I don't think it would have needed to be 12 constant years of filming, especially if they had been smart and filmed them all at the same time (at least the first three). But that would have required a lot more pre-planning and we know how that goes.

I realize it's a big ask, but cramming all the new characters in with the classic characters in only three movies was always going to be a problem. And I think there were more folks than you think that wanted to see the classic crew in action again. Check out the trailer reactions for TFA when Han shows up.

True. But Snoke , who was set up as the new Palpatine, was offed in TLJ. Luke, who was set up as the savior in TFA, was revealed to be a cranky hermit and died serving as a distraction so that Rey and the resistance could flee. Even Admiral "It's A Trap" Akbar was offed in the TLJ. And I'm not suggesting Johnson was aiming to end the saga (as you pointed out, Rey saved the Jedi texts). But Johnson did end the nostalgic vibe TFA was going for. Even the casino adventure felt like a departure (in a good way). It's why I like TLJ so much. TFA gave me a nostalgic fix. TLJ gave me something new.

​​​This I agree with (including your three favorites) 100%.

I like Star Wars.

The problem is that Star Wars, from 1977 through the EU and until the Prequels, set up a really vibrant, living universe.

Then Lucas finally made the long-promised Prequel trilogy and gave us a precocious eight year-old Anakin Skywalker, a Step-and-Fetchit frog alien, an overdose of CGI, and a bunch of woo-woo about virgin births, prophecies, midichlorians, and chosen ones.

And then, when Disney bought Lucasfilm, everyone was anticipating that they would right the ship, but instead they have, so far, half-assed the bulk of the content they've made, including the entire Sequel Trilogy, and made a lot of baffling story decisions.

It's not that Star Wars fans hate Star Wars, they just hate bad Star Wars. And we've gotten way too much of that over the past couple of decades. Rogue One and Andor's first season are generally well-regarded by Star Wars fans, but for every good bit of SW Disney provides, it seems like there are three or four duds.

I'd be good if Rey was a nobody but that's not the story they gave us. She's a Palpatine. Your own words "Making everyone related to everyone else actually reduces the scope and make the universe smaller." Using an existing bloodline from the OT doesn't exactly expand the universe or mythos any more than making her a Skywalker or Kenobi.

Also, I'd say Order 66 made the Jedi universe much smaller. So it makes sense to focus on ya know, the force users that are still alive.

I don't think you're really understanding the practicalities of shooting movies. Filming them all "at the same time" has never been done for more than 3 films at a time, and the first time that happened was LOTR, and the only time since The Hobbit. Even with the Avatar sequels they only shot part of the 4th movie for reasons of continuity with the kid actors.

It's an insane production schedule. Like, normal film schedules are insane, in terms of hours per week, but for even 3 films, the length of time is just insane. Principal photography for The Lord of the Rings film trilogy was conducted concurrently in New Zealand for 438 days from 11 October 1999 through 22 December 2000. That's working 10 hours days, 6 days a week, for over 2/3 of a year, with a holiday break. But the bitch is, that's not all the photography that took place, since each year they did pickups as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Produc...series#Filming

So it wouldn't be 12 years of constant filming, but it'd still be at least a decade commitment, from sign up to final film, with an upfront commitment of probably near 1 1/2 years of grueling film production, which no sane person would agree to, then commitments to annual pickup shoots, press junkets before each film release, etc. Like, they'd be able to take film jobs in between, but they'd likely lose out on some roles due to scheduling, etc.

Well, one could ask those who grew up seeing the prequels first whether it was really a problem that Obi-Wan dies in the first film in the "middle" trilogy, Yoda doesn't show up until the second, then dies almost immediately in the third, the Emperor is only briefly seen in the 2nd and only has a major role in the 3rd, etc.

From a plotting and storytelling point, there's nothing structurally wrong with having the older character pass the torch relatively quickly within the next trilogy.

Sure, people wanted to see more of the old cast, but that doesn't mean they wanted a full 3 movies almost solely focused on them. I consider myself and old-school fan of the OT, and I was fine with the amount of screen-time the original cast got in the new films. To me, of the many problems with the ST, "it didn't focus on the OT cast" isn't one of them.

I also think it really would've undermined the new cast. If they made 3 new movies focused on the old cast, presenting them as more than capable of still dealing with galaxy-wide crises, why would anyone accept the immediately next 3 films being headlined by the second bananas? A 30-year gap between films is as good as time as any as to pass the torch onto a new cast.

Saying that they backtracked made a shitty choice for her parentage doesn't mean making her a Skywalker or Kenobi isn't also shitty. You acknoledge the better choice (her parents are nobodies), but are like "well, since they wiffed it, they could have wiffed it a different way. "

Star Wars lore already established that new Force users are basically born every day. And Order 66 wiped out so many Jedi that it was initially assumed that only Obi-Wan and Yoda survived. They had to make new Force users anyway, which they did with Kylo Ren and Rey, neither of whom were "still alive" after Order 66, since they weren't born yet.

I think way too many fans are under the impression that because Force sensitivity can be inherited, it can only be inherited. Maybe one can get that impression from watching the OT, but the prequels explicitly rejected that .

Like, how does Rey being a Kenobi even work? Obi-Wan died at least a decade before she was born. And making her a Skywalker is even worse, since it'd mean Luke, Leia, and Han explicitly abandoning her, which makes them horrible people.

But logistics aside, it's just lazy storywriting that doesn't do anything good with her parentage. The only reason why the reveal that Vader is Luke's father works in the OT is because it introduces a conflict, dramatic tension. Luke has to confront his own perceptions about who he is and blurs the, up to them, clear black-and-white struggle of him vs Vader. TRoS at least recognizes this by making Rey's parent Palpatine, but we've already seen this 'protagonist has evil parantage" before, and further wiffs it by making Palpatine her grandfather, making the familial link weaker, so there's never any really believable tension in whether Rey would choose to side with Palpatine, or try and save him, etc. Making her a Skywalker or Kenobi likewise wouldn't challenger her perceptions about who she is and where she fits in the world. Those lineages resolve her conflict there, instead of stress it. Oh, of course she's supposed to become a powerful Jedi and fight evil, it's literally her heritage. It's an easy answer for the character that doesn't provide any conflict.

It's maybe a semantic difference, but calling TLJ an "ending" to anything, and akin to "burning the Viking ship" gives a sense that you're talking about resolution and finality, when really what TLJ did was forge an entirely new path for Star Wars to go towards, while actually resolving very little. I understand what you're trying to convey, I just don't think the words or phrases you're using to describe that are accurate.

Heresy! And you call yourself a Star Wars fan?!

I like good Star Wars. Unfortunately those three films were later ruined with badly done CGI and pointless changes.

https://fandomwire.com/disney-reportedly-scrapping-star-wars-movie-with-poc-lead-watchmen-director-damon-lindelof-being-let-go-as-hes-not-sticking-to-schedule-ia/

Another canceled movie. What a surprise, KK and director clashing over things, including the sex of the lead character. And how both Lindelof and Headland's already canceled The Acolyte both tried to force LFL/Disney's hand by moving forward with their projects without permission etc

That's a lot of reading into various rumors. Most telling, is the final sentence from that article:

"Perhaps the internal dispute between Damon Lindelof and Kathleen Kennedy, the president of Lucasfilm was too strong for the movie to continue."

It's the first time Kathleen Kennedy is mentioned in the article, and is pure speculation. There's also nothing in the article that indicates there was any "clash" over the gender of the lead character. There was a rumor the lead was to be a person of color. Then a rumor it was a male POC, then a rumor it "could" be a female POC. Then the rumor that the project was canceled.

It's crazy how often far more is read into these rumors than they actually convey, if the rumors are even true, and how often the pure speculation is done in a way to paint Kathleen Kennedy as the villain.

I guess because it is known for certain that Kennedy clashed with multiple directors of canceled SW projects, fired directors, clashes over a variety of things, that when we keep getting canceled movie projects, and/or removed directors, it's 1+1 smoke-fire, rumors or second-guessing.

The Acolyte has not, to my knowledge, been shelved or canceled and Leslye Headland is still in charge of it.

The tv stuff has (mostly) been coming out. It's the film side that is in absolute chaos.

Well, if your source for those things you "know for certain" are the same types of articles you link to here, then it's clear we don't actually "know" any of those things for certain.

And, as Josh-da-man noted, all the credible evidence is that the Acolyte hasn't been cancelled, and has already begun principle photography:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Acolyte_(TV_series)

Maybe you should stop scrounging rumor mills to build up conspiracy theories around Lucasfilm and Kathleen Kennedy. Let go of your anger and take a step back.

It's been reported multiple times why Trevelow was fired, why the Solo director/writers were, etc ..that it was clashes with Kennedy.

Also, I'm just posting content here for discussion. I don't come from an angle of trying to promote something, a perception, or that I'm right about something, because no one really knows what goes on. So it's just posted to generate interesting discussion back and forth.

Meanwhile...imo, .as for what Disney should or shouldn't do regarding a next movie project that actually proceeds.....

A standalone movie in the era of the Sith, Bane, or a Plagueis feature would work for diehards and casuals, still SW tropes you can flex on. But if you want to jump hundreds of years post-ST, starting a new era or timeline for multiple future projects, it would be best to trial it as a live action show first. If it goes off, then you can plan a trilogy for that era and start putting together building blocks in that show's 2nd and 3rd season.

Those weren't clashes with only Kennedy though, and it doesn't mean any other creative differences are solely due to "clashing" with her, excepting for the part that she's head of the studio, so one could say she has some final say. But Disney owns Lucasfilm, so ultimately Bob Iger has say, but people don't scapegoat him.


I disagree, you read a lot into that last rumor article you linked to, all with a slant against Kennedy, to the point of fabrication. You've done this in the past as well, even going to the opposite to try and claim any Star Wars/Lucasfilm success must be due to the lack of her involvement in the project, like with Andor where you had to speculate she was on her way out the door and thus not involved.

On some level, I get it, she's the face of Lucasfilm since she's the head of it, and it's easier to blame issues on a single person instead of the more nebulous "corporate politics" or "creative differences." On the other hand, the degree in which some people seem to cling to rumors and speculation, basically non-news, as opportunities to slander Kathleen Kennedy can come off as potentially sexist. Like, I wonder if a male studio head would be getting this level of slander and constant speculation that they're "on their way out."

I don't like everything Lucasfilm has put out in the last decade. They've had some good movies, but also some really bad ones. However, running a studio is hard, and it must've been even harder being both new to the position, and having Disney wanting Lucasfilm to basically turn into Marvel overnight, going from a studio that made one film every few years, to churning out new Star Wars movies once a year. I'm not going to let anyone off the hook for bad decisions, but I'm also not going to begrudge them their success, and I'm also not going to give any weight to rumors and speculation.

There's a big difference between Disney CEO Igor, and LFL President Kennedy, in terms of roles. Kennedy is in control of all SW content, she has to deal directly with the directors, writers, etc. Igor has meetings with a wide array of heads of various departments in Disney and other people like Kennedy who are in charge of various franchises, IPs, etc, as well as corporate-based activities.

It's Kennedy's job to be active/proactive with drumming up strategies, scripts, ideas, and all things SW. She'll report to Igor -- regular touching base, what's the plan, how much budget, why is this or that happening or not happening, we need to do this and that, push this back, I don't like that strategy, etc. He's not got his nose in individual SW projects, tho he may oversee it. Kennedy has her nose in it all, that's her role.

So, if there are a lot of "creative differences" with directors, writers, fired directors/writers, canceled projects, it's because she is the one making those calls. Sure, maybe she's right at times, eg, how she felt the script of Solo was too comedic or silly. Or maybe that she felt Obi-Wan and Boba Fett movies were better off being reimagined as live action shows not movies. But she may also be wrong at times. She's got a very good career resume as a producer of successful and popular movies, not just SW. But that doesn't mean people can't or haven't clashed with her too often in her new role as president of LFL, whereas before it was George.

When there's so many fired directors and writers and so many canceled projects, it's because something is happening between Kennedy and the directors/writers.

It's lame that you might point that as sexism. Like it must only be that. It couldn't be frustration or bafflement at why a president, regardless of sex or race, is clashing so often with them? If some white male took over at LFL and started clashing etc, it'd be the same to me. Why? Why so much dysfunction? What's going on? We want to see/hear announcements of projects, the slate, the ideas, want to see them reach fruition, because we like more SW content (good content hopefully).

Also, it's the article itself that is saying this or that, it's not me. I am the messenger, posting content, updates, as I see them posted on other SW forums. Whether it's negative or positive. Just seems to be a lot more negative news -- canceled projects and such -- than positive.

Anyway, if you have a bee in your bonnet over all that, you're entitled to your stance. But so am I to post SW related news/rumors in a General SW discussion thread. I'm not against people disagreeing with me, or showing me I might be wrong about something -- that's the whole point of discussion, debate. That's all I'm interested in, not some personal vendetta against anyone or members here. I often enjoy just reading thru threads, hearing the opinions of others, a lot of humor shown, or very astute takes and analysis, from both sides of various debates about whatever topic.

Anyway, all the best to you. I'll continue posting my thoughts and interesting articles, because that's the point of a discussion, of forums FFS. And you're welcome to ignore me or discuss.

No, you're more than just the messenger. You're seeking out and reposting specific rumors, as well as reading into them more than they actually convey, and then provide your own commentary about it. It all betrays a certain bias on your part, against Kathleen Kennedy.

Like, forget Bob Iger, what about Dave Filoni? He's Executive Creative Director over at Lucasfilm. Why couldn't some of the "clashes" be with him over the creative direction of the films? And why do they have to be characterized as "clashes"? Maybe Damon Lindelof pitched a movie, Lucasfilm expressed some interest, enough to comission a script but not greenlight anything, and when said script was submitted, the consensus at Lucasfilm was that they didn't want to produce it? Everything in the rumor mill has to amped up to "clashes" and fights, to increase the drama for clicks and views. Movie studios hear pitches all the time, and they occasionally will pay for a script to be written, then pass on the script. Lucasfilm isn't any different, except for the microscope turned on it by fans and sites trying to get the "scoop" by reporting on rumors of unconfirmed projects that, more often than not, are likely to come to nothing.

You're cutting out the head of the Disney Studios. She reports to Alan Bergman.

To be fair, I brought up Bob Iger.

Personally, I think a lot of issues with the recent Star Wars movies was the Disney mandate that Lucasfilm almost immediately after purchase start putting out a movie a year. This led to Lucasfilm not planning the ST upfront because they frankly didn't have time to. And while not planning in advance doesn't necessarily mean a bad ST, it certainly seems like the riskier move, but it was the move that got the films out quicker. Likewise, they didn't have a lot of time to develop the standalone movies, which lead to some false starts and some changes mid-production to two of them. Disney thought they could turn Lucasfilm into Marvel Studios essentially overnight, and that was probably too ambitious. That's something that can likely be blamed at least partially on Bob Iger, especially since he himself took blame for it.

https://observer.com/2019/09/disney-...h-too-quickly/
So there's plenty of blame to go around.

Exactly. Anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering.

I heard that somewhere. Can’t remember where. I think Spock said it in Star Trek II.

No no no, Spock said "Fly you fools!"

You're thinking of that line from Back to the Future 3.

It's really hard to swallow this while also being aware that there was literal decades of supplemental material they could have pulled from to make the stories, instead of coming up with something out of the blue. Literally decades of novels, comics, video games, RPG supplements, all kinds of stuff. I know they didn't want to have to deal with Chewie being dead in the books, but they could have done so much more.

As someone who enjoyed the original Zhan Trilogy , and few other EU novels, none of those were the right fit for sequels 30 years after the fact. Most were predicated on Luke/Han/Leia being 20-30 years younger, which wasn't possible to to for the live action ST, and they all built on that structure. Others like KOTR are too esoteric to actually launch a new Star Wars film franchise. Maybe we'll get a movie trilogy or TV series out of that side content someday, but back when re-launching the film series, explicitly with an Episode 7, they needed something that would allow people who'd only seen Eps 1-6, or not even those, to follow and be engaged by.