I'm pretty sure of it. Nobody who destroys a franchise and fanbase can survive this long, unless they hold their bosses for ransom.
shareYeah, billions of dollars. A bunch of manbabies being mad at her is irrelevant.
shareA vagina.
shareSo so sad. Thoughts and prayers.
Star Wars films have been more successful under Kennedy than Disney's own live action films since 2015. Even with the smash hits of Jungle Book and Aladdin.
No, actually they haven't when accounting for profit (not revenue).
The amount of money they dumped into advertising and promotion even led to Solo losing Disney money, the first time that's happened for a Star Wars flick.
For a movie to be profitable it has to double back its budget domestically, since most overseas intake goes to international distributors.
You can see that after Force Awakens there's a steep decline in domestic revenue:
https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Wars#tab=summary
Yeah, Force Awakens made a lot of money, even though they dumped $300 million into the production, not accounting for marketing and promotion. It made close to a billion domestically, so yes it was unequivocally profitable. But the rest? Well, you see that Rogue One had a steep decline, followed by Last Jedi, followed by the abysmal performance of Solo, and eventually Rise of Skywalker.
From the production budget alone, Rise of Skywalker wasn't domestically profitable, that's not including any additional marketing and promotion.
So no, Star Wars has not been very successful under Kennedy, especially compared to the production and promotional budgets of past Star Wars films and how much money they made domestically versus their budgets.
You just said that Disney dumped millions into marketing. So what has that got to do with Kennedy?
Your claim that the production budget alone meant IX lost money domestically is as hilarious as it is tortuously irrelevant.
I'm sure there is a seed of cogency in the reply, but I'm not sure you invested enough time to make it apparent.
shareRumor has it that she has information about some major players in Hollywood who had dealings with a certain "dead" pimp who owned an island full of underage girls that catered to the rich and perverted. So if anyone dares to fire her, she'll spill tea faster than shit through a goose.
shareUpdate: turns out she has a "No Firing Clause" in her contract. So it doesn't seem to matter how bad she is at her job, she can't be terminated. However, Iger has found ways around this, and I have a feeling he's not renewing her contract after what she did to Indy. It was the straw that broke Iger's back.
shareThat has to be the most ridiculous clause of any contract in existence.
shareI know, right?! Even worse, it's a real thing people can have put in their contracts! I asked mom about it, because she's written and signed contracts before (having worked in the business world), and she says such clauses exist. I can't believe anyone would get away with having such a thing in their contract, or that it's legal at all.
share[deleted]
A quick google search says "common law" can be used to terminate said contract.
It can be, but costly.
I think that kind of clauses are commonly known as "golden parachute".
Not in Hollyweird. There's a reason she was able to keep her job and have her contract renewed three times, despite murdering all of George Lucas's franchises in less than 15 years.
share๐คธ๐ฟโโ๏ธ
shareShe has something on just about everyone in Hollyweird. She killed Star Wars, Willow, and soon Indiana Jones but disney still keeps her. At this point it is blatantly obvious that she has some serious knowledge about the wrong doings of all of the higher ups at Disney.
shareThere's pretty much universal agreement from people in the movie business that she's been a brilliant leader for Lucasfilm. What more does she need?
share[deleted]
Or she had 3 ways with Spielberg and Lucas, and kept photos.
Because I could not think a reason why they thought of her having any talents.