Pressure mounts on Kathleen Kennedy to step down as head of Lucas Film?

conorhal

Sad Professor wrote: »

Ugh, more videos of dudes explaining what's wrong with the movie. Just what this thread needs.

Well I'm sorry if you think this thread needs less people that disagree with you.

Sad Professor wrote: »

He doesn't fix anything.

Clearly he does. It's a question of whether or not you think his fixes work or not.

Sad Professor wrote: »

He cuts out some stuff he personally didn't like. In the case of Luke and the lightsaber, in a very obvious and messy way. You can't ADR in Luke saying "take it, you need it more than me" - first because it would be really obvious, and second because you'd then have to reshoot the rest of the movie to make Luke's character match this new, character-defining moment you've created at the start of the film.

Your sneering 'can't do attitude' is the opposite of his 'yes I absolutely can', and he has, the edit is consistant with the editorial choices he has made, without 'reshooting the entire film'. I believe he has reshot one scene and dropped in some ADR for Luke and Ackbar. You can splutter 'he can't do that!' all you like, he has done it and the point of doing it was to prove you could have made a better movie out of TLJ not to create some fantasy alternative cannon.

You seem to be treating TLJ as the kind of scripture you accuse fans of doing. TLJ is an objectively bad movie, inconstant, incoherent, bloated and horribly paced, and your neurotic adherence to it as scripture verges on dogma. You sound on the verge of screaming, heretic! In Ivan Ortega I just see a Martin Luthor saying, yeah, reform is possible, and I have the tools.

Sad Professor wrote: »

If fans did have access to the raw footage, they could probably change the take of Luke throwing away the lightsaber to something less comic, but that's clearly not enough for them. They don't want a movie with the comedy moments left out, they want a different movie.

Or even a good one.

Sad Professor wrote: »

I get people's issues with Luke - I don't agree with them (I love him throwing away the lightsaber) - but you can't "fix" them by re-editing the movie. That's Luke's character in TLJ. It's in the script, it's in Hamill's performance, it's the movie Johnson chose to make. Even if you had access to all the raw footage, you can't change that without breaking the film. A professional film editor should know this.

Johnson broke it, you're underestimating Ortega's talent in fixing it (to the extent he can)

Sad Professor wrote: »

I agree with Ray, these fan edits are basically the 21st century version of fan fiction.

You're thinking of The Force Awakens.

TerrorFirmer

I tend not to usually look at fan edits because I do believe that you just have to accept what is given in a final cut for better or worse but while I like TLJ overall, I absolute despise those two scenes mentioned the most - Luke flinging his lightsabre away (not so much the action itself but the way RJ chose to capture the moment) and that opening deck scene with Hux.

In this case I don't think it's so much a 'fan edit' or 'fixing' as it is of simply highlighting a better way that the story should've been told that fits in nicely with the narrative tone thus far (TFA included). It's not particularly eye opening or ground breaking stuff - notwithstanding that I know they were highlighted here for a specific reason - but those two scenes were probably the most divisive among fans and mentioned a lot here on boards on the TLJ thread.

Personally I loathed them and both those exact scenes were repeating in my mind after the movie - in a very negative way. Went a second time and I could forgive them a little easier knowing the film itself was fundementally solid. I'm more or less OK (ish) with alot of scenes other people had gripes with to various extents - the milking, Snoke, Cantino Blight, the face-off, Lukes demise, or Yoda, whatever. Even Leia's spacewalk.

But I was annoyed at the cheap spoof style gags that were inserted for no real valid reason than a cheap laugh in those two particular scenes.

In a wierd way JJ succeeded, for me, where Rian Johnson failed...but the same statement works in reverse in so many ways also. Between both of them is a mind-blowingly good Star Wars film - but both are just flawed in radically different ways. Time, and multiple viewings, has convinced me that while TFA is easily the better overall film, the actual high points of TLJ are on a different level.

So frustrating, this new trilogy. I wish there was just better creative control over where it was going rather than allowing people total license to pick and chose what they want to continue, tease or outright ignore as long as they adhere to a pretty wafer thin framework.... leading to what I feel is an entertaining, hot mess that we'll look back on in 20 years as mere passable blockbuster sci-fi of it's day, rather than a classic trilogy.

conorhal

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I tend not to usually look at fan edits because I do believe that you just have to accept what is given in a final cut for better or worse but while I like TLJ overall, I absolute despise those two scenes mentioned the most - Luke flinging his lightsabre away (not so much the action itself but the way RJ chose to capture the moment) and that opening deck scene with Hux.

In this case I don't think it's so much a 'fan edit' or 'fixing' as it is of simply highlighting a better way that the story should've been told that fits in nicely with the narrative tone thus far (TFA included).

Well Ortega is a pretty talented guy and that was his point, they say you can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear, but he could at least make a decent Moore St. knock off version

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

She's turned a franchise that was basically a licence to print money, with the original cast returning, into one that not only does not dominate the box offfice but one that investors can't rely on and that's why people are asking if she should leave.

I think a lot of people overestimate just how big Star Wars really is. Don't get me wrong, it has huge appeal but traditionally most of Star Wars money was made from licensing. The films while successful have always seen a downward trend in profits with each sequel. The first part of each trilogy cleans up and then the subsequent films do less box office.

So much of this debate over Kennedy is because she is a woman. Fans praise Kevin Feige for what he did with Marvel but so far the trajectory of each Star Wars release has been similar to the early Marvel films, Solo is pretty much the Hulk, a decent enough film but one that just doesn't connect.

It's funny reading all the real fans opinions of what is happening, a bunch of sad and lonely 40-year-old men crying because that evil woman isn't making directors do what they think they should. I thought that the Last Jedi was a bad film, it had an awful script and quite possibly the worst opening scene in a film in maybe 50 years, the prank call was just cringy and sad but at the same time, I recognise that they didn't do it for me. They did it for the 10-year-olds in the audience who thought it was hilarious.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

So much of this debate over Kennedy is because she is a woman.

Nah i don't think so, if she was in charge of the business side with someone like Dave Filoni in creative control nobody would have a problem. Even if Filoni was given creative control now and Kennedy stayed most would be cool with it.

She has hired and sacked directors for 4 of 6 productions so she's created a rod for her own back there.

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

Nah i don't think so, if she was in charge of the business side with someone like Dave Filoni in creative control nobody would have a problem. Even if Filoni was given creative control now and Kennedy stayed most would be cool with it.

She has hired and sacked directors for 4 of 6 productions so she's created a rod for her own back there.

So it's nothing to do with her being a woman but if there was a man working alongside her then you don't think anyone would have an issue with her.

OMG, she like fired 4 guys. OMG guys, I cannot believe that an executive actually did their job instead of sitting back and hoping to save it in post. Getting rid of dead weight is seen as a positive, here sacking of Tank was 100% the right move given that Fox knowing the extent of his actions didn't as they hoped to save it in post. Anyone who had Tank in mind for a film quickly dropped him and the Miller, Lord thing is unfortunate but it may have had to be done. There are hundreds of stories of directors let loose and than panic when the studio tries to salvage something, Kennedy just cuts the leg off rather than save face with some sad fanboys.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

So it's nothing to do with her being a woman but if there was a man working alongside her then you don't think anyone would have an issue with her.

No if there was someone the fans know has a proven track record of understanding the franchise and has made widely popular shows.

Sort of like a Star Wars Feige.

Deleted User wrote: »

Kennedy just cuts the leg off rather than save face with some sad fanboys.

If she keeps hiring and firing people Disney will ask questions like any other business should, as they would of any head of the company male or female.

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

No if there was someone the fans know has a proven track record of understanding the franchise and has made widely popular shows.

Sort of like a Star Wars Feige.

But Feige had an incredibly rocky start with the Marvel universe and I notice that no one called for him to be fired when Hulk bombed. Why is that?

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

If she keeps hiring and firing people Disney will ask questions like any other business should, as they would of any head of the company male or female.

You do know that she doesn't hire people but rather a board do, multiple people have a say in who gets to direct a film.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

But Feige had an incredibly rocky start with the Marvel universe and I notice that no one called for him to be fired when Hulk bombed. Why is that?

Dunno i didn't follow Marvel back then, because he's a man is your argument?

What about Jon Berg & Geoff Johns at DCEU after BvS & Justice League? Misandry?


Look at the massive amount of stick George Lucas took for the prequels & Special Editions?

It's just Nerdrage.

Deleted User wrote: »

You do know that she doesn't hire people but rather a board do, multiple people have a say in who gets to direct a film.

So she doesn't hire people but she fires people and she's right to do it. Good argument.

She's head of Lucasfilm, buck stops with her.

pixelburp

Truly we are through the looking glass if the sacking of Josh Trank is held against someone.

It's a classic problem of management when dealing with a bad hire, the easy - and disastrous thing - is to soldier on regardless. Hiring and firing won't look bad if the choices turn out to be Tranks or Trevorrows. Recognising a mistake and taking action is the smart choice.

Arne_Saknussem

pixelburp wrote: »

Truly we are through the looking glass if the sacking of Josh Trank is held against someone.

It's a classic problem of management when dealing with a bad hire, the easy - and disastrous thing - is to soldier on regardless. Hiring and firing won't look bad if the choices turn out to be Tranks or Trevorrows. Recognising a mistake and taking action is the smart choice.

True enough, constantly making mistakes and having to correct them not so good though.

pixelburp

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

True enough, constantly making mistakes and having to correct them not so good though.

So maybe your definition of "constantly" is not the same as a Hollywood executives; and given how many movies have been 'saved' in post, when the smarter move was to sack the deadweight during production, it's obviously a novel approach. Mentioning Josh Trank is deeply apt considering his role as the bad hire for that Fantastic Four debacle.

I may have said it earlier here before but to me, Kennedy deserves praise for saving Solo, seeing that Lord & Miller were the wrong choice and parachuting in Ron Howard to retrofit the production. It's a glass half full/empty scenario but I respect the person who makes the smart choice eventually than the person who persists with the bad one.

Arne_Saknussem

pixelburp wrote: »

So maybe your definition of "constantly" is not the same as a Hollywood executives; and given how many movies have been 'saved' in post, when the smarter move was to sack the deadweight during production, it's obviously a novel approach. Mentioning Josh Trank is deeply apt considering his role as the bad hire for that Fantastic Four debacle.

I may have said it earlier here before but to me, Kennedy deserves praise for saving Solo, seeing that Lord & Miller were the wrong choice and parachuting in Ron Howard to retrofit the production. It's a glass half full/empty scenario but I respect the person who makes the smart choice eventually than the person who persists with the bad one.

We obviously see things a little differently, which is fair enough.

As for KK i think Ep IX will be her last Star Wars film, i think it'll be announced she's leaving before it opens in cinemas.

She won't be 'sacked', it'll be announced she's stepping down to pursue other opportunities.

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

Dunno i didn't follow Marvel back then, because he's a man is your argument?

What about Jon Berg & Geoff Johns at DCEU after BvS & Justice League? Misandry?


Look at the massive amount of stick George Lucas took for the prequels & Special Editions?

It's just Nerdrage.

So you are using Kevin Feige as an argument as to how it should be done and when it is pointed out that he had just as shaky a foundation as Kennedy your response is "I don't know, I no like Marvel back then."

Removing Berg and Johns on the back of Justice League was a ridiculous decision given that they proved with Wonder Women that they can produce hits. That said, the level of vitriol directed at them was tiny compared to what Kennedy is getting. Every youtuber and sad 40 year old Star Wars fan seems to know how to run a billion dollar company better than her.

You can dress it up all you want but a large part of the outrage over Kennedy is because she is a woman. The amount of crying fans have done over the SJWs and the new women added to the films says a lot about the mindset that they have.

Fans are fickle, how many of them are out there calling for Lucas back. The biggest problem with Star Wars is that the most vocal fans seem to think that Disney owes them something. There is a sense of ownership that is sad from many fans.

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

So she doesn't hire people but she fires people and she's right to do it. Good argument.

She's head of Lucasfilm, buck stops with her.

You want to go back and read what I wrote again.

Kennedy hires and fires people based on meetings with executives. She is not some dictator who makes the decisions but rather the head of a team all of whom have input. Any decisions made at Lucas are made by the board and not solely by Kennedy. She may be the head and the buck will stop there but there are dozens of people involved in every decision made there.

A good manager recognises a problem and takes action, a bad manager sits back and hopes for the best which is why we have the Fantastic Four in the state it was released in.

Sad Professor

I don't ever remember anyone calling for Lucas to be removed during the prequels. Fans wanted someone else to write and direct but they still wanted him overseeing it and writing the story. Most fans at the time believed in the "yes man" theory that claimed McCallum was to blame for not standing up Lucas the way that Gary Kurtz supposedly did, though in reality neither were creative producers.

I don't see a lot of evidence that Kennedy is acting as a creative producer in the way that Feige does. Yes, she's hiring and firing people, but usually under the advice of other people. Kasdan seems to have been responsible for getting Lord and Miller fired, yet I don't see anyone blaming him. If anything I think the fact that it took Kennedy so long to realise that there was a problem with Lord and Miller is proof that she isn't all that creatively involved once there's a director onboard.

If there is a problem with Kennedy it's probably that she's an old school producer who believes in auteur theory when increasingly movies are being made under the guidance of tv producer-like executives such as Feige. But that's the direction Disney choose with these movies and it's a bit late to turn back now. I doubt the Johnson and GOT guys films wouldn't have gotten the go ahead under a Feige-like producer.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

So you are using Kevin Feige as an argument as to how it should be done and when it is pointed out that he had just as shaky a foundation as Kennedy your response is "I don't know, I no like Marvel back then."

No i was saying that Filoni would please fans because he has a proven understanding of the source material & track record of making franchise content popular with fans. A status currently enjoyed by Kevin Feige.

Deleted User wrote: »

Removing Berg and Johns on the back of Justice League was a ridiculous decision given that they proved with Wonder Women that they can produce hits.

Besides the point, which was that fans were demanding they go as they didn't like the direction they were taking the franchise.

Deleted User wrote: »

That said, the level of vitriol directed at them was tiny compared to what Kennedy is getting.

Because Star Wars is a bigger franchise and the Nerdrage tends to be strong with them. Like i said look at the stick Lucas took and he created the thing, ditto that for Hayden Christensen & Jake Lloyd.

And as i've already said Rian Johnson has taken more abuse than anyone in Sequel era.

Deleted User wrote: »

You can dress it up all you want but a large part of the outrage over Kennedy is because she is a woman. The amount of crying fans have done over the SJWs and the new women added to the films says a lot about the mindset that they have.

.

How are you measuring that? They Youtube channels you're referring to are all over 10 times smaller than the one you dismissed as "click-bait nonsense from a Youtuber desperate to boost their views".

The only people bringing up SJWs & gender in here are people who are pro KK, to assign that to everyone unhappy with the current direction is nonsense.

Deleted User wrote: »

Fans are fickle, how many of them are out there calling for Lucas back. The biggest problem with Star Wars is that the most vocal fans seem to think that Disney owes them something. There is a sense of ownership that is sad from many fans.

Fan's are fickle, and irrational a lot of the time.

Deleted User wrote: »

Kennedy hires and fires people based on meetings with executives. She is not some dictator who makes the decisions but rather the head of a team all of whom have input. Any decisions made at Lucas are made by the board and not solely by Kennedy. She may be the head and the buck will stop there but there are dozens of people involved in every decision made there.

A good manager recognises a problem and takes action, a bad manager sits back and hopes for the best which is why we have the Fantastic Four in the state it was released in.

She's the head of Lucasfilm, head of a board that keeps making costly decisions that need to be corrected. So she needs to put someone in creative control who understand the source material and will make better choices, just like i said

FunLover18

Were Trank/Trevorrow's films actually in production when they were dismissed? I didn't think they were.

I fail to see what costly decisions they have made which has cost them money, looking at Solo and based on it's theatrical run it is estimated to lost 50 million which means that based on streaming and broadcast rights that it is already in profit and that's before you factor in DVD and Blu sales or rentals. It may not have made billions but calling Solo a flop or a costly mistake just shows how little you know of how Hollywood operates. Also, it is important to remember that even if Solo lost 300 million it would not lose Disney any money given the way in which Hollywood accounting works.

pixelburp

FunLover18 wrote: »

Were Trank/Trevorrow's films actually in production when they were dismissed? I didn't think they were.

Nope, IIRC Trank was attached to the Fett movie, which aside from remaining in limbo was last attached to James Mangold. I think we can all agree that's a significant improvement in terms of directorial talent. Trevorrow was to direct Episode IX but got the heave ho long before production started on that.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

It may not have made billions but calling Solo a flop or a costly mistake just shows how little you know of how Hollywood operates.

It's production costs were over $250m before promotion is taken into account. It's absolutely a box-office flop.

Even Scott Mendelson over at Forbes who's staunchly pro Kennedy Lucasfilm is calling it a bomb.

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

It's production costs were over $250m before promotion is taken into account. It's absolutely a box-office flop.

Even Scott Mendelson over at Forbes who's staunchly pro Kennedy Lucasfilm is calling it a bomb.

Crap, a lad at Forbes is calling it a flop so it must be.

Solo is projected to lose about 50 million in theatres. It is already in profit once you factor in streaming rights, broadcast right, rentals and home media sales.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

Crap, a lad at Forbes is calling it a flop so it must be.

Solo is projected to lose about 50 million in theatres. It is already in profit once you factor in streaming rights, broadcast right, rentals and home media sales.

It's box office loss will be a lot more than $50m.

Sad Professor

Lets say Solo cost no more than 350m including marketing. It made 370m, of which the studio takes about half. That's at least 185m they made back. Definitely a box office flop, but not so bad that it won't eventually make its money back. Even Waterworld made a profit on video and that was in the 90s.

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

It's box office loss will be a lot more than $50m.

How do you come to that figure, it's currently sitting on $368,879,115 and it's budget and marketing is estimated to be around 425 to 450 million so it is looking at most like a 50 million dollar loss which it has already regrouped thanks to sales of streaming and broadcast rights.

Sad Professor

It's more than 50m, Darko. Films generally have to make twice their budget to break even at the box office as exhibitors take about half the gross. I still agree with you that it will make its money back eventually, though.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

It's more than 50m, Darko. Films generally have to make twice their budget to break even at the box office as exhibitors take about half the gross. I still agree with you that it will make its money back eventually, though.

I understand how it works, I was deliberately stating it as, simply because we all know that no one would be calling it a flop if it cost 450 and made 500 million even though it technically is. Far too many people these days are box office experts based on the fact that they have read a few rants online.

Exhibitors generally receive 40% of a ticket sale these days though some studios, Disney, in particular, insist that they actually get more and are routinely demanding 65% of each cinema ticket as well as demanding that their releases play on the biggest screen in each cinema for a guaranteed number of weeks. For the Last Jedi it was the largest screen for 5 weeks and 65% cut of ticket sales which is why a number of chains int he US refused to screen it initially.

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

He doesn't fix anything. He cuts out some stuff he personally didn't like. In the case of Luke and the lightsaber, in a very obvious and messy way.

Yeah, it's pretty awful - based on that, he's in a few swift edits robbed the film of much of its dramatic stakes, characterisation and made the whole thing a whole lot less interesting.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The Last Jedi is to me, an excellent film in its own right.... but just an OK to decent Star Wars film.

This is interesting to me, because I feel The Last Jedi actually has a far deeper understanding of a lot of the ideas floating the series around then many give it credit for... indeed, it expands on them quite significantly.

Johnson is fascinated with many of themes and ideas that have defined the films thus far. Family and legacy has obviously been a key driver in almost all the films to date, particularly the original trilogy. TLJ takes that in a lot of new directions that very clearly reflect on what the series has had to say to date. He makes Rey's story one that mirrors but also departs the journey both Anakin and Luke went on when we followed them at a similar point in their development. Similarly, Kylo's journey shows a character actively trying to replicate his grandfather, but spiralling down a different path completely.

When it comes to lore, I also think Johnson sat down and properly fleshed out his thoughts on what a lot of the ideas floating around represent - even to the degree of critiquing some of them (he has little tolerance for some of the spiritual or - heaven forbid - pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo that has bogged down the series at the times). His montage 'explaining' the Force is probably the definitive cinematic explanation of it, with visual ideas backing up the exposition. Similarly, it allows Luke to become the perfect Jedi Yoda described in the Empire Strikes Back ("A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack"). The 'badass' projecting Luke we see in his final scenes here is a more fitting destination for the character than the lightsaber-wielding 'badass' some others have called for. Even if you look at something like The Holdo Maneuver (which I am well aware has become a sticking point for some) - that again takes a concept familiar from the series and takes it somewhere new. Same thing for lightsabers - that fight in the throne room is a very different take on lightsaber combat than we've seen in the main series to date (as emotionally and physically draining as past fights have been, don't get me wrong!).

Even stylistically, TLJ is probably the most thoughtful successor to the film George Lucas made in 1977. They're both cine-literate creations, loaded with deeply-rooted nods and allusions to cinema history. TLJ, of course, has several additional decades of cinema to draw from, not least the series it exists in (Luke's final sunset shot, for example, is a brilliant visual echo that completes his journey in a purely visual way).

The Force Awakens is obviously a Star Wars film, in that it militantly adheres to what a Star Wars films looks and feels like to the point it has been both criticised and praised as a glorified remake. The Last Jedi has a notably different feel, and in some ways definitely feels like a surprise departure from what we've seen to date. But what I appreciate about it - as someone who loved Star Wars as a kid but have naturally grown out of it over the years - is that it engages with the ideas at the centre of the series more robustly and thoughtfully than any of the films that have come before.

I fully understand and respect that others feel differently, I hasten to add - while I may be baffled by the sheer, sustained vitriol from some quarters, I can understand why many were disappointed or frustrated by the directions and interpretations chosen. But for me Johnson made the decisions that were necessary to push the series forward, while engaging in all manner of fascinating ways with the legacy he inherited. It is, IMO, a definitively Star Wars film in a deeper, more interesting way than TFA is.

RayCun

I think there are lots of problems with TLJ - scenes where the intent is clear but don't come off as strongly as they should. But the central relationship between Rey and Ren is handled brilliantly, the scenes when either of them are on screen really work and they carry the movie.

A lot of people seem to have wanted a movie that carried on straight after Return of the Jedi, ignoring the difficulties with that idea.

On the real world level, there was 30 years between RotJ and TFA. No studio was going to make actors in their 50s and 60s the stars of a blockbuster trilogy. Hamill doesn't have the range, Ford wouldn't have done it, and Fisher was not going to be cast as a heroine

Dramatically, those characters have had their story. Time for a new set of characters.

The new trilogy had to create a situation where new characters would be faced with equally serious problems. And the obvious question would be, why not let Luke, Leia, and Han solve those problems? The last Jedi, the general/princess/diplomat leader of the rebellion, and the smuggler guy - they ended RotJ as popular, powerful heroes, so they would be better placed to handle crises than anyone else around.

One solution would be to remove them from the picture completely. Set the new trilogy 200 years after the end of the last one, problem solved. But not an option for people making expensive movies. So they had to be sidelined, but central. Visible and important, but not the main actors in the story.

In particular, Luke, if he had continued progressing for 30 years the way he had in the original trilogy, would have completely unbalanced the story - any challenge Rey or Finn could face would be trivial for him. Anything that would be challenging for him would be impossible for anyone else. So whatever he was doing would be automatically the most important thing in the movie. (The Spiderman movie had a similar issue with Tony Stark but handled it brilliantly)

Making Luke, Leia, and Han the centre of the problem solves all of this. Why is Luke not a super jedi? Because he made a mistake. Why is Han not sitting around in luxury? Because he's running away from that mistake. Why is Leia still fighting? Because of that mistake. Who is everyone, including our new heroes, fighting? Hello, that mistake. (and who gets a strong narrative arc as a result? Mister stop ****ing calling me a mistake)

pixelburp

I liked Last Jedi despite its problems and ultimately, I'd rather a blockbuster shoot for the moon and partially fail than watch another limp, insipid piece of garbage like The Mummy or Jusitice League, slumming it with brazen, cynical mediocrity.

Last Jedi was many things but not mediocre and its biggest crime was taking narrative and stylistic risks with the closest thing to a pop culture holy cow, constipated with its own mythological status.

Penn

Absolutely genius poster created for the man-babies who want to make their own remake of The Last Jedi

RayCun

Love the Snoke Powerpoint