That's exactly what an executive producer has input on. It's not just writing checks and rubber stamping receipts. Rick McCullum explains it pretty well at the beginning of the short featurette from ROTS called "Within a Minute." His job, as producer, is to ensure that George, the director, has everything he needs to express himself. Sounds like creative input to me.
But her duties wtih Spielberg were not the same as McCullum's. They might have similar titles, but MaCcullum had a lot more power than she did on the respective films.. and even he was basically a secretary doing exactly what that doc says. Oh I guess the difference is that Rick did those things but also walked around actual locations, actually spearheaded new technology..
Anything to tear down a woman in power. Do you have any actual evidence, or is this more talking out of your ass? Desperate to cast a negative light on a woman.
So, you think she never did any of those things? At this point in time it's rather pointless. There is this made up world where Kennedy can do no right by you and in order to prove the point you have to diminish her actual accomplishments. For what reason I have no idea.
Because he can't stand that something isn't being controlled by a white guy. It shatters his worldview.
you guys do know that there is a difference between producer and executive producer..? and even those definitions are not always consistent.
I'm trying really hard. I normally can adopt many different points of view, even if I don't agree...but this one continues to baffle me. Your arguments thus far are based upon hearsay, and not very convincing hearsay. So, I'll let Kennedy keep doing her job since thus far she hasn't actually impacted my life in any serious way. I would suggest that people adopt a similar stance. Easier on the blood pressure.
If Kennedy had no power as a producer how was she forcing diversity in movies? While I do think she operates more in the business side than creative she still has inpact on scripts,directors and casting. Also why is the criticism always the divesity instead of more fair areas like the roller coaster directors,lack of long term plan going into the Skywalker saga or she needs a sort of creative second in command to be her Pillar to her Berman. Jason
The statement that the president of Lucasfilm is only a glorified secretary is insulting, nonsensical, and dismissable, and the sexism in it is too evident to be plausibly deniable.
Oh, I've seen her criticized for everything. No doubt some one will link her to Jar Jar Binks at some point. Personally, I think they could have had more of a plan, that the ST could have been better. But, I don't think the roller coaster of directors is not as negative as it appears at first blush. Part of her job is getting things done on time and under budget. If the directors couldn't do that, then going separate ways is needed.
She hasn't done any of those things with Star Wars either. She has no writing credit on any of the movies, and the casting was decided by the directors of each of the movies. Even Ron Howard recast a few roles on Solo when he took over from Lord Miller. So how can she be ruining the Star Wars franchise when her role within the franchise is roughly analogous to her role on the other movies she worked on, which you rather inaccurately liken to being a "glorified secretary"? How can a "glorified secretary" have no influence on movies you like, but be the reason why movies you don't like are bad?
My biggest issue with the directors is it feels like she hires people and then doesn't let them do want and is to hands on. Feige is the same with the MCU only he never had a TLJ or Solo to make people question it yet. Except with his conflict with Whedon on Avengers 2 but after that it's like he can do no wrong anymore. Jason
A funny thing about the claim that Kennedy is a glorified secretary is that it nullifies the claim that she is using her position at Lucasfilm to push a feminist agenda. Secretaries, even glorified ones, don't have that level of authority. Forget true, a position asserting both claims isn't even self-consistent.
Yes, I explained it to you weeks ago. You still don’t get it. Some people just can’t get simple concepts.
Dark World I agree but I think most people liked Ragnarok even saying it was the one good Thor movie. Like Keenedy I think he something to prove. The MCU is built on many things started under Whedon. Seeing if can survive with the Phase 1 stuff going away. Keenedy has to create a epic trilogy not based on nostiga yet still feels like Star Wars. Jason
Ragnarok was great, and the only Thor movie thus far that wasn't utter shit. I was really, really surprised by it.