SecondWindGroup
patreon
[COLUMN] Does It Even Matter Who Runs LucasFilm After Kathleen Kennedy? | by Darren Mooney
🕑 Added 2025-02-28 15:00:22 +0000 UTC
(Editor's Note: Conflicting reports regarding Kathleen Kennedy's retirement dropped after this story was written, but it doesn't change the points that Darren makes whatsoever.)
Earlier this week, Puck reported that Lucasfilm head Kathleen Kennedy was planning to retire this year, at the age of 71.
On one hand, this isn’t unexpected. Much has been written about “the grey ceiling”, how modern Hollywood is dominated by older producers and studio heads. Bob Iger retired from running Disney at the age of 69, only to return at the age of 71. Younger executives feel a “big squeeze”, unable to progress and modernize the industry. In that sense, it’s probably good to see a seasoned professional standing aside and presumably making room for new blood.
Still, it feels strange that the news about Kennedy arrives just a week after it was announced that Barbara Broccoli had surrendered creative control of the James Bond franchise to Amazon. Once again, Broccoli was a veteran producer. She is seven years younger than Kennedy, at 64 years of age, but she still has a long and storied career. The announcement of Broccoli’s departure caught a lot of observers by surprise, as many assumed Amazon would have to pry the property from her hands.
It is perhaps an understatement to describe Kennedy’s stewardship of the Star Wars brand as chaotic and uneven. On the one hand, Kennedy has overseen commercial and creative triumphs. The Force Awakens is still the highest-grossing movie of all-time at the domestic box office. The Last Jedi is one of the most important (and, frankly, best) blockbusters of the 21st century, and proof that an artist’s sensibility could survive in the modern commercial context. Andor is a masterpiece.
However, for all of these successes, there was also – frankly – a lot of “content.” If The Last Jedi felt like a thesis statement on the potential for a cohesive artistic statement in the modern studio framework, Solo: A Star Wars Story and The Rise of Skywalker felt like the opposite. They were soulless, anonymous, pandering messes that seemed to usher in an era of those sorts of films from The Flash to Captain America: Brave New World.
Kennedy was directly responsible for many of these bad calls. Kennedy, for example, defended the franchise’s leap across the nostalgia event horizon, by choosing to interpret audiences’ rejection of Solo not as a rejection of a completely pointless and unnecessary prequel, but specifically as a rejection of the idea of recasting, how she “should have recognized” that the franchise needed to bring back more old actors, which gave us computer-generated Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill).
Similarly, Kennedy would often clash with creatives by making very ill-judged decisions based on her assumptions of what the audience wanted. Kennedy demanded a heavy retool of Obi-Wan Kenobi, the miniseries from Oscar-winning writer Hossein Amini, arguing that the story should be “a hopeful, uplifting story” that just happened to unfold in a period where the title character (Ewan McGregor) was living in exile after a genocide and the betrayal of his best friend (Hayden Christensen).
Indeed, one of the more interesting recurring trends of Kennedy’s stewardship of the Star Wars brand was her willingness to make bold and interesting creative choices, and then pull back from them extremely quickly towards the middle of the road. She hired Phil Lord and Christopher Miller to make Solo, which could have been one of the most interesting franchise films of the decade, only to get cold feet during production, fire them and replace them with the safest choice, Ron Howard.
Kennedy greenlit a trilogy of Star Wars movies by Rian Johnson, but failed to make them materialize. Even Andor seemed to happen by accident. According to Tony Gilroy, Kennedy reached out to him after his salvage work on Rogue One, and asked him to pitch the project. He pitched it. The pitch scared Kennedy away. The official response was, reportedly, “we’re not doing that.” Kennedy seems to have then gone to Stephen Schiff, only to return to Gilroy’s original pitch when Schiff’s second (and likely more generic) attempt at Andor fell through.
It’s worth pausing to note here that Kennedy is, quite frankly, an incredible producer who has enjoyed an incredible career. She spent a lot of her time in Hollywood working alongside Steven Spielberg, producing classics like E.T. and Jurassic Park. She was handpicked by George Lucas. Kennedy’s career is built around two poles that intersect with Spielberg: a strong eye for creative talent and a desire to please the audience. Her best decisions managing Star Wars prioritized the former. Reflecting the general trend in contemporary Hollywood, her weakest instincts reflected a desire to pander to fans.
There has been an interesting shift in Hollywood over the past decade, trying to move creative control of these sorts of projects (which take up an increasing amount of space in the market) away from filmmakers. It has become a lot harder for genuine auteurs to make big budget crowd pleasing blockbusters. There is a tendency to treat the directors of franchise films as “more shooter than auteur.” Warner Bros. has made a point to “avoid auteur directors who want final cut” since around 2017.
Creative power has shifted away from creatives and towards executives. If the Marvel Cinematic Universe has an auteur, it is Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige. “It is a Kevin Feige production, it’s his movie,” explained Nia DaCosta, the director of The Marvels. “So I think you live in that reality, but I tried to go in with the knowledge that some of you is going to take a back seat.” This shift in power arguably strengthened the role of figures like Kennedy and Broccoli.
Certainly, Broccoli had her share of creative clashes. Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle left the project that would become No Time To Die over “creative disagreements”, which is interesting given how radical No Time to Die ended up being in its approach to James Bond (Daniel Craig). Christopher Nolan reportedly expressed an interest in directing the Bond movie following No Time to Die, but that deal fell through because Broccoli refused to grant him final cut.
This is why James Gunn’s ascent to the head of the DC arm of Warner Bros. is so interesting, because Gunn seems like the rare major studio executive who actually understands the importance of creativity within the creative process. That said, Gunn has yet to release his first film under that studio brand, and the commercial turmoil embroiling Warner Bros. makes it hard to believe that he’ll get to see his plans come to fruition, but it is the most interesting creative move in modern Hollywood.
However, it feels like this trend has only accelerated in recent years. Over the past decade, there has been a clear shift in power away from the directors making individual films to the super producers overseeing entire franchises. Now, it seems like there has been even greater consolidation in the hands of the corporate owners of these studios. The person sending out the casting call for the new James Bond wasn’t an executive at Amazon Studios, it was Jeff Bezos himself.
It is perhaps fanciful to imagine that Jeff Bezos might personally set the direction of the James Bond franchise, but this is the same week that he made it clear that he was setting the editorial line at The Washington Post. The mere existence of Rings of Power, the most expensive television show ever made, reportedly stemmed from a five-word edict from Bezos: “Bring me Game of Thrones.” Bezos personally saved The Expanse, and then just as quickly forgot about it.
This does feel like a realignment, particularly in the context of statements by executives like Bob Iger that his creatives “need to be entertaining”, and removing any personality from their work. It feels like the shift has only accelerated. First, power moved from creatives to the producers who tried to balance creativity with the demands of the money men. Now, it seems like even the extremely compromised creative choices of those producers are too wild for the money men.
After all, if Kathleen Kennedy, the producer behind crowd-pleasing creative triumphs like E.T. and Jurassic Park couldn’t balance the competing demands of creative vision and content cultivation, what chance would any successor have. The internet is speculating heavily that Kennedy might be replaced by the logical choices of Kevin Feige, Jon Favreau and/or Dave Filoni. For all of Kennedy’s faults, that’s a really depressing slate of candidates.
After all, like Kennedy, Feige has had to deal with the creative and commercial decline of his own creative brand – the Marvel Cinematic Universe – since around 2019. Are Brave New World and The Marvels really any better or worse than The Book of Boba Fett or Skeleton Crew? Similarly, Favreau seems like a lovely guy, but is a company man to his core. Is the director of the “live action” remake of The Lion King really a guy to be trusted with this? And Filoni… well, Filoni made Ahsoka.
Similarly, for all the bad choices that Broccoli made with the James Bond brand, turning down Nolan and Boyle, it seems fair to assume that Amazon would never allow even the modest creative ambition of No Time to Die, which dared to imagine Bond as an absentee father who makes the ultimate sacrifice. That was a bold creative choice, and it is largely absent from so much modern franchise culture, which is increasingly about maps and macguffins and lore and continuity.
If Kathleen Kennedy could not thread the needle between producing competent creative-led entertainment and the increasingly commonplace belief among executives and fans that art shouldn’t be burdened by anything as gauche as a perspective, what chance does any successor have? Broccoli made her mistakes managing the James Bond franchise, but they were her mistakes, borne of her own choices rather than fear of some imaginary audience. If Kennedy didn’t have the power to see through her early commitment to letting talented people make good media, it doesn’t really matter who heads LucasFilm.
The most charitable assessment of Kennedy’s stewardship of the Star Wars brand will be that it was “mixed” at best. However, any clear-eyed understanding of what Kennedy’s departure means for the Star Wars franchise will also accept that it is unlikely to lead to a raising of the proverbial bar. Kennedy’s retirement doesn’t make empty inoffensive synergistic content like The Book of Boba Fett, the later seasons of The Manadalorian, Ahsoka or Obi-Wan Kenobi any less likely.
It just removes any chance of something as interesting and worthwhile as The Last Jedi or Andor.
Comments
Darren Mooney
Theatrically, since 2018, it's "Solo" and "Rise of Skywalker." I think it's uncontroversial to state that "Solo" was unambiguously disastrous. I think "Rise of Skywalker" was commercially middling - it got outgrossed by an R-rated "Joker" film - but creatively disastrous. (The worst reviews and the lowest CinemaScore in the franchise, and a narrative that they are *still* trying to patch and re-write through ancillary media.) As for the streaming shows, that's been a case of sorely diminishing returns. The performance of those shows (as much as they can be gauged in the opaque medium of streaming) has been in steady decline, to the point that their premieres are beaten by reruns of "NCIS" on other services and their finales don't chart. The fact that Iger specifically had to say that they'd be limiting both "Star Wars" and Marvel show outputs suggests that the company's not hugely happy with those results either.
Michael McCarthy
Disastrous is a bit hyperbolic at least in a commercial sense? The animated series have done well with the Bad batch and Visions being particular highlights. The live action tv series have been on balance successful if a mixed bag with Boba Fett on one end and Andor on the other with the Mandalorian somewhere in the middle. Even the Rise of Skywalker did over a billion at the box office. I've seen you correctly argue that the annual release of Star Wars movies had dampened the special event of what these movies should be, so perhaps the hiatus on filmmaking might end up being beneficial. Yes, the above aren't creative juggernauts or monuments to artistic virtue but they are profitable, keeping people in work and shareholders happy. If that wasn't the case Kennedy would have gotten the boot ages ago. If this is disastrous, we need a new lexicon for what happened to the DCEU or what is happening to the MCU quite frankly.
Jeroen Delcour
From "It could easily veer into treacly nonsense" and "Somehow, it works" and "easily the most technically ambitious piece of filmmaking in the entire franchise", I thought you were saying 'Unexpectedly good, for a Bridget Jones movie'. While you had some absolute praise like "honestly breathtaking [opening]", I understood most of it to be in the context of the franchise (you called the first entry "a broadly enjoyable piece of fluff"), rather than romcoms or movies as a whole. Did I misunderstand? Is it the best romcom you've seen in the past year, or more?
Darren Mooney
Oh yeah, there is no reason for "Star Wars" to be more than three films. Anything after that was always unnecessary. (And I say that having a great deal of affection for the ambition of the prequels.)
Darren Mooney
I thought the "Mad About the Boy" piece was practically a rave! "This is the boldest swing in Mad About the Boy, and it is a choice that really pays off. ... It could easily veer into treacly nonsense. "Somehow, it works. The opening twenty minutes of Mad About the Boy, as the film settles into its groove, are honestly breathtaking, as it becomes clear how thoughtfully and skillfully the film has committed to its narrative and thematic choices. There is an early scene in Bridget’s kitchen, as the character is haunted by the voices of past and present friends offering conflicting advice, which is easily the most technically ambitious piece of filmmaking in the entire franchise. Unlike the previous two sequels, Mad About the Boy not only knows what it is doing, but also how best to do it."
Darren Mooney
"As a result unfortunately, it's more about having a safe pair of hands that can get a project undramatically over the line rather than with creative flair" And we've seen the result of that, and since 2018, it's been - with the notable exception of cancelling itself out on "Andor" - it's been disastrous.
Will Cooling
Yeah. Ideally breaking up the sub-units would encourage greater risk taking, but you're right, it could just spread the house style more broadly.
Will Cooling
Honestly I'd almost argue its an issue with Return of the Jedi. That film ending on such a firm happy ending (because Lucas was sick of the whole thing) that any attempt to continue the story always feels like you're unpicking what has been settled. If you're doing that, why not bring back Palpatine, particularly when the actor is ready and willing
Michael McCarthy
"It's never, "Look, we couldn't make Lord and Miller work, but that's okay. We got Sean Baker or Edward Berger and we've given them final cut."". You say that but that's what happened approximately with Rogue One were they subbed out Gareth Edward with Tony Gilroy (similar thing happened to Edwards at the end of Godzilla's production). Without that we wouldn't have had Andor. I think Rogue One (an okay movie that needed an extra push over the line, The Last Jedi(a good movie but foreseeably divisive) and Solo (a bad movie where the directors seemingly worked against and lied to the producers as some tell it) shaped Kennedy's/ Disney's vision for handling shows / movies and the creature ves making them. As a result unfortunately, it's more about having a safe pair of hands that can get a project undramatically over the line rather than with creative flair (Ron Howard is springing up somewhere as I write these words). This probably explains why Gilroy got the Andor gig eventually because he managed to salvage Rogue One for them (an assessment he shares). Also I suspect Johnson's trilogy was canned straight after the mixed fan response to The Last Jedi with both parties being too professional to come out and say it. Johnson has never sounded like he had a strong vision for this trilogy. I'm guessing Jenkin's project can canned because of the lukewarm response to WW2 and Watiti's project is probably stuck somewhere in the in-tray of myriad of projects he's committed himself to. I'm a bit wary of taking literally what directors, producers and actors say in public because half of it is saving face and the other is positioning for the next project. When it comes to Lord and Miller, it seems to be case where a lot of people at the sharp end have very negative things to say about them and that's part of filmmaking we don't talk about enough, the crew who have to work extra hard because the director(s) can't articulate their vision without 10-20 takes.
Jeroen Delcour
That's your "extremely positive"? Huh, I got more of a "pleasantly surprised, but nothing to write home about" from those articles. Fair enough, I guess my inner Darren voice needs a more positive inflection when I read.
JR
Fair enough, selective reading on my part (for external reasons, not lack of interest). Just glad if you keep doing what you like and liking what you do!
Darren Mooney
Sorry. Just my own fears. As mentioned, despite not being very excited for "Superman", I am very enthusiastic for Gunn's larger stewardship of the DC brand. ("Woman of Tomorrow" looks great, "Creature Commandos" was great, a "Clayface" movie written by Mike Flannagan sounds incredible, "Lanterns" looks fun.) It does feel like the kind of thing that "the Town" needs right now.
Darren Mooney
To be fair, part of this is just the news. This is the season from January to May where a lot of the news is going to be industry alignments. It did feel like Broccoli and Kennedy stepping down (or being reported to have stepped down), within a week of one another, felt like fairly significant events in contemporary Hollywood, and perhaps enough to indicate that there was a "trend" line there worth acknowledging. But I will say, over the past month or so I've been extremely positive about "The Monkey", "Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy", Gerard Butler (!) , and "The People's Joker." Even within modern franchise-dom, I have been quite vocally impressed by "Your Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-Man." Although perhaps slightly less enthusiastic, I was also reasonably positive about the third season of "Yellowjackets."
Darren Mooney
I think the issue here is that it's part of a larger pattern of behaviour. In that if it were just "Solo", fine. It happens. Sometimes creatives are tough. But it was also "Rogue One." And "The Rise of Skywalker." And "Obi-Wan Kenobi." And "Andor." And "Andor" again. Not to mention the failure to get movies like, say, Rian Johnson's "Star Wars" trilogy or Patty Jenkins's "Rogue Squandron" off the ground. It's also the fact that these changes are always to the most generic possible alternative. I'm no Trevorrow fan, but he's a far more interesting filmmaker than Abrams. Who are we replacing the Oscar-nominated writer of "The Wings of the Dove" and "Drive" with? Oh, a dude from the "Transformers" writers' room. It's telling that the guy they initially replaced Gilroy with on "Andor" went on to be the only writer on that season who didn't have an Oscar nomination. (And Schiff isn't a bad writer; he's just... y'know, not Tony Gilroy, Dan Gilroy or Beau Willimon.) It's never, "Look, we couldn't make Lord and Miller work, but that's okay. We got Sean Baker or Edward Berger and we've given them final cut."
Darren Mooney
The old documentaries you used to see on the “Alien” DVDs are great examples of this.
JR
There is potential there for a real documentary, which would be more than a "making of X" and something else than a studio promotion. Something between a business thriller and an insight into a creative mind.
Brian S
Yeesh, that’s depressing and likely in equal measure
Darren Mooney
There’s the story of when the UPN executives started attending meetings for “Star Trek” shows. So, the writers explain the plot of the episode. A daring survival episode about a character pinned to the hull by a mine. It’s going to tough, austere. High stakes. They run through the entire story from beginning to end. At the end, one executive raises a hand. “I just have one question. What’s a hull?”
Darren Mooney
I’ve said it before, but I’d love a warts and all account of the workings of one of these studio arms. Just a “what the meetings are like over these things, and the conversations after the meetings.”
Darren Mooney
To be fair, he was the villain of “Duel of the Fates.” Allowing for what seems an unearned redemption.
Darren Mooney
@Brian S: I’m more concerned about it being fattened up for a merger/acquisition, and a new owner coming in with a new direction or panicky shareholders demanding a change in course just so they can signal to the market they have “a vision.”
Darren Mooney
I think they don’t have to worry about a third season, they figure that this is a great way to concentrate positive critical buzz, and - as you said - more minutes to watch every week. I do wish it were more spaced out - I’d like twelve weeks of talking about Andor, instead of four, and I think a longer season is a better way to spark interest. (Think “Ted Lasso”, people didn’t notice how good that was until six or seven weeks into its season.)
Matthew Knight
I think they've been removed from canon now but for example Darth Plagueis is an excellent book that would translate well into a show. As long as they don't mangle it like the Wheel of Time was mangled
JR
Interesting - thank you for your answer! Maybe I'll find a moment to check out some of these books.
Matthew Knight
I think there are still lots of great stuff they can in the movie and series space. Some of the story telling in the old books are worth bringing to life on the screen and there's lots of interesting parts of the world that never gets enough focus such as the politics of intergalactic companies and some of the planetary civil wars that happen. I feel the focus on Jedi's have burnt people out on space wizards for now and it needs a rest but starwars itself has lots of interesting places it can go if a director is brave enough
Michael McCarthy
Also not sure where the Bezos forgets The Expanse line came from. From what I understand, the deal signed with the production company lapses this year which explains why it's leaving Amazon. While cancelled, the show ended at the point of the books where there would be a 20 year time jump. The creators got to finish their story at six seasons which more than 99% of TV shows streaming or televised. Also worth noting that the Amazon seasons saw physical releases too so even if it doesn't show up on another streamer, people can still purchase and watch it. I love the show but it was never popular. To claim that Bezos abandoned it seems like an over reach, at the end of the day, if the audience doesn't show up neither will the money. EDIT: The Expanse including the first three seasons is still up on Prime so I'm guessing someone at Amazon hasn't quickly forgotten. Edit2: Amazon are also adapting the Expanses authors' new book series The Mercy of Gods so there still must be some love.
JR
I want to somewhat concur with one of the points: please, Darren, if you've got stuff you're more interested in and are less dejected by, give these other pop culture topics a rest. At least these columns which reach noone except existing patrons needn't "sell" much anyway.
JR
Honest question: do you feel like it's a positive for Star Wars to go on in movie/series format, like at all? Or do you mean something more like "if it has to go on, at least I hope it gets more interesting again"? I for myself am unsure if it's beneficial. On the one hand, some stories can more easily be told with less exposition about the context needed - on the other, I am so not up to date anymore on the huge lore baggage of most franchises including Star Wars...
Davsau
According to the late Harlan Ellison (an unreliable narrator if ever there was one) he was booted off the first Star Trek film after storming out of a meeting with a Paramount executive who didn’t understand why it was a big deal if they had Aztechs show up in Palaeolithic Earth. The more things change , the more they stay the same, just with bigger budgets I guess.
Michael McCarthy
I know consensus was that Disney/Kennedy are to blame for the retooling of Solo but there are a lot of stories about Lord and Miller's conduct as directors, not too dis similar from reports from animators who worked on their Spider verse movies. Creatives and producers need to work together, and as megalopolis shows, creatives making an interesting movie doesn't make it good either.
Matthew Knight
Huh, this is the first take I've ever read from Darren that just feels plain wrong. From what I'd read almost all of the movement towards more generic less interesting content was at Kennedy's behest and it's only those projects that she didn't intervene much with that were interesting. I also don't agree that the Last Jedi was well done or interesting though. I'd only give Andor and Rogue One pass marks from this era. Still it's a well written and thought provoking article, thanks for the read. I hope you're wrong and we see some of the magic return to the series or at the very least more risks taken
Brian S
You’re absolutely right, and I mistyped the name. I meant Andor.
matticus40
Have you not seen Andor? It's easily the best piece of Star Wars content since Empire and just a fantastic TV show in general. So no, SW is not creatively dead. Not yet at least.
Joseph
I don't really think Kennedy deserves any credit for The Force Awaken's box office. It was the return of Star Wars. It would have sold tickets no matter who was at the head.
Ryallen
I, like many others, was not aware of Kathleen Kennedy's storied filmography before her tenure as the head producer of the Star Wars films. I didn't particularly care nor do I hold all of Star Wars' flops against her, I'm well aware that film has so many steps to it that it's almost never due to a single person when a production fails. Of course, I still wonder what Kathleen did and what especially kept her from doing well on these projects or if she even did anything wrong in the first place other than greenlight projects that were going to end up the way they did. Obviously she didn't tell them to do a bad job but how many steps removed was she from the mistakes that led to these subpar projects? I think this just illustrates how little we know about the actual workload of a CEO, producer, or the like and what they need to do to succeed at their job
Jeroen Delcour
Darren, your columns are well-written and researched. I enjoy the glimpse of the industry's inner workings through your condensed thoughts. But I feel like I'm not getting as many new insights from your work lately. You have little faith in current Hollywood executives. We get it. This piece especially (while, again, well written) feels defeatist. Like reviewing something which hasn't been made yet, but you expect it to be bad (with some reason, I'll admit). I like breakdowns of how and why bad things come about (loved your piece on the Borderlands movie), and constructive feedback. But, unlike Anton Ego, I don't consider negative criticism inherently fun to read. I like movies and shows, and would rather celebrate the good than bemoan the bad. If that's not your style, sure, you do you. But then I'll do me, and might give your column a pass in future.
Brian S
Darren, I actually believe WB/DC will give Gunn the time and freedom he needs. He saved the Suicide Squad franchise, and while the film wasn't a great box office success due to the pandemic, it was a very good film, and he then produced Peacemaker and Creature Commandos, which were also really good and good, respectively. He's been better and more successful than Snyder, though I know that's a low bar to clear.
Brian S
I didn't even realize that Kennedy was in charge of Star Wars until I read this article. I just knew that aside from Ahsoka (edit: I meant Andor...), everything being produced now is either just okay (TLJ) to outright terrible (The Acolyte), at least in my opnion. Also, some SW work done when the franchise was launched was outright terrible, and I say this as someone who watched the Star Wars Holiday Special when it aired in 1978. I'[m still traumatized. Regardless, when I said dead, I meant creatively, not that Disney won't produce more Star Wars content. While I like SW overall, aside from The Empire Strikes Back, I never considered the franchise transcendent. It was a fun universe in which to play, combining pulp sci-fi/fantasy, the politics of the time, and a very mellow California spirituality into something entertaining, and that sold a lot of toys, but nothing more. We had far fewer enterainment options in the 70's and 80's, and SW gave us something to talk about and bond over with our friends. Much like Star Trek, people took it way to seriously.
Harley Faggetter
Oh sure, but I don't think Lucasfilm were confident that making him the end big bad would make for a good payoff. Maybe Rian could have worked something out when their first attempt at it failed, who knows
Grey1
Any opinion on whether releasing Andor S2 over four (well, three) weeks means that they want to play up the engagement numbers per week, or that somebody wants to get it over with as quickly as possible, no matter the effect?
Grey1
I'd argue this gets talked about so soon after Broccoli especially since people want to stress similarities, name trends, capatalize on "this sounds likely" and then profit from Kennedy being a "controversial figure" in online discourse. So while it's always possible, I don't necessarily see a Bezos-like situation here.
Darren Mooney
To be fair, the decision to bring back Palpatine is not an issue with "The Last Jedi." It's an issue with "The Rise of Skywalker." "The Last Jedi" ends with a clear big bad at the end: Kylo Ren. It's "The Rise of Skywalker" that decides to roll back his character arc (even having him repair his helmet) by giving him an evil mentor.
Darren Mooney
Yep! I was surprised too. Los Angeles, baby!
Darren Mooney
I think the biggest issue with Gunn is survival. Will Warner Bros. let him do what he needs to for as long as he needs to for it to actually start working. I say this as somebody very skeptical of "Superman", but who thinks Gunn is by far the most interesting and deserving of these "internal chiefs."
Darren Mooney
@Antiphar: Do we honestly think Amazon would be willing to make the sort of compromises necessary to bring in Nolan, given how Netflix is grousing about the accommodations it has to make for Gerwig, who is a director who simply wants a theatrical release?
Darren Mooney
Well, I think that's the problem. Is that you used to have franchises, where each could have whole and distinct identities, and now you have - as you say - "sub-units" where there's a homogeneity across the "content" produced. I don't think that flattening the style even further is going to help. (As Lord and Miller put it, "superhero fatigue" is really "movie I've already seen fifteen times this year" fatigue, and upping that to "twenty times" isn't going to fix it.) That said, it does feel like the trend of consolidation is heading that way. I just imagine that's not going to make things better.
Darren Mooney
Yep, and this is a problem. Because those first two films were anything but grey goo. They were largely driven by Lucas' idiosyncrasies. And I'd argue that "The Last Jedi" did a pretty decent job of making all the money. It was the highest grossing movie of its year and it grossed as much compared to "The Force Awakens" as "Empire" did to the original "Star Wars." So you can have some creativity there. (I'd also suspect that "Andor" suffered a bit from arriving just as the streaming bubble burst - it came out a few months after "the Great Netflix Correction" - and after the sheen of the "content soup" of the Disney franchise streaming shows had worn off. But there's no real way to demonstrate that, due to the opacity of streaming metrics.)
Darren Mooney
Cool.
Harley Faggetter
As a particularly easy to please Star Wars fan, I think the biggest mistake Kennedy is most responsible was the mess of creative control over the sequel trilogy, which would have probably benefitted more from a more Feige-style tighter grip. TLJ was a good, interesting movie, but as the centre act for the trilogy that seems to have realised it needed to tie back to the rest of the saga made it difficult to both reconcile the events of that film with the need to link it back to Palpatine. I agree that we were lucky enough that Kennedy saw Andor through, and if/when she does step down, it's going to suck for the franchise and for fans if they find a company person to helm the ship rather than one that can see the potential in the story that universe can tell and find the creatives to tell them. I don't think it can be Feige, I don't know who it would/should be.
LifeIsStrange
LOL no Star Wars ain't "Dead" by a long shot, are you one of those alt-right trolls obsessed with Kennedy to an unhealthy degree?
LifeIsStrange
I think you're dead wrong about Solo and Rise of Skywalker and the other Star Wars TV series(especially Ashoka)i'm with Moviebob on them all being pretty damn solid.
Bastion Gray
Nevermind, looked it up. She looks like 50 tho.
Antiphar
I've already decided to vote with my dollar and skip whatever amazon does with Bond. Even if *deep breath* they bring in my hero Christopher Nolan...
Bastion Gray
71?! This woman is not 71!
Will Cooling
I mean we all know that they're going to try and reboot the Marvel Universal, but why? Does anyone thing that's what people want? Wouldn't it be much more exciting to use Doomsday and Secret Wars to blow it all up, ending the idea of a shared universe. Then they can do versions of their big superheroes that are alone in the world they occupy. And you can always do a multiverse team up, if the characters connect.
Brian S
It's a great and well researched article, Darren, as usual, but it also made me very depressed, especially for future James Bond movies. It's fitting that Daniel Criag's Bond died (?) at the end of the last movie. I'm glad that Kennedy is gone, but the Star Wars franchise is all but dead anyway. Still, I'm hopeful that James Gunn can inject some life into the DC brand. WB has nothing to lose at this point, so why not let Gunn run wild? Now if you'll pardon me, I need to fall into a pit of geek despair.
Will Cooling
Ignoring that I disagree with you on The Last Jedi (:D), I kinda hope that Disney thinks about the broader structure of its movie business. Does it make sense to have Lucasfilm and Marvel as standalone studios, that have to churn out films or tv shows to keep the lights on? Is this not one of the reasons why Disney has lost coherence, because it doesn't have a strategy that aligns what its various sub-units are doing? Would it not be better to do a reorganisation that created divisions focused on producing live action films for Mature, PG-13, and Universal audiences that can utilise all the IP that Disney has at its disposal. You know, because that way, Disney might gain the freedom to let some franchise lay fallow for a few years and so let things breathe.
ParaParadox
Imo, Star Wars is in the same space as most big budget productions. They need it to be as grey goo as possible to recoup the massive amount of money the money the studio pumps into it, regardless of who's at the helm. After Andor (amazing, but also didn't make them *all* the money) it's no surprise. Correlation to Yahtzee's last review, the scifi story of Citizen Sleeper was infinitely more engaging than any AAA scifi in recent memory.
