but since you seem to have some sort of allergy to it, I'll spare you the history lessons).
That being said, every director needs people around them. Every making of a film is based on teamwork and a collaboration of thousands of people. Spielberg didn't do E.T. on his own either. Likewise, George didn't do the prequels on his own.

No, because Lucas didn't fire his directors.

All in all, you have proved that your only consistent point is that everything is better when Lucas isn't involved, in your opinion. But unlike you, I don't need to turn to name-calling to make myself feel better. You are much more interested in bringing up feminism and calling me a misogynist even though I said nothing about those things. I feel you are just a very very angry person.

Vos out.

 

Too bad Colin was let go.

 

And yet Rian Johnson wasn't fired. To me this is the proof that Kennedy dosen't just fire directors for no real reason, like you claim.
She trusts Rian's writing and directing despite the most popular actor (now that Ford is out) disagreeing with his own character. We'll see how it turns out.

Lord and Miller apparently turned the movie into too much of a comedy, which Kasdan disagreed with. From what we know Ehrenrech didn't like the directon of Han Solo either. Sure, Lord and Miller are good directors I really liked the Jump Street movies. But if their version is indeed completely out of the script tonally I can understand the decision.

You haven't mentioned Treworrow though. You said he was fired for being egoistical which I think is absolutely out of question.

I think only the argument "it's just your opinion" is the boring and redundant one. The discussion itself isn't.

I chose the most comercially successful ones, what else should I have? I also panned the Marvel movies which aren't faliures at all (in a comercial sense of course). I just couldn't get myself excited for the third Thor movie. It seems like a redundant filler attempting to chash in half a billion-ish dollars until Infinity War is finally released. It takes place on a location far away from the events of the other movies (so basically anything can happen), rendering the whole thing pointless.

Tell me then which franchises are you referring to, try to present an argument, insted of paraphrasing mine in a teleological way...

"Remember that..." You're getting a bit too theatrical for a Star Wars discussion, don't you think? Besides, I don't know why is it "delusional" to think Star Wars needs extra care from the filmmakers. This is exactly what I think as well. Star Wars is (or at least used to be) an american gem. It used to be the pinnacle of creativity, intransigence and fascination, as I said it in my comment above. It's far more important historically than the 500th functionally identical movie that the Marvel film factory assembles... Or any of the Transformers or Fast and Furious movies that never really took themselves too seriously though.

And to me it seems Kennedy chose to follow this ideology and does anything that's possible to ensure the quality of the brand. She could've easely let Rogue One to be the way it was, but she didn't spare time, energy and money to deliver the best possible movie they can get in time.

Spare me from this trolling please. Why in the world would that be my conclusion? My conclusion very obviously was that she (sometimes along with her husband) chose the right directors to work with and did the best she could in her power.

Different situation though. She was working on individual movies back then, not on a franchise. And she chose the right directors evidently by the outcome of her movies. Her filmography is quite extraorinary to look at. The only truly bad movies I can see there are The Last Airbender (where she was "only" executive though) and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (from the genious post-ESB Geroge Lucas).

What a bunch of nonsense. I criticised Natalie Portman's performance in the PT on this forum many times for instance. Only the fact that you tried to unfarily and baselessly discredit Kennedy's work "triggered" me, not her gender.
Many of those who criticise her online are openly misoginst, insecure beta-males though. And even if you don't admit it yourself, latent misoginy is a thing (usually a conjunctive attribute of insecure people on the internet). Why else would you be trying to discredit her oeuvre?

Then again, why are you trying to discredit even her pre-Star Wars career?

May I ask which one is the 6th movie? So far there were only TFA, R1, TLJ, Solo and ep IX...
And obviously since Lord and Miller are an inseparable duo, that's two people, but still only 3 directors. And Gareth Edwards wasn't fired, so it's actually only two directors.
If you want to look at something truly disastrous, just look at how many people left the DCEU already.

Thank you for this fortune cookie philosophy. Try to use less "you" and "your" in your posts if I may ask.
Btw if you'll ever encounter my comments about TFA you'll easily find out that I bashed the movie quite hard.
In fact, I see you downvoted one of my comments (without any argument or respose of course), where I dissed JJ and the sequel trilogy. Although I think the downvote was for the "prequels were missed opportunity" part. Which I concur here again. Feel free to discuss that topic as well.

Sure, that's true. If Lucas's secret goal was to bring back Solo in a possible sequel to deal with his fate there, instead of the commercial reason we've heard from Ford, than I take it back. Dosen't alter the fact though, that Han was rather clusmy and pointless in RotJ.

It's not that I don't wan't to, it's that I don't need to. If you'd react somewhat else than I expect I'd be pleasantly surprised in fact. You haven't so far though.

And again "epitome of ignorance" xD. Aren't you a bit too theatrical for a discussion like this?
Although salty fanboys do this quite often as well, it is a usual trait.

I called you a salty prequel fanboy, not a prequel salty fanboy (although that's not bad either I admit).
Angry seems to be your fad word... Why would I be angry? I'm annoyed a bit I agree (because I stared this pointless discussion yet again), but not angry. In fact, the only reason I initially reposed to you was beacuse you were disrespecting a mod in a comment above and responded quite angrily and agressively to him. When he asked you to be more polite you said he was "too sensitive".

So I'll use your words here: It's not me who's angry. It's you who's too sensitive.

I grew up with the prequels though, those were my childhood.

I have absolutely no "allergy" to it. Give me that history presentation, I'm curious about your opinion. I might see an argument there at least...

But he had full control and no dissenting opinion. He issued orders and the people merely executed it.
That's the exact opposite of what happened during the production of ANH.

He should've fired the PT director though.

Which one of my points were inconsistent? Also, I say "better" when post- ESB Lucas is not involved, to be precise. To pick a non-preqel example as well, Speilberg unequivocally hated Lucas's idea of having aliens, pardon extradimensional beings in Indy 4. Yet he did it anyways for his friend. That movie I think would've been far better without Lucas.

Why would name-calling someone on a Sunday on a Star Wars forum make myself better? It dosen't make me feel better... Quite the opposite.

 

General_Tarkin

The report said he was very confident and egoistical, perhaps that was not in Kennedy's taste. And when it comes to The Book of Henry, I haven't actually watched it yet but I am going to. I'm going to check if its really that bad as the critics point it to be. Based on some reviews I've seen, it seems critics have issues with some of the themes, but the audience score is more positive.

I already mentioned the MCU, and I genuinely like those movies. I don't need to explain myself. If you don't like them that's fine.

I don't think I'm any more or less theatrical than you. Perhaps you're just reading too much into "the three dots"... I was just reminding you of what above posters said, so that we were "clear" about what we were discussing.
It surely is delusional to think Star Wars needs to be handled with extra care, almost like a baby, compared to other film franchises. It actually sounds rather silly if you ask me.

Nah. With more and more women working in the same industries as men, you have to be allowed to criticize them in the same way as if they were men. But people are obviously not comfortable with this, which is why they will use arguments such as "You would never criticize her if it was a man!". I'm not saying you're using this argument, but THAT is certainly a thing out in the real world.

I'm not trying to discredit her, I'm trying to understand why she is firing so many directors, and if it might have something to do with inexperience in this new position. Like I mentioned above, I wouldn't give Spielberg any credit for Jurassic World either, for example.

Josh Trank's movie. And like I mentioned before, not all of them were fired.

Good, but I wasn't defending DCEU anytime. But for comparison, just look at how smooth the MCU are handling their directors.

Why? You is the 14th most common English word so it's quite hard not to use it.
Also, I'm not able to remember every single comment that I've liked or disliked, or for what reason, and it's not relevant here.

To put a funny twist to this: He had been frozen in carbonite for quite a while, so who knows what that does to you body...

I'm not particulary interested in reading old rants you had with other people.

Mods are mods, but they are also members just like everyone else. I've been a mod myself before so I know it works. Just because someone is a mod doesn't mean members can't confront them in a discussion. Likewise, a mod should be able to feel as if he/she is part of the discussion just like everybody else. I've literally experienced members asking for permission to disagree with a mod.
English is not my first language so I sometimes forget that the word "ignorant" is less respectful in English than my language.

I don't think so. You're the one who had to turn to name-calling to "fight" for your cause, I don't really need that - Simple words and sentences usually do the trick.

No, Lucas had full control over his directing duties in ANH. Then of course, the production was faced with huge problems - but that's another thing.

No, I've realized that you're not really worth the time nor effort to talk with. I know now exactly what you're interested in talking about, and I'm not interested anymore.

 

Because he almost ruined George Lucas, when ESB went way over Budget.
Lucas had to ask Fox for help ($10 million) which almost lead to him losing the rights. Thanks to Ladd jr that didnt happen.
That was the point where Lucas decided to step in and be way more involved, almost like a hands-on producer.
And thats also the reason why he replaced Kurtz with Howard Kazanjian (worked with Lucas on Raiders) four weeks before filming wrapped.

Kurtz is salty since then and is trying to make his contribution to the franchise more important than it really was.

short form :Lucas fired him because he was sh.it at his job.