It will be her choice. She's getting toward retirement age. At any rate no amount of bitching about her is gonna change anything for you ....😂😂



It sure would, I'm yet to see a good Star Wars movie period.

Kathleen could turn it into an all-singing all-dancing space extravaganza for all I care. It would be amusing just to see people with too much time on their hands lose their shit over it.


Will she get any credit for The Mandalorian's huge success?



That is awesome.


In other words, you'll criticize her for failure but not credit her for success.
That's hypocritical!


You will have to explain how a show that she had nearly no creative control over can be counted as "her success"? In fact at this point it is quite clear anything produced under her administration that was good was in-spite of her and not because of her.

Also the photo was quite effective in demonstrating her diminishing role and control over this franchise and yet you try to completely deflect this with calling someone a hypocrite completely unjustifiably.


Bob Iger already admitted it was his idea to toss Lucas' ideas for the sequel trilogy and he obviously has control over the direction of the SW franchise including the movies which lack creativity. But yet he gets no criticism. Just Kennedy.

"‘The Mandalorian’ was Kathleen Kennedy’s idea says Disney film chief Alan Horn:

Don't forget that bobble-head Johnson had creative control over that mess The Last Jedi, but Kennedy was demonized for it along with him.

Give credit where credit is due.


I don't know if I believe Bob Iger, it sounded like he was covering for her because he is safe and it creates a worse image for Disney as a business if they made horrible manager and top executive decisions and allowed a middle executive to derail an entire franchise than it is for the top guy to have made a few creative decisions that did not get received as well as they hoped. Making changes to a product to test its impact on a market is not uncommon; sometimes works well sometimes not. What is a big deal if a executive with creative control made horrible decisions and then the other executives did not keep good accountability of it. The latter scenario would concern the shareholders and board members far more than a creative decision that went bad.

if it is the case that it was 100% Bob Iger than he is the one that caused all of this and should be criticized but Kennedy is still to blame for not 'standing up' to those creative decisions. She was after all the one responsible for Lucasfilm, if Disney was pushing bad ideas she should have managed them better or resigned.

I don't believe Alan Horn either. From all current appearances it looks like Jon Favreau and Kevin Fiege are the ones in control and even have brought Lucas back for consulting. Maybe Kennedy green lit the project but I think her creative impute ended there. At least that is the way it appears. Might not be the case.

Umm, that is just not true; Rian Johnson received at least as much if not more criticism for The Last Jedi; Kennedy was blamed for hiring an unproven director with little writing credit to his name to be responsible for continuing the completely open ended mess that was The Force Awakens and not doing anything to keep any kind of story path or narrative aim in the sequel trilogy. It was her responsibility to be the 'caretakers' of the franchise and not pass on the aims of the over arching trilogy to independent directors that did not have a common vision.


Disney paid $3 billion. I'll guarantee that Iger had imput to recoop that investment.

What creativity? Disney is playing it safe because they're afraid to take risks. Abrams even said Force Awakens is a return to the popular OT which Iger confirmed.

Solo had a western-type theme. Now The Mandalorian does too. That's too coincidental. I'd bet Horn is telling the truth and they were both Kennedy's ideas.

I'm not sure if you understand that movies/TV are a group project. One person can have a general idea of the direction (Kennedy) which is approved on a higher level(Iger) and then the specifics are carried out by another team (Filoni). I don't disagree with your assessment in the last two paragraphs, just the assumption that one person has either zero or 100% creative control.

I'm no fan of Disney SW. I consider them scared uncreative hacks and I repeatedly said Kennedy was clueless along with others. These new films and TV shows are basically fan films and not the creative, bold original experimental art that Lucas created. I only consider Lucas SW to be canon.

But, as a fan film, Mandalorian is very good. Disney is obviously rethinking their strategy and the direction of the franchise.


I will agree that not all the blame falls on Kennedy but since she is the responsible person it does fall on her in the end. The way you were making it sound was that she was being blamed unjustly, I disagree with that.

The entire group is to blame but since she is the head of the studio it was her job to both hold a good story path for the films and be 'the protector of the lore' while also being able to navigate and negotiate with the disney executives (Iger). In all these topics, my assessment is she is a failure. I never said that I viewed one person as either having all or no creative control; i choose my words poorly if I gave that impression.


My problem isn't with the criticism. It's with her not getting literally any credit for the success of The Mandalorian. The new video game, Fallen Jedi looks good too. Maybe she's growing into the role a bit. I thought getting rid of David Benioff and Dan Weiss was another good move.


The Mandalorian is overrated, the movies have been so terrible that even mediocre television is getting high praised when viewed in contrast. Don't get me wrong, I like the show just fine (only seen through episode 3 so far) but it is not anything remarkably good. I agree with others say it is a story structure built like a video game's questing (and a bad questing system at that).

I think it is undeniable that Kennedy's role at Lucasfilm has been seriously reduced; it is hard to give her credit at this point when you have 5 years of divisive films plagued with production issue under her administration (see how many fired directors she has had in just 5 films produced under her (Rogue One, Solo, and the original director of Episode 9). That is not a good track record of administrative efficiency. With Kevin Fiege, Jon Favreau and Lucas himself (all 3 with proven records) all being involved in the Mandalorian, from all appearances she is a studio head in name only and has no actual authority. At least that is the way it appears at this time.


The Mandalorian is overrated.

Star Wars is overrated across the board. Fixed that for you.


I think I somewhat agree to that. Star Wars (episode IV) and Empire Strikes Back are great movies, close to perfect films (anywhere from 9/10 to 10/10). The rest of the series has definitely averaged below 5/10. So with that in mind yes the series as a whole is overrated and been living off the good graces from the first 2 films.

But it is like that for almost every franchise: Alien, Terminator, Jurassic Park, etc All the films of these series outside the first 1 or 2 have been terrible. You wouldn't say Alien is an overrated film because 3, 4, AvP, AvP 2, Prometheus, Alien Convenient all sucked? So with this in mind Episode IV and V are not overrated, just the rest of the series is.


See no that is where you and I disagree. I personally think a new Hope is a 7.5 at best. It gets praise more so for when it came out as opposed to how it holds up as a film in terms of storytelling, acting and directing. Empire I give an 8.0/10. Yeah it was a cool reveal of Vader but to be honest I never saw this as a godsend like the rest of the world. I do not personally find Luke that compelling of a hero. He is not bad but I just never found him that engaging. After this though yeah it has been just face palm. The series was never great to begin with in my book though.


A new hope and empire are definitely better movies and hold up better than you give them credit for. The script is tight, the editing is great, the pacing is spot on, the cinematography is top notch, the music is some of the best in film history, the sequencing and choreography fit will with the setting and atmosphere, the set design and costume design is also easily the most catchy and recognizable in the history of film, and the special effects are so good they hold up even 40 years later, which is incredible considering they did not have CGI back then.

The only 2 criticisms I can even see with from the first 2 films is that the story is derivative of older stories just put into a new setting and relies heavily on archetypes. I do not agree that is a good criticism though because it was aiming for that. Also some say the dialogue and acting is clunky. I don't agree with that either; the actors might not be great but the deliveries are sufficient. The dialogue criticism I don't agree with either, because though it sounds clunky it can be assumed that is just the way they talk in that universe.

What criticism do you have for the first 2 films that would reduce you opinion of them so much?


Yeah sorry bud I disagree with many things you said. The choreography to a New Hope was sub par at best. 2001 a Space Odyssey was more visually striking than anything in A New Hope for it's time. Not to mention Kubrick mops the floor with Lucas in terms of directing actors. The music I can grant you Williams is a great talent. I can think of better costume design in films to be honest. Blade Runner came shortly after but even if you want to go before it there is Singing in the Rain, Ben Hur, Cleopatra etc. Costume design is good but there are other films which I feel are superior. 2001 was more revolutionary in it's visuals than Star Wars was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffgQLcsjUxc

So if something is aiming for something that excuses a flaw someone has with it? That is like when a film is self aware and pokes fun that it has a plot hole while still having a plot hole. Yeah you made a joke about it that does not mean it suddenly disappeared because that was your intent. The actors are not great and honestly I feel the only solid actor in the original Star Wars was Alec Guinness.


I disagree about 2001 A Space Odyssey being more visually striking; more like nauseating. You can say aspects of it were great, but it was too much exposure overall and creates a less approachable film as a result. THis is why star Wars was much more accepted by the general audience and will be remembered more than 2001. Now 2001 was great visually and arguably more revolutionary but in its general effect and accessibility I would not say it was better.

It is not the best costume design in terms of quality of the costumes but of the memorability of them. The storm trooper costume will be burned into the minds of the audience forever. I don't anyone could single out and identify costumes from Cleopatra and Ben Hur if they were put next to each other. Know what I mean?

It is not a flaw just because you don't prefer it. A flaw is them trying to do something a failing. Lucas was going for a Flash Gordon style story with imagery and ideas from various archetypes. And it does this effectively even if someone can say it is the same type of story just told in a new setting. It was not trying to be anything else, so no it is not a flaw. But we can argue whether or not it makes for great original story telling.

I agree the actors themselves (besides Guiness and Cushing) are not great actors but the delivery was sufficient for the less great actors for passable performances. Nothing stands out in the OT as especially bad acting from anyone.


Nauseating? To who those who have no attention span? I could not disagree more. A more accessible film does not mean it is better it just means it is more accessible. Remembered among the general public but will not be as remembered when studying film as 2001 a space odyssey. A movie like Avengers Endgame obviously will be remembered for how big of a film it was when it was made but a film like There Will Be Blood or No Country For Old Men will be more studied in film schools as well as get more recognition from film fanatics and historians. Avengers Endgame had more cultural impact but it will not be held in as high of regard as No Country For Old Men or There Will Be Blood.

So poor point there on your part. Blade Runner, and Blade Runner 2049 both were box office bombs, that does not stop them from being considered great works of art. Far more artistic value there than your average blockbuster. The public does not like subtlety or things which re not done in a traditional way.

A costume being memorable does not automatically equate to it being good. Any person who knows film can recognize Blade Runner, Cleopatra or Ben Hur. So no I do not agree there either.

It is a flaw if you do not feel they did effectively. I personally do not feel they did it that great. Were there good things yes but overall nothing great.

Disagree on the acting as well. See here is the thing. The stilted acting has been there from the beginning. Thing is once the prequels hit the nostalgia glasses were removed. It is no coincidence that the stilted acting came a large part from George Lucas's poor directing. Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman were dreadful in those films. I put blame on the directing there. Anyway point is I never understood why people were so up in arms about the acting being stilted in the prequels. I just shook my head and was like um the acting was always stilted. The nostalgia simply blinded folks, and that is why I feel Star Wars mainly runs off of nostalgia. It is overrated big time. Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 absolutely mop the floor with it.


What does the visuals of a film being nauseating have to do with attention span?

I don’t really feel like long frown out response to you so I’ll just say this:

Not every film needs to be some example of deeper artistic expression to be good or even great. Sure the artsy films can achieve something special but so can a blockbuster type film. A new hope and empire are arguably the greatest blockbuster films ever and in terms of filmmaking merit can hold their own against any so called artistically great film. I would argue empire strikes back is a much better film then no country for old men. And there are many critical analysis that would agree with me.


I just could not think of a reason the film would be nauseating. The visuals are not nauseating, they are far more revolutionary and ahead of their time than most films you will ever see. Star Wars took tons from that movie as I am sure you know. Kubrick unlike Lucas can direct actors and get good performances from his cast. Something in which Lucas has failed to do time and time again.

I did not say that it needed that in order to be considered a great film. However when you break it down a film which has deeper meaning and greater artistic value will always be considered better by the people who study film. Also yeah no A New Hope can not hold it's own against some of the films I listed I hate to break it to you. In terms of cultural impact yep it is unmatched there but not in terms of deep writing and in terms of artistic value. Empire Strikes Back a much better film than No Country For Old Men? I could swallow you saying you feel it is better, I would disagree but when you say much better give me a break.

This is a losing battle when pitting these against each other. Other than Cultural Impact what did Star Wars do better than No Country? A film being more accessible does not mean it is a better film. Hell the transformers franchise was accessible as evident by how much it rakes in. Lmao right what critical analysis are you going to reference? Do you have a poll of critics pitting Empire against No Country For Old Men and all of them explaining why it is better? If so go ahead and provide this analysis.


The visuals are almost purposefully nauseating, what are you talking about? It was the affect Kubrik was going for to add to the atmosphere of the film. I think Kubrick is overrated though, most of the times he got 'good' performances from his actors was because they were great actors. and I personally think 2001 is his worse film, at least that I have seen. Dr. Strangelove is far superior, IMO.

People who study film often have a way too highly inflated sense of their own opinion. No Coutnry for Old Men is poorly paced and a rather generic bad guy vs good guy chase film with some interesting performances and grayness to the protagonist. It is otherwise unremarkable, Tommy Lee Jones's character distracts from the more interesting narrative and is disruptive to the flow, and multiple times side stories are introduced and then abandoned. The only interesting aspect of the film is between Josh Brolin and Jarvier Bardem and once Brolin's character is dead the film lost all steam but goes on for another nearly 35 minutes. So Yeah, all those people that study film that think it is so brilliant really need to get over themselves. It is not Godfather or One flew over the cuckoo's nest good by a long shot.

If you have time to watch this youtube video, I like David V. Stewart's reviews and analysis and he just did Empire a few days ago so it is worth watching.



You say it as if the film is unwatchable. Personally I did not find them nauseating at all. I found them to be exhilarating. Shelley Duvalle is not a good actress and he made her act terrific in the Shining. Something Lucas I can guarantee could not do. Lucas got bad performances out of good actors. Natalie Portman being the prime example of this. Like I said though he is not good at directing actors. No I would say 2001 is his best film. Only Other one I could see being picked over it would be A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket or Spartacus.

Yeah no I think what has happened is their opinion does not coincide with what you think, therefore you want to discredit them. No Country For Old Men is none of the things you listed. Far from a generic good guy vs bad guy movie. This is not a Fast and the Furious film. The film does not hold the audience's hand and does not underestimate people who think. It is about the criminal mind evolving to a point that we as people can not understand. Breaking away from storytelling conventions is a great thing. Here is an analysis on the film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KADoPXknQCI

No I believe you are the one who needs to get over yourself. Overall the people who study film have more credibility and clout behind what determines a movie's place in history than you do. I graduated from film school about 5 years ago. No Country For Old Men I personally would rank over the Godfather.


You are a prime example of one that thinks because they studied film they are some sage of movie analytics. I say you lot just have your head so far up your ass you can’t see any difference between art and pretentiousness


Wow did I strike a nerve? Interesting how when someone disagrees with your view they are some pretentious moron. When someone does study film they typically have a better understanding than someone who has not. That is just common sense. Who has more knowledge of basketball someone on the street or a professional who plays the sport?

Does that mean someone who has not gone to school can't have knowledge? Nope not at all but what has happened here is you are bent that they hold more credibility than you do. Sorry but people including myself are going to put more stock in what those people say than you.

Pretentious is one of the most lazy forms of criticism you basement dwellers come up with. Some films are pretentious it really does not take away the quality of a film. What matters is if the film is well done or not. Godfather I have heard people call pretentious as well. Same goes for Blade Runner. Okay even so go ahead and stick to those labels, it doesn't take away they are still considered some of the greatest films of all time.

Go get an education as well as some maturity while you are at it. Your debating tactics are juvenile.


Considering your extremely long responses now I would say I’m not the one with a struck nerve

There will be blood is a great movie. No country for old men is a decent movie. Let’s test you film knowledge prowess. Which is the better Nolan film. Insomnia, Memento or inception?

Btw your responses are becoming more and more elites as time goes on. I may not have gone to film school but I know movies and I am not so skewed by some film schools elites opinion of movies. Yours is the type of opinion that leads best picture being awarded to a movie about a woman that has sex with a fish man


You gave long responses yourself. So by that logic you have a struck nerve as well. Poor logic there.

No Country For Old Men is a decent film according to you. I wasn't aware you were the end all be all judge of movies. Oh yeah you aren't! In your book it's decent according to the majority it's great. The majority of critics and film historians hold more weight than you. Don't like it too bad.

Funny how you operate. You have in your mind which is the best film among that batch. If I choose the one that's not your favorite I lose credibility. Real mature bud.


I like this I point out your pretentious and elites attitude because you think going to film school gives your opinion more credibility. In response you try claiming I am being immature. When all else fails go for fallacies am i right

By the way it was a trick question. We could argue if memento or insomnia was the better film but if your film judgement had any credibility whatsoever you would say the only wrong answer would be inception. But clarity even that was too much for you. I think I am done with you now. This is getting old


Quite apparent you didn't like that I disagreed with you. It's okay though I let you have your opinion of thinking an overrated film like a new hope is better than No Country For Old Men. I'm capable of disagreeing in a civilized manner you clearly are not.

No it was not. No matter which one I would have said you would have claimed it was wrong. Memento was his best. However even so an argument could be made for inception or Insomnia as all are solid flicks. Anyhow be on your way. Watch your language from now on. You curse or say anything offensive you will be reported from here on out. I will be watching mind your tongue.


I just reported you for threatening to stalk and harass my posts. Good job


Threatened to report your posts if you say something offensive. That's not stalking nice try lol. Key word if. Apparently comprehension isn't your strong suit. School would help you out I suggest you go.


"something offensive" is not a objective criteria to judge something. You said the words "I will be watching mind your tongue." That is a threat.

BTW i have never heard or seen any judgement of the word "ass" being an offensive or even a curse word by any standard today. You can say that word on primetime television without any concern of censorship. For example you can say on regular tv for the whole world to hear 'get your head out of your ass, before i put my foot in your ass' and not one censor will bat an eye at it. So get over yourself and you inflated view of you own opinions just little.

"School would help you out I suggest you go."

Which school is that? film school were I can learn to be a pathetic film elitiest with little actual useful skills but an abundance of over inflated judgement of film? Nah bro I am good, I think I stay in the real world and judge things as they are and not as they appear to be.


There are guidelines of what you can and can not say on moviechat. Therefore that is an objective criteria we can both use from this site. Therefore no you are wrong.

Where did I say anything about that word? Never did therefore I do not need to acknowledge that point.

A film school can help you out immensely. Skills from film school show you how to make movies, so um no not useless. One of my friends from film school got a job as a cinematographer by graduating. I got into editing by my school. What is funny is you think people should put more stock in you than film critics. That shows a sense of arrogance. Perhaps you were spoiled growing up?


Where is the guidelines that say I can't say "get your head out of your ass"? Show me that objective criteria or I say you are full crap; just like you are full of yourself.

Film school CAN help you to be a better judge of filming criteria, but that does not mean you WILL be. In fact often times when I talk to people how have gone or are in film school are way too elites with their own opinion. Which is the impression I get from you.

I do not think people should value my opinion more than critics. It is you that thinks your opinion should be valued more because you went to film school. You have clearly demonstrated your arrogance and elites attitude. my complaint with critics is often they are biased and have agendas and are not being truly objective. You and them are the type that look at a banana duct taped to a wall and call it art.

My family was very poor, my parents were drug addicts and alcoholics and criminals; my siblings and I were horribly abused, i was nearly beaten to death by my mother in drunken rages on more than one occasion. So no I would not think that qualifies as being spoiled. But you can screw yourself for suggesting i was and going on personal attacks. Just more signs you are arrogant, elites and have no arguments to support your positions. when the fallacies start to fail, go on the personal attacks. Next step will be to suggest I am some degree of racist, misogynist, or otherwise ignorant or just say I am trolling. You are so predictable.


Figured we could continue up here since the thread was getting too long.

Where did I say you could not say ass according to the guidelines? I said if you say anything offensive from here on out that would indicate I am referring to moviechat's guidelines I will report you. End of discussion do not project it makes you look ignorant.

You are are correct that does not mean it will but you made another bogus claim about film school. You said it is useless and wouldn't help anybody. Interesting considering I got the job I have now from graduating from film school... You also made a generalization. The minute I mentioned I went to film school you clammed up and got all defensive and judgmental. This shows insecurity on your part. This is your exact quote verbatim.

People who study film often have a way too highly inflated sense of their own opinion

Also this.
So Yeah, all those people that study film that think it is so brilliant really need to get over themselves.

Why do they need to get over themselves? Oh yeah because they do not agree with your view of the film. I forgot no one can disagree with what you think of a film and in order for it to be considered great by others we must go through you first. That quote shows you think your opinion should be more valued. Even though I called The Original Star Wars films overrated I never said other people need to get over themselves. I said I think they are not as good as people have made them out to be. So you lost on this point good job.

I do not deny critics can be biased but guess what so can people. Why are certain films upvoted or downvoted by people before they even come out? Oh yeah because they are people who also can have agendas. My whole point is I put more stock in a critic than an a random person. Critics hold more weight than you ever will. Do not like it too bad. Yeah do not generalize you know nothing about me.

See how annoying it is for someone to make a judgment call on your person without knowing anything about you?
I say you lot just have your head so far up your ass you can’t see any difference between art and pretentiousness

Your words not mine. You do not want people questioning your intelligence or personal life do not do it to other people.


"if you say anything offensive"

Be specific then, what was said that was offensive? When i called you elites? Offensive is a subjective term. someone somewhere sometime could find anything offensive. For example I find you attempts to force your perception of superior judgement of film because you went to "film school" offensive. I find your arrogance offensive, I find your threats against me offensive? Should I report you more?

I did not claim up, when you said you went to film school you proved me right in my claim that people that go to film school are elites in their attitude toward films. You said you went to film school and then demonstrated you elites mentality, thus proving me right in my claim. Why would I be insecure when you're proving me right?

When I said you have your head up your ass I am not making any assumption about your person or character, only your words as demonstrated in this discussion. You proved to be elites and over impressed with yourself in this discussion; I did not make claims about you being insecure, i didn't assume you were elites or arrogant until you demonstrated it, I didn't try making claims about you being spoiled or try bringing up your childhood. That was all you buddy.


If key word if. When I said from here on out that is referring to the future now isn't it? Did I violate any of the moviechat guidelines? Nope neither did you. Therefore I have had no reason to report you.

Yes you did clam up. In fact you were the first person to say Empire is better than No Country For Old Men and that your view would be agreed upon by many critical analysis. I then asked for you back this claim up and you never did. This implies that you personally are putting stock in critics as long as they say what you want to hear. The second they do not you will dismiss them. This is your exact quote.

I would argue empire strikes back is a much better film then no country for old men. And there are many critical analysis that would agree with me.

You completely failed on this point. I asked for this proof and you never provided it.

I said I went to film school, I never said my view has more weight than anyone else's. What I said that upset you was film critics and film historians hold more weight in general in what determines if a film is great or not. They determine if a movie is a great film. A movie does not need to get through you in order for the critics to classify it as a great film. This angers you because you do not like a different point of view or the fact that critics hold more weight than you ever will. Critics need to get over themselves was my absolute favorite thing you said when it came to No Country. Yeah they need to get over themselves and agree with me is basically what you said. It is why I think you are a spoiled person.

Yes you are making an assumption. The second I said I went to film school it created a problem. I asked if you were spoiled growing up. A simple question is different from an assumption. I like how you had no retort to any of your idiotic quotes.


What purpuse does this serve? Neither one of us is making any progress, I think you are an elites little prick and you think with no sense of distinguishing pretentiousness vs art. You think because I did not go to film school and make the argument that Empire is not as "overrated" as you claim but a film like NO Country is, that my analysis is inferior to yours. You are trying to insult my intelligence and background and you are just overall unpleasant. No one is watching us debate so we are just trolling each other now. You take my claim that people that go to film school develop elites mentality as a personal insult and then prove just how elites you are with you attacks. There is no point to continue, the conclusions have been drawn and we are just talking past each other.

BTW; Empire almost across the board in both critic scores and audience scores is higher (only slightly) then No country. I explained the issues i had with the pacing of the film and you completely overlooked that. I provided a link to a good video that does an in depth analysis of Empire and you ignored it; and pretend now like I did not provide it. you try making it seem like I was expecting people to agree with me; which was not the case, they just needed to provide actual reasons for why they disagree and not just 'i went to film school so I know more than you' type of arguments, which is what you did; and if you claim otherwise you are a disingenuous liar.


Oh I have made progress that you can not come against. I have pointed out several contradictions in what you have said. I think you are a spoiled moron who is used to getting his way and can not handle opposition. This is apparent when you said critics need to get over themselves. Like seriously listen to that quote and tell me it does not sound like a spoiled piece of trash. Nope I do not think any of that because you did not go to film school, I think you are inferior because of your entitled attitude.

Actually when crunching the numbers that is not true only in terms of audience scores. Which should be a no brainier Star Wars was much more of a cultural hit than No Country For Old Men was. When checking on Rottentomatoes No Country has a 93% with an average score of 8.7/10 With a total of 283 reviews counted. Empire Strikes Back has a 94% with an average score of 8.9 with 100 reviews counted. So slight edge goes to Empire on this one. However No Country has far more reviews counted.

On Metacritic No Country has a 91 with 37 critics counted. Empire Strikes Back has a 82 with 25 critics counted. Whoops looks like you spoke to soon. Edge here goes to No Country For Old Men. This is actually more impressive of a victory in my book because there are more reviews for No Country and it still came out on top here. Guess what else I have not even accounted for? Accolades!

No Country was nominated for 7 Oscars. It won supporting actor, best director, best picture, and best best adapted screenplay. Empire got nominated for... Sound. and won that one. Therefore it was not even nominated for any big Oscar. So no my friend No Country has the edge for people who study films. That is an objective fact. You would have had better luck arguing a New Hope against No Country honestly. Epic fail for you on this. If Empire had as many reviews accounted for like No Country it would not even be this close I bet. Is that speculation on my part sure, but in the end no across the board empire does not have the edge like you tried to claim.

I did not overlook your issues with the film I disagreed learn the difference. You gave me a link to a video analyzing Empire you did not give me a critical analysis video where it pit Empire against No Country nice try bud. I provided an in depth analysis video of No Country which you ignored. I told you the acting to Star Wars was never great. The nostalgia wore off once the prequels hit. Lucas is terrible with directing actors. Yeah you side stepped this.


Meta critic is the only one in which no country won. And metacritc ranks last Jedi higher. They have no credibility for that alone. Everything else goes to empire. Focusing on metacritc since it is the one that most supports your position is disingenuous

There is no specific example of no country being directly compared to empire and you damn we’ll know it. And I never claimed there was. Focusing on this is also disingenuous

People who study films are entitled elites little pricks just like you demonstrated yourself to be get over yourself and your inflated opinion. No country for old men is not as good as you film students think. I could have been more behind you claiming there will be blood was better than empire because it is. The fact you focused solely on no country tells me that it is your personal favorite and you have no objective qualification for why so you just bash anyone that disagrees. Then you had behind you ‘education’ as your justification and also argue fallaciously and insult your opposition and attempt to discredit them through personal insults. Such as calling me spoiled when that is the further thing from the truth.

Also empire was nominated for 4 oscars and won 2 (special award). Crash also won’t bunch of oscars and that movie sucked.


Metacritic has critics on it, therefore when you said Empire won across the board that was wrong. I like you dismissed my point about accolades as well lol. Nope you do not get to pick and choose when it means something and when it doesn't. Whether you or I hate Last Jedi is irrelevant. The point is it has critics on it and No Country beat Empire on there. I acknowledge Empire is going to win out with the general public but No Country is going to hold a higher spot for those who study film. I proved my point. In terms of critical reception it is a toss up. However in terms of accolades No Country destroys Empire.

Then why did you say there are plenty of critical analysis that agree with me picking it over No Country? You made that claim not me. Think before speaking. You said that as if you had a video of critics picking Empire over it. You just gave a video analysis of the film. I did the same for No Country and you ignored it.

LMAO! You seriously are a deluded ignorant moron. Where did I ever say you were stupid or insult you at all for taking Empire over No Country? I disagreed with you I never insulted you. You threw stones first pal. You said critics need to get over themselves, and that I had my head so far up my own ass. There Will Be Blood gets beat out in terms of cultural reception by Empire just like No Country does. I agree with you it is better than Empire but so is No Country. I never said people need to get over themselves for thinking Empire is better than No Country.Therefore epic fail here.

I stand corrected on the award nominations for Empire. It was for technical things though now wasn't it? It got no best pic, director, acting, or writing nominations. No Country did. Therefore it got destroyed. Crash is irrelevant. The reception on the film was not that good. No Country has great reception where as Crash did not. It's reception was lukewarm at best.

You are one of those classic spoiled idiots. You are not going to agree with anyone 100% of the time. You realize that right? Whether it be critics or the average movie goer. You are the type that discredits someone entirely simply because they rate a movie differently than what you would rate it. Oh metacritic does not count now because it rated Last Jedi over Empire. Oh so it only holds weight as long as it supports your view. Fyi I agree with you on Empire being better. Thing is unlike you I understand there are going to be times you disagree with the reception.


"therefore when you said Empire won across the board that was wrong"

See this is an example of your dishonesty. Go read my quote, i said the word "almost". That significantly changes the context. So you are just a dishonest person and this is yet another example

"for those who study film"

Is that true across the board? Show me evidence that ALL those who 'study film' view a higher opinion of No Country over Empire or you are full of crap.

"why did you say there are plenty of critical analysis that agree with me picking it over No Country"

I didn't, I said there are plenty of critical analysis that "would" pick Empire over No Country. Again more dishonesty and you taking things out of context purposefully.

"You said critics need to get over themselves, and that I had my head so far up my own ass.

These are not personal insults. You are pathetic if you think they are. Calling someone spoiled or an idiot or "deluded ignorant moron" is a personal insult. Learn the difference. I never personally insulted you I only said you need to get over your inflated sense of your own opinion. that is not a personal insult.

"It got no best pic, director, acting, or writing nominations."

Star Wars films were always snubbed for these; while films like Shape of the Water win best picture. The oscars are a joke sometimes.

I discussed objective reasons why No Country was overrated such as pacing issues, unfocused story that builds and leads no where and a good number of scenes that were over acted. You never contented these and just said 'well those that study film disagree' which was an elites, entitled and arrogant claim, as well as a fallacy (appeal to authority). This is when our conversation derailed and I said people that claim studying film as a criteria for their better judgement need to get over themselves, and I stand by that statement and you demonstrate why.


It was clear you were not factoring in metacritic. Once I brought that up you accused me of attempting to find something which suits what I want to hear. I already acknowledged Empire is going to beat out No Country if you go by the average person. The main reason being it is far more popular than No Country is.

I just proved it to you. In terms of artistic accomplishments No Country wins. Reception wise it is close but when you factor in accolades No Country achieved more. That is my evidence.

No you said it as if there was a documented tally of critics taking Empire over No Country. Now you are attempting to backpedal.

Lol nice try. Okay then if you want to play that game I did not insult you when I asked if you were spoiled. Remember I never said you were I asked if you were. See how this sounds. So if you were not implying something rude than neither was I. I said perhaps you were spoiled growing up? Go back and reread it.

Star Wars a New hope got a nomination for best picture, director, writing and actor in a supporting role. It did not win them but it did get nominated for big awards which obviously are not technical. Which is why I said you would be better off arguing this one against No Country. Shape of Water did win but again are you ever going to agree with the choice 100% of the time? Get that through your thick skull.

The film does not hold the audience's hand and does not underestimate people who think. It is about the criminal mind evolving to a point that we as people can not understand. Breaking away from storytelling conventions is a great thing.

You never responded to this. I provided an analysis of No Country and you never responded. So no you can shut your pie hole about not providing any objective criticism. You get all upset I did not respond to your analysis video while at the same time ignore mine. Hypocrite!


"You are one of those classic spoiled idiots. You are not going to agree with anyone 100% of the time.

More personal insults I see. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me as long as they have actual good reason and argue with rationality logic and can make a complete argument and not nearly immediately resort to 'i went to film school so I know more than you' which is basically what you were suggesting.

"You are the type that discredits someone entirely simply because they rate a movie differently than what you would rate it"

No, that is a gross assumption on your part. I do not discredit anyone as long as they make an argument as to why they rate it differently. If you ever made an argument of why No Country is better we could have discussed those points (one at a time), but instead you tried to make it seem i was immediately wrong because 'those that went to film school disagree with me' which is called sophistry,it is a non-argument.


Nope you assumed that. I never said you needed to get over yourself for preferring Empire over No Country. You did that my friend.

It is not a gross assumption. I literally watched you do it. Remember this quote from you?

And metacritc ranks last Jedi higher. They have no credibility for that alone.

Boom caught red handed. If someone said they prefered Last Jedi over Empire you would not even listen to them. As shown above you would discredit them immediately. Do not lie to me bud. You are the one being dishonest.

I never said I was more intelligent for going to film school, I said among film critics and historians No Country would be more fondly looked upon. That is it nothing more. This upset you because you can not handle someone not sharing your view. You think a film needs to through you in order for other people to consider it a great film.


Do you even understand what sophistry is and why you are a continuous example of it. You are dishonest disingenuous and throw out in personal insults when cornered and ignore arguments that you can’t actually contend with. You go out of your way to take me out of context or focus on the wrong part of the argument. Basically you ignore all the stronger points you make and focus on weaker ones. You demonstrated perfectly why people like you that go to film school actually become too full of themselves and in love with there own opinion and no longer distinguish art from pretensions. And you are just unbelievable unpleasant to continue with. So you are now on my ignore list. Merry Christmas. I hope one day you learn that just because you go to film school doesn’t mean you understand film better than a good portion of the audience that hasn’t.


Did not think so. Be off entitled moron!


Once again, Horn disagrees and he's an insider. You're also forgetting those Kennedy films made billions.

The Mandalorian doesn't have to be Shakespeare great - just popular enough to be profitable which it is. Bonus because everybody loves "Baby Yoda". Future doll sales will go through the roof.


The insiders have an interest in lying about what goes on behind the closed doors to save face. It is possible that a majority of the blame can fall on Iger but Kennedy did a bad job in managing Iger's expectation if that is the case and delivered a inarguable divisive product that previously was not so divisive. Even if the Prequels were not well like they did not cause such a split in the fandom not compared to Disney's Star Wars.

Star Wars has grossed billions sure but I would like to see the actually profit. They paid 3 billion for the rights; each film cost between $200 million to $300 million each to make and then another estimated $200 million to $300 million to market. Plus the cinemas themselves get half of the ticket sales profit. So you have to say Disney has paid at a low estimate close to 6 billion worth of investment into the franchise; and that is only counting the movies. Now how much have the movies grossed altogether divided in half is what Kennedy era star wars films have actually profited.

Exactly, great is not even the aim here; the aim is sell to the lowest common denominator and hope for profit.


Disney bought Lucasfilms for $4 billion, half in cash and half in stock. The sale included Star Wars, Industrial Lights and Magic, Indiana Jones, Skywalker Sound, a couple of other movies and TV shows plus all merchandise like books etc. They're also using SW to launch other investments like their Disney+. BTW, Iger was just named Time magazine businessperson of the year.

Kennedy reportedly makes $25 million each year and had her contract extended for three years. Of course, she's working and Iger is happy with her. I still say Mandalorian as Western theme is her idea. She and/or her story team appear to come up with a broad idea and then gives a director plenty of space to create. If she's not happy then she fires them.

Disney kicked Lucas to the curb and hasn't really used him as a consultant. It makes me sick to my stomach how he's been treated by Disney and the fans. It's obvious that Lucas isn't behind any of the Disney crap because there's nothing original in any of it. Just rehashed OT including "Baby Yoda".


maybe you are right that the concept can be credited to her, but after the multiple debacles that happened with directors over the last 3 years it would surprise me greatly if she has any creative input or ability to fire directors at this point. I could be wrong of course we don't know what goes on behind close doors. We do know Jon Favreau is the creator of the Mandalorian show; Kevin Fiege is now apparently in administrative control, and George Lucas is being consultant for this show and for aspects of Rise of Skywalker. So from all appearances Kennedy for at least the last 1 to year and half has been a figure head only and can take very little credit for anything. But of course the appearances could be wrong.


Lucas was always the creative consultant since the sale, but Disney didn't really use him. Remember how he called Disney "white slavers"? Disney appears to bring up his name as having helped to pander to the fans. I remember when they made a big deal about his adding a line of dialogue to that crappy Solo film. I'm not buying it.

Feige is in admin. control of Marvel, not Lucasfilms. Feige is supposed to do a SW movie in the future, though.

I would think by now that Kennedy and Iger have learned more about the SW fans and what we want which is why you're seeing better video games and a decent TV show. Still nothing really original. Just OT redux.

If Rise of Skywalker is bad, I bet the fans will rush to blame her for it.



Things change and from an organizational standpoint they would not admit that the ceo or head of a branch would be getting less control and getting moved from leadership decisions. From all perspective Kennedy has not been in control since the beginning of 2019. Feige being discussed for a role in future Star Wars films is what creates the perception that he will be in charge after the fall out of episode 9

This is why you see her in the back seat more and more instead at the front like the first 3 years of Disney era star wars


I believe that's wishful thinking. I remember when the fans said she was on the verge of being fired and instead ended up signing a three year contract.

Feige asked if he could make a SW movie in the distant future.

The Mandalorian has been around long before 2019.

I haven't seen Kennedy in the backseat. Overall Disney SW has kept a slightly lower profile because they fear people are sick of it.

Lucas' museum. The man's a visionary. If he does something, it's going to be bold and original which is how you know he's not really involved in SW anymore.


It might be wishful thinking but it is undeniable that she has been poor at managing directors (hence the firing of 3 of them in the last 3 years over the course of 3 movies), the fact that all future Star Wars films have been put on hold for the foreseeable future, and the fact that the Brand has alienated at least half of the fan base. All of this is 100% fact. If Disney takes no issue with her leadership because of these things then they are suicidal business speaking.


Iger wanted a SW movie each year from what I read.

Fans agree she's a poor manger but those movies have made Iger very happy with their $1 billion+ box office hence the 3-year contract.

Disney believes that there have been too many movies instead of the movies being mediocre.

Kennedy interview:


They grossed 1 billion plus each but what was the actual profit. If rise of sky walker loses money it is proof of her failure and no one else. But time will tell


Iger was named Time businessman of the year for 2019.

Disney is breaking records with the best box office year in history:


None of those other franchises has anything to do with Star Wars. Star Wars appears to be the only Disney brand that is suffering. And only Kennedy is in charge of that brand.

Let’s say this though each film’s independent quality and reception can be put on the individual film’s creator but the manner in which they did not align properly for the story direction when connected is definitely on Kennedy


"‘The Mandalorian’ was Kathleen Kennedy’s idea says Disney film chief Alan Horn

The Mandalorian is 100% credited to John Favreau as creator. KK is just credited as executive producer.


Not possible for Favreau to be 100% creator when Lucas created Star Wars from which it's based.

Anyway, a corporation is complicated. And you're confusing initial concept (development) with on-going production.

First, Iger would discuss the direction of Lucasarts. He would've come up with the idea of using new a live action series to help promote their new streaming service and discussed it with Kennedy since she's running Lucasfilms. They're discussing target audiences and how to appeal to them, too.

Then, Kennedy would go to her live action creative exec. to discuss concepts for live action shows. That dept. would come up with general concepts. It would be a general type discussion like a western theme or let it center around a Mandalorian. Kennedy apparently comes up with ideas with the creative exec. as per several sources. Kennedy would have final approval of several ideas before they're brought to Iger who approves one to go forward.

Kennedy hires a creative team, with Iger's final approval, to make the show, example: around a "sci-fi western theme show with a Mandalorian bounty hunter". The show should appeal to old fans and new. Kennedy likes to give the creative team a great deal of freedom.

Finally, Favreau is hired and "creates" (fleshes out) the specifics: characters; scripts, etc.

The present live action series development exec. is Michelle Rejwan.



KK is no creative. She's a glorified secretary. Probably a good one, or at least a willing one, but she has zero talent as a creator.

The decision to make a series to focus in D+ is an executive one. From there, you'll have creatives proposing different drafts, or perhaps 'borrowing' them. It's up to executives to greenlight them and to define conditions (like budget limitations, or like forced 'diversity' or 'feminism'), sometimes controlling for good, other times screwing the final product.

Her only non-executive role according to iMDB is being one of the dancers in this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DeURx3mYck, that gives you an idea about her "creative" skills.


That's what my comment says.


Read again, your own comment too.


I did.


She probably isn't. I would have kicked her ass to the curb after The Force Awakens yet that didn't happen.


I hate to say this, but people like KK are like roaches: you destroy one, more come out of the woodwork to replace the one you killed. Even if she leaves or croaks unexpectedly, they have at least 10 more idiots all lined up to take over her job, just like they do for the governor in Sacramento, or as the head of every movie company. It never ends.


Tell the truth, you don't hate to say it. You love being negative and bitter. It's all you do.


The film made a fortune and she is one of the most successful producers in the business - whether you like her and her productions or not, she is not going anywhere.


I think it's a safe bet her role will be greatly diminished. Frankly she and Iger both should've been fired for running the franchise into the ground, but maybe they are covering for each other. Or both know each could retaliate if one tried to assign blame. :)

In any case the writing is on the wall, bigly. That photo further up is telling. Another example: out of curiosity checked Reddit's SW forum this AM -- vast majority of topics on page 1 are about the Mandalorian. The rest are mostly about the OT and PT. Only 2 of them about the KK trilogy. The fanbase has already divested itself of the ST.


The franchise has grossed over 4.5 billion with just 4 movies , whether you like the movies or not there a huge success bar solo, most with high audience and critic scores, it’s successful


Successful in the sense they rode the franchise's past popularity, I'd say.

4.5 billion with 4 movies, true. Also true: each movie made less than the one before, to the point Solo lost money domestically; SW Story movies abandoned; rumored RJ trilogy on ice; GoT writers fled the franchise; and finally, practical radio silence in marketing of the movie only 2 weeks away that's supposed to be the grand finale.

Were Disney's SW some new IP I'd say it had an outstanding if over-too-soon run. But it wasn't. They took an iconic franchise and ruined it.

Disney's Marvel was successful - it kept growing after they bought it. Disney's SW tanked.


Mandalorian is the most watch TV program in the world at the moment , TROS , well the jury is out , I believe it will make more than TLJ so the tide is turning.


Indeed, Mandalorian is booming. My nephews love it and even I may eventually come around to trying it.

I've no doubt Disney now wants the SW brand to == Mandalorian. Salient point being, though, it's being written and directed by the likes of Filoni and Favreau. Kennedy's hands are off. Hopefully permanently.


They will. Hollywood loves failing up.


Nope she will go on making millions while butt hurt fan boys cry