Kathleen Kennedy Talks Rogue One and Han Solo Spinoff

kennedy69

Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy spoke with Variety about the opening of ‘Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’ and the direction of the new Han Solo spin-off film. Also J.J. Abrams and other filmmakers talked about Bob Iger and his role in the big movie franchises at Disney. Read on for more!

 

 

With just over 20 days until the release of ‘Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’, anticipation for the movie is at an all time high. Rogue One, the first of the spin-off movies that’s outside the saga stories tells the story of how a band of Rebels attempt to steal the plans to the original Death Star.

 

Showcasing a film that does not rely on the normal story of Jedi, the film’s multiple trailers and TV spots has the look and feel of something right out of the original trilogy of films. In short, it feels like 1977 all over again.

 

rogue-one-30

 

In a recent story with Variety magazine, Kathleen Kennedy had a chance to discuss Rogue One’s vibe and the direction of the new Han Solo spin-off film. The Lucasfilm veteran says the film is a serious war film that’s reminiscent of something right out of the second World War. She also mentions that the film will begin the traditional “title” only way. This pretty much confirms that the movie won’t have an opening crawl like the other Saga films as we also told you a few weeks ago.

“We felt that’s so indicative of what those saga films are,” says Kennedy. “Initially, we probably will begin the film in a way that is traditional, with just the title.”

 

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) Donnie Yen (L) and Felicity Jones (R) Credit: Giles Keyte/© Lucasfilm LFL 2016

 

‘Rogue One’ has taken casting to a whole new level and has finally recognized the demands of a global fan base. Kennedy says diversity is a key to success and even looks to hire a female director for a future Star Wars film.

“We want to make sure that when we bring a female director in to do “Star Wars,” they’re set up for success,” says Kennedy. “They’re gigantic films, and you can’t come into them with essentially no experience.” she said. “We want to really start to focus in on people we would love to work with and see what kinds of things they’re doing to progress up that ladder now, and then pull them in when the time is right.”

 

Solo

 

Kennedy also talked about the second of three Star Wars spin-off films, that will focus on young Han Solo and his co-pilot Chewbacca. Alden Ehrenreich (Han Solo) and Donald Glover (Lando Calrissian) lead up a cast directed by Chris Miller and Phil Lord. Kennedy talked about the old-style western films that the have a closer connection than we think with Han Solo.

“This moves closer to a heist or Western type feel,” says Kennedy. “We’ve talked about [Frederic] Remington and those primary colors that are used in his paintings defining the look and feel of the film.”

 

You can read the entire story here or check out the the latest issue of Variety magazine on newsstands today.

 

 

Bob Iger 02

 

Also Variety has another article, this time on Disney CEO Bob Iger, where they talk about his importance and his role for all movie projects at Disney:

The makers of the upcoming “Star Wars” films recount a similar relationship with Iger. Working in London on “The Force Awakens,” Kennedy recalls how she would sometimes get calls from him as early as 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. (PT), offering his thoughts on dailies or marketing materials.

J.J. Abrams, the director of the film, says that given the massive financial stakes riding on a “Star Wars” success, “what struck me most of all was how hands-off he was.” Abrams adds: “There was no corporate mandate. There was no mandate. There was just a respect” for the filmmakers.

 

 

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story hits cinemas this December. The Han Solo spin-off film and the Falcon takes flight in 2018.

 

 

May the Force be with you.

 

 

+ posts

208 thoughts on “Kathleen Kennedy Talks Rogue One and Han Solo Spinoff

  • November 22, 2016 at 9:15 pm
    Permalink

    Tickets when please?, Oh, and “There was no corporate mandate. There was no mandate,” Sorry, I don’t believe that JJ, nice try.

    • November 22, 2016 at 9:20 pm
      Permalink

      based on what? disney has a proven track record of delegating to its subsidiary studios without any public dust ups like fox and WB have had.

      • November 22, 2016 at 10:49 pm
        Permalink

        Maybe based on the fact JJ lies? Not that it matters what people believe.

        • November 22, 2016 at 10:59 pm
          Permalink

          That’s an accusation, not proof.

          • November 23, 2016 at 12:39 am
            Permalink

            2016, man….2016.

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:13 am
            Permalink

            lol, very good point. 😉

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:57 am
            Permalink

            ‘We absolutely have not been told to hold anything back from the BD release for a later ultimate edition. Nope, everything we wanted to release on on the…oh you mean THAT ultimate edition!’
            Just sayin’ 🙂

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:05 am
            Permalink

            “And John Harrison is NOT Kahn. Oh wait, you meant the John Harrison from the movie I’m directing? I had no idea!”

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:07 am
            Permalink

            Is jj in charge of putting the Blu rays together?

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:07 am
            Permalink

            No, but if not, he should have said so instead of bullshitting.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:09 am
            Permalink

            Was he? How much of the special features were ready for the first one? (I’m not defending the double dip, btw.)

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:10 am
            Permalink

            I’m guessing that the director’s commentary was ready, for one thin. I can’t truly be sure, but I do know that if you’re going to talk about “not holding anything back for a later release”, you should maybe be sure about that before you say it.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:16 am
            Permalink

            I’d doubt it JJ is a busy man. They likely decided they’d rather churn out a half finished product than wait a couple extra months. It’s sleazy but it’s not lying… from a certain point of view.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:17 am
            Permalink

            Well it’s not like he hasn’t lied before.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:20 am
            Permalink

            Trying to save into darkness doesn’t mean he’s a corporate shill. It was stupid but it proves nothing.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:22 am
            Permalink

            Other than the face that he’s perfectly willing to lie straight to the face of fans in order to please his corporate masters, or himself. On the contrary, it proves everything.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:31 am
            Permalink

            So if you lie once I can never trust you again? That seems a bit harsh. He learned his lesson.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:52 am
            Permalink

            I highly doubt that. His comments about the Bl-ray extras for TFA seem to suggest that he has not learned any sort of lesson at all, other than that lying = money from those who are willing to give it to you.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:22 am
            Permalink

            The best of the deleted scenes are on the second offering (so I understand – I’m not biting this soon after buying the film the first time, so I’ll take other people’s word here). They made no effort to complete those, so it’s not like they weren’t ready to be shown to the public. The rest of the features seem to be interviews shot during the production of TFA, so you’ve got to believe those were ready as well.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:23 am
            Permalink

            Exactly. Very little SFX or even editing were required for simple featurettes.

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:33 pm
            Permalink

            He denied Khan, isn’t that proof? I understand why and have no problem with it, but its all spin, so it doesn’t really matter if Disney do or do not pull the strings, because the end result is what matters and people will speak through ticket sales.

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:57 am
            Permalink

            Also, everybody poops.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:21 am
            Permalink

            Confirmed!

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:36 pm
            Permalink

            Indeed. I expect people to put a slight or spin, believe or not, it doesn’t really matter.

      • November 23, 2016 at 1:55 am
        Permalink

        “Kennedy recalls how she would sometimes get calls from him (Iger) as early as 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. (PT), offering his thoughts on dailies or marketing materials.”
        .
        You’re right, there has not been any public nonsense, but when the CEO of Disney is calling the head of LFL at 4 in the morning on even a semi-regular basis with notes from his viewing of the dalies, you gotta think LFL is listening and acting accordingly. Iger is a suit, not a creative, which makes it seem less like a friendly “hey, have you thought about doing this?” and more like “The board would like…”. Then you look at how much of the pre-release press Iger did for TFA, and I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to suggest that Disney was keeping a firm hand on the film that had to launch a new trilogy and calm a fanbase divided after the prequels.

        • November 23, 2016 at 2:40 am
          Permalink

          The boss of a multi billion dollar company checking in isn’t anything to lose sleep over. Disney gave up a lot of money for SW so of course iger at behest of the board wanted updates. Nothing I’ve seen suggests he is dictating creatively. And of course he was at the front in promotion, he would derelict in his duty otherwise.

          • November 26, 2016 at 1:26 am
            Permalink

            The boss of the multi-billion dollar studio, that you’re arguing is being hands-off with one of his subsidiary studios, is viewing dalies regularly and calling the CEO of said subsidiary to offer notes. Look, I’m not saying they didn’t have good reason to be concerned that their investment was going to pay off, and that it’s UNEXPECTED that Iger was keeping the thing under a very, VERY close eye, I’m saying the opposite. You can’t however ALSO claim that they weren’t doing EXACTLY that.

          • November 26, 2016 at 1:32 am
            Permalink

            k.

      • November 24, 2016 at 12:21 am
        Permalink

        Based on: I can’t have my hair form $20 cut without me watching what they’re doing, I just can not believe Mr Iger would spend $4b, and not be involved, if you have a business, you have to be on top of things, period.

  • November 22, 2016 at 9:18 pm
    Permalink

    1. “there was no corporate mandate.”

    i hope people will ease off the talk of the mouse meddling with star wars now.

    2. i love the idea of the han solo being a space western.

    • November 23, 2016 at 3:08 am
      Permalink

      2. And heist movie. Yesssssssssssssssss………

  • November 22, 2016 at 9:24 pm
    Permalink

    What is the third story gonna be about? Why are they so focused on having females on everything now. It’s not like women really care about Star Wars to the point they need to have leads and directors. This is like a forced thing I don’t get it. All that matters is just make it good who cares who makes it. I still don’t feel like han SOLO is gonna be that great of a film. He doesn’t look anything like him

    • November 22, 2016 at 9:31 pm
      Permalink

      They probably think they will get all the boys and men to watch it without trying, so they might as well try to stretch the audience.

      That’s my theory anyway.

      • November 26, 2016 at 7:47 am
        Permalink

        U know it’s true

      • November 26, 2016 at 7:51 am
        Permalink

        Do u want every Star Wars movie to be female leads.

        • November 26, 2016 at 8:07 am
          Permalink

          not all. but look at it this way: pre sale we had six movies all with male leads. now post sale we have seven movies with male leads and four with female leads(counting ST, R1 and solo). that seems a fair and more realistic balance.

          • November 26, 2016 at 8:29 am
            Permalink

            Yes that’s true. I like the female characters a lot. It gives a different feeling to the movies. I just hope if there is a female director it doesn’t turn into some hunger games

    • November 22, 2016 at 9:52 pm
      Permalink

      Why does it always have to be about men? Why is it not also forced when the decision is for it to be about men?

      • November 22, 2016 at 10:04 pm
        Permalink

        But it’s not. When Lucasfilm looks to hire a director, do you really think they go, “Hmm…we would like to hire her, but she’s a woman” Hiring has never been about looking for a particular gender or race to fill a position. It’s about looking at the qualities that person possesses and seeing if they align with what you want for that position.

        • November 23, 2016 at 3:42 am
          Permalink

          Oh, good Lord. The film industry has been favoriting white men in casting and directorial decisions for the last 100 years. Lucasfilm may not have ever specifically turned down women for being women – but look at the original Star Wars trilogy – women are sparse at best. Also, because women have not been given many opportunities to direct films, they have not been able to generate enough experience to even be considered as a possible director of a Lucasfilm production – so there is an undeniable disadvantage that women have had for decades now that is trying to be rectified by people like Ms. Kennedy.

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:09 am
            Permalink

            “Also, because women have not been given many opportunities to direct films”

            Do you have any modern-day examples, or are you simply making up a claim in order to bolster your talking point?

          • November 23, 2016 at 8:05 am
            Permalink

            Is what I said untrue? How many women are given opportunities to direct big budget blockbuster films? Not too many. Only won woman has ever won the Oscar for best director.

          • November 23, 2016 at 3:55 pm
            Permalink

            But do have proof that women are being *denied* these opportunities. The thing is, there aren’t that many female directors to begin with, so it makes sense that very few would be creating blockbusters or Oscar winners. But unless these women are being discriminated against, there is no actual injustice.

          • November 23, 2016 at 10:45 pm
            Permalink

            There aren’t many female directors? Well, that’s not true. Half of film school grads are women: http://www.mtv.com/news/2159771/female-directors-college/

            If you haven’t seen many female directors because so few of them have been given major opportunities. If a male director has several credits under his belt, he’s going to be given more opportunities than a woman with less experience. So enabling women to get more experience will lead to more them getting major opportunities.

          • November 24, 2016 at 1:36 am
            Permalink

            Look on IMDb. There are few female directors when compared to male ones. Yes, maybe there are many female film school grads, but how many established female directors are there? And out of those few, how many are equipped to direct a Star Wars movie? I’m hopeful that the next generation of film directors can be an evenly mixed bag of men and women, but as of now, there are few established female directors that could handle a Star Wars film. Maybe Lucasfilm can find one, though.

          • November 26, 2016 at 12:26 am
            Permalink

            Yeah, the whole reason you don’t see a lot of women directors on IMDb is that film companies don’t hire them. Exactly the point I was trying to make.

          • November 26, 2016 at 5:35 am
            Permalink

            And they don’t make indie movies. And they don’t exist.

          • November 26, 2016 at 9:06 am
            Permalink

            It’s flat out false.

          • November 26, 2016 at 5:11 pm
            Permalink

            Proof?

          • November 26, 2016 at 6:17 pm
            Permalink

            I already gave you proof.

          • November 23, 2016 at 8:10 pm
            Permalink

            Lucas said that he made the original trilogy for 12 years old boys. Back then and not only then sci-fi was/is a genre not beloved by women in general. The same with romantic comedies but opposite. Like it or not, there will always be genres prefered by men or by women. It’s not sexism.

          • November 23, 2016 at 10:51 pm
            Permalink

            Tell that to my niece who loves everything to do with Star Wars and just went as Rey for Halloween. Women make up a huge part of the Star Wars fanbase and a growing part of fantasy fandom. It has grown steadily over the years since 1977. It only makes sense that women have more of a presence in the saga. Unfortunately, some male fans with three-year-old mentalities can’t handle this.

      • November 26, 2016 at 7:51 am
        Permalink

        It’s because Disney owns it so they feel like they have to do it. If George was still doing it I’m sure it would have been male. I’m not saying it’s bad but it just is seems kinda like trend right now. i like it but we just had force awakens with s female lead. So why not change It up

        • November 26, 2016 at 9:25 am
          Permalink

          Change it up with what? Another man? We’ve had predominantly men in lead roles in film for 100 freaking years. And It was George’s idea to have the sequel trilogy focus on a woman lead character.

    • November 22, 2016 at 11:16 pm
      Permalink

      MONEY

      More diversity = greater interest = greater ticket sales

      • November 23, 2016 at 1:35 am
        Permalink

        Signed, Ghostbusters.

        • November 23, 2016 at 2:04 am
          Permalink

          Exactly.

  • November 22, 2016 at 10:06 pm
    Permalink

    This forced diversity stuff is stupid. If there’s a director out there that fits what you want for a particular movie hire that director. Man or woman. Don’t limit yourself. Same with casting. If a role calls for a particular race, hire that race, but if not, just get the best person you can for that role, regardless of race. Don’t limit yourself.

    • November 22, 2016 at 10:13 pm
      Permalink

      Equal representation takes conscious effort. Historically, casting “regardless of race” usually ends up defaulting to white. Of course, I trust they’re not going to cast someone who can’t act just because they’re a minority.

      • November 22, 2016 at 10:24 pm
        Permalink

        “Equal representation takes conscious effort.”
        But hiring someone based on their sex or race is not equality. All that should matter are your skills.
        That’s special treatment.

        So hiring someone purely because of their physical appearance is just as sexist/racist, as not doing it because of someone’s physical appearance.

        • November 22, 2016 at 10:39 pm
          Permalink

          I didn’t say to hire purely because of their race or sex, of course they need to be skilled as well. And yes, it might very well be sexist or racist, but it’s something that needs to be done if we want diversity. The system advantages white male representation, so balance requires a conscious push back in the other direction.

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:31 am
            Permalink

            But what’s the point of this kind of diversity? “Yay! A black woman directed this! Good for you!” Don’t you see how patronizing that is? Wouldn’t you rather that minority candidates be given a fair shake and make it solely on their own merits and not because of some quota? Reverse racism/sexism is still racism/sexism.

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:39 am
            Permalink

            Yes it’s patronizing and yes affirmative action is a form of racism / sexism, and if there was no systematic bias, then hiring based on skill alone is exactly how I’d want it to be, but the fact is it’s not. There is systematic bias, and it has to be accounted for. And regardless, I wouldn’t worry too much because anyone they hire will be among the best; skill and being a female and/or minority aren’t mutually exclusive.

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:56 am
            Permalink

            I’m honestly not worried. Disney seems to be doing this the right way. I just get annoyed that this is still a topic of conversation. Feminism and the civil rights movements won. We have an equal-opportunity society in the US. Game over. Find a new cause, people.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:07 am
            Permalink

            What’s ‘feminism’ though? The problem is moving goalposts. The aim of first wave feminism was equal rights for women (well, for rich women who owned property let’s be clear). Second wave went after abolishing legal barriers which would allow equality of opportunity. Third wave seems to be agitating for equality of OUTCOME. That’s a very, different, and very dangerous road to go down.

          • November 23, 2016 at 3:05 am
            Permalink

            I disagree. I think third wave feminism is about female superiority.

          • November 23, 2016 at 3:47 am
            Permalink

            Although there are some loonies out there, probably as many as are on the far right (they’re virtually indistinguishable anyways when it comes down to it) I wouldn’t go that far. The urge seems honestly to be justice to me. It’s just that, having achieved legal equality but not having that instantly result in a perfect representation of 50% women, 50% men, 2% trans-gendered/gay, 16% black, 5% First Nations etc, etc, for ever and ever, across every part of the social sphere, and having no mechanisms to point at as the cause, it’s is being interpreted as some more insidious, secret, ‘systemic’ discrimination at work. The result is the shift from an interest in equality of opportunity – everybody gets to try to make the most of their own talents – to equality of outcome – any corner of the social environment you look at MUST be a statistical match to some breakdown of society into arbitrary categories or else injustice exists!

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:42 pm
            Permalink

            These people need to take a class in system dynamics. The forcing function that kept minorities at a lower steady state has been removed. As a result, outcomes for minorities are becoming more and more equal all the time. We just haven’t reached the plateau of the curve yet. The answer is not to add a new forcing function that will keep the majority at a lower steady state.

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:40 pm
            Permalink

            Right. I was talking about first wave feminism, women’s suffrage and all that jazz. And about the 1960s Civil Rights movement to end segregation. Not 3rd wave feminism or the BLM movement, both of which are incredibly sexist and racist in nature.

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:08 am
            Permalink

            Exactly.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:13 am
            Permalink

            Yeah, that’s one of those claims that I insist people show their work for. The legal barriers no longer exist, which means any ‘systemic bias’ is a nebulous, and conveniently invisible force for which no proof apart from variance of outcome is ever needed by those who insist it exists.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:18 am
            Permalink

            Exactly. in most western countries, there are, in fact, legal barriers that *prevent* discrimination against most “oppressed” groups, so I doubt the existence of any bias on a level any greater than a personal one.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:27 am
            Permalink

            Systems are made of people, so even biases on a personal level are relevant.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:57 am
            Permalink

            It’s not “systematic” unless the people are working together, or unless the bias is built into the system. But regardless, you have no proof or evidence of any of this bias anyway, so I have no reason to listen to any of what you say.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:20 am
            Permalink

            Privilege is invisible to the privileged. If you still don’t believe it exists, my trying to convince you is pointless.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:56 am
            Permalink

            That’s insane. So it’s magical and invisible, except to people claim it is totally for real a thing? There’s no way to demonstrate it, no way to test for it, just take my word, it exists? That sounds like religion to me.

          • November 23, 2016 at 3:05 am
            Permalink

            Exactly. if something can’t be proven, I have no reason to believe in it. Unfalsifiable hypotheses are deemed false.

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:38 pm
            Permalink

            As a religious person, you are 100% correct, Mr_Crankypants. I understand there is no real proof for my belief in God. What boggles my mind is that SJWs don’t realize that their belief system is just as tenuous as religion.

          • November 23, 2016 at 6:34 pm
            Permalink

            I didn’t claim to have proven anything. I just said I believe it exists and that I don’t believe arguing with you is going to make any difference.

          • November 24, 2016 at 7:00 am
            Permalink

            What an eloquent post from a man who blocked me mid debate when he couldn’t prove that Luke Skywalker wasn’t a Mary Sue.

            Privilege isn’t magical, but it is invisible to those who possess it. You can tell which posters here are white by the way they refuse to acknowledge the viewpoint of anyone else but their majority.

            Because it’s their majority. Why should the majority capitulate to someone else’s way of seeing the world? Everyone should just adapt to what they believe and see. It makes it easier for everyone.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:25 am
            Permalink

            You got me, I don’t have a source. I just hear people who feel that they’ve been wronged, and choose to believe they’re not liars. I just look at all the white male protagonists I’ve grown with, and choose to think there’s a reason why only two or three are anything but white men. You’re right, I can’t cite it.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:56 am
            Permalink

            “I just hear people who feel that they’ve been wronged, and choose to believe they’re not liars.”

            That’s incredibly naive. But even assuming that these people aren’t lying, they could simply be mistaken. There is a difference, you know.

            “You’re right, I can’t cite it.”

            Then you probably shouldn’t make the claim, should you? Don’t state your feverish conspiracy theories as facts, otherwise no one will believe you when you actually make a factual point. Never forget The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

          • November 23, 2016 at 6:50 pm
            Permalink

            I don’t think anyone here could reliably cite the idea that we live in a post-racial society either, but it seems many here are still eager to accept because the thought comforts them (to me, this is far more naive than believing that human nature can’t be overcome in a matter of decades just because laws and policies were put in place). Besides, anything I cite will be dismissed as one-offs or fabrications; I’ve seen these types of arguments before, it won’t make a difference. And to be honest, I don’t really care what you believe. I came here to talk Star Wars, saw a comment I disagreed with, and unintentionally opened a whole can of worms. Despite what you may think of me at this point, I’ve never been much of a SJW, and this isn’t worth my time by a long shot. Thanks for the discussion.

          • November 23, 2016 at 3:04 am
            Permalink

            “only two or three are anything but white men.”
            .
            When looking at the entertainment of a continent where ‘whites’ are the majority? Come on, would we be having this conversation if we lived in, I don’t know, India, about the appalling lack of representation of Inuit actors in Bollywood?

          • November 23, 2016 at 3:09 am
            Permalink

            Nope. And no one complains when European anime characters are turned Asian when adapted to live action. Why? Because the vast majority of Japanese-speaking actors are ethnically Japanese (or at least Asian) as well. Why is it a problem that white people are a majority in film in a country where, for example, black people actually only make up around 13% of the population? Don’t get me wrong, i appreciate representation as much as the next guy. But why is it such a travesty that white people, who are the majority, are being treated as if they’re the majority?

          • November 23, 2016 at 3:12 am
            Permalink

            Only about 34% of America is white male, so it’s not completely proportional. And regardless of the numbers, I personally think it would be nice to see people of every background get their time to shine, regardless of the demographic statistics. It’s just my opinion. Maybe it’s not something that appeals to you, that’s completely fine.

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:54 am
            Permalink

            Because you don’t understand what they’re trying to do, you don’t understand the issue they’re attempting to contend with. It actually has nothing to do with pleasing the audience and everything to do with shaking up how the industry employs Directors.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:02 am
            Permalink

            “yes, it might very well be sexist or racist, but it’s something that needs to be done”

            That is a very dangerous way of thinking.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:48 am
            Permalink

            LOL, it is, isn’t it? I could have said affirmative action and then it wouldn’t have sounded so dangerous, but sexism and racism are realities so I’m not going to hide them behind euphemisms.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:51 am
            Permalink

            No matter what language you use, “it needed to be done” is an extremely dangerous excuse for racist or sexist actions, and is a sentiment often echoed by the same people that babble on about race wars, and, at times, “final solutions” (if you know what I mean).

            Racism and sexism are bad, and if you agree, than you should look down upon them at all times, not just when it suits your interests.

          • November 23, 2016 at 3:01 am
            Permalink

            You make a good point. Still, you can’t end racism or sexism, they will exist as long as race and sex exist. Ending exclusion, inequality, and hate are more important in my opinion, and if that means accepting the reality of racism and sexism and correcting for it the only way it can be done, I think it’s worth it.

          • November 23, 2016 at 3:03 am
            Permalink

            The way to “correct” racism and sexism is to reject them, and to reject those who exhibit them. the way to correct racism and sexism is *not* to become racist and sexist.

          • November 23, 2016 at 3:32 am
            Permalink

            Of course, why didn’t I think of that.

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:01 am
            Permalink

            Because you were too busy supporting the complete opposite.

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:32 am
            Permalink

            Oh, I forgot the /S. Things aren’t nearly as simple as you’re making it. But I’m getting tired of this and I don’t really care what you choose to believe, so let’s just agree to disagree.

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:53 am
            Permalink

            Except what Disney is attempting to do isn’t sexist in the least.

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:34 pm
            Permalink

            I applaud your honesty. Most people who share your viewpoint are completely blind to the implications behind it.

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:07 pm
            Permalink

            I don’t think they’re blind, they’re just being careful because they’re trying to argue for political policy (in which case I would agree with this being a dangerous line of thought). I’m just trying to say that Disney is doing the only thing they can if making Star Wars more diverse is one of their goals, and in the end it’s really up to them. If it’s so wrong, the worst that could happen is that they’ll lose face and fail as a business.

        • November 22, 2016 at 11:29 pm
          Permalink

          And she’s saying they’re consciously looking out for someone who’s at the right point in their career and has the right level of experience.

          • November 22, 2016 at 11:40 pm
            Permalink

            …and who’s a woman. How sexist.

          • November 22, 2016 at 11:42 pm
            Permalink

            … and who’s a woman because wouldn’t it be great if directing big budget movies wasn’t such a fucking boys’ club.

          • November 22, 2016 at 11:44 pm
            Permalink

            Agree with rob fletcher, not Robb.

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:50 am
            Permalink

            God, I agree with one of my least favorite posters on this forum.

            What is wrong.

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:30 am
            Permalink

            It’s really not, though. Who’s stopping women from becoming directors?

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:39 am
            Permalink

            There’s not some big conspiracy. Historically women found it harder to be taken seriously in more senior jobs and it’s still extremely disproportionately skewed toward dudes.

            To say “we’re actively looking for a woman director who’s at the right point in their career so we can give them a shot at a huge movie” seems all positive to me. Nobody’s saying a male director won’t get hired or they’re going to give someone a job to someone unqualified.

            What I don’t get is this “hey that’s not fair” attitude from (straight, white) guys when they didn’t make a peep for the last few decades when everything was skewed in their favor.

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:55 am
            Permalink

            I don’t think “it’s not fair” I just think it’s a dumb business decision. When you have a project that needs a director, pick the director that best fits the project. When you start trying to be a diversity cheerleader you start making compromises on quality. For the record, I think Disney is doing it the right way. Kathleen Kennedy got her job because she’s good at it, not because she’s a woman. John Boyega got his role not because he’s black but because he was the best fit for the role. They just have to play the lipservice game to keep the masses satisfied, and that annoys me.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:05 am
            Permalink

            But they’re explicitly saying they won’t be giving someone a job “just because” of their gender. They’re actively looking for a good candidate with the right skills and experience. When actually staffing the movie they’ll pick the right person but hopefully such a candidate would at least be on the shortlist.

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:52 am
            Permalink

            I’m no expert in the area, but I’m sure there are many female directors that we don’t know of because they’re passed over for big titles by studios choosing to play it safe.

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:59 am
            Permalink

            That’s just wild speculation, though. Hollywood is run by progressives. Most of these execs would jump at the chance to virtue signal by hiring a female director. There just aren’t that many female directors out there, let alone ones that can handle a big-budget project.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:05 am
            Permalink

            Hollywood is also run by people who like money.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:07 am
            Permalink

            And you think that THEY think that having a female director would suddenly mean that they wouldn’t get money? I doubt that. Unless you have a big-name director, most general audience members don’t even care who the director of a movie is.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:12 am
            Permalink

            No, I’m saying money matters more than their “progressive” beliefs. If they thought adding more women was bad for business they’d stop tomorrow.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:20 am
            Permalink

            Of course. the thing is, movies lie this want to appeal to as many people as possible, and women are most definitely included in “everyone”. So they have little to no reason to exclude women, especially if it will enhance the quality of these films. Besides, out of all the places to add female talent, the director’s chair would seem to be the easiest, as any women would stay behind the camera.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:52 am
            Permalink

            I love that clip.

          • November 23, 2016 at 10:34 pm
            Permalink

            A LOT of discussion on this thread about this topic (so much that it’s making my head spin), but this post by Grand_Admiral_Dux – in a nutshell – captures the cold hard truth of the situation. Money trumps all in Hollywood, even social agendas. Major movie producers and executives don’t make decisions on big budget film investments based on the greater social good – it all comes down to dollars and cents. They leave most of the social shaming up to the indie filmmakers, who are usually less concerned with profit margins.

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:33 pm
            Permalink

            So which is it? Does have diversity lead to more money, or does having diversity lead to less money? I’m hearing both in this thread.

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:00 am
            Permalink

            Gee, and I wonder why?

            You’re insinuating that only males are predisposed to being film directors and being able to handle big budgets on said films they are working.

            Hilarious.

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:32 pm
            Permalink

            Read it again. I said there aren’t that many female directors out there. Period. Go to IMDB, search for directors, and compare the number of females to the number of males. There are so few female directors out there that I can’t even name any off the top of my head. I never said women were incapable of being directors, just that there aren’t that many.

            I’m an engineer. The vast majority of my co-workers are male, like me. Does that mean that women aren’t good at engineering? Nope. In fact, several of my female coworkers have won awards for technical prowess. But the fact remains that engineers are by and large male. In other words, if I’m going to go out and hire an engineer, chances are that it’s going to be a male engineer.

          • November 23, 2016 at 6:53 pm
            Permalink

            Again, you’re insinuating it without apparently realizing you are.

            Why aren’t there more female directors out there?

            Answer that question. It’s not because they don’t want to Direct.

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:13 pm
            Permalink

            Are you sure that it’s not because they don’t want to direct? Why aren’t there more women engineers? Why aren’t there more male nurses? What is the reason if not a difference in career preferences?

          • November 24, 2016 at 3:15 am
            Permalink

            There are lots more male nurses now then there were 15 years ago. Have you been to a hospital lately?

            Engineer is a boys club, so is Directing. Women try to get in, but when a field is dominated by one gender, it’s difficult.

            I’m a social worker. A field filled with women. From top to bottom. Except the very top. The highest positions at any agency are ALWAYS occupied by men.

            You don’t understand the problem they’re attempting to confront by saying they would like to cast a woman. Which is the kicker. They said like to, not that they will, and ya’ll are still coming out crying about it.

            Sad. Bigly.

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:41 pm
            Permalink

            I couldn’t have said it better myself.

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:30 am
            Permalink

            Come on bro, no reason to beat yourself up like that.

          • November 24, 2016 at 3:16 am
            Permalink

            It’s a boys club. I’m not reading any of your posts by the way. There’s no point. Educate yourself on something other than engineering, than speak to social issues.

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:29 am
            Permalink

            Hollywood is run by men.

            Men who hire other men into the highest positions available because they can relate to and feel comfortable with them.

            Crazy how that all connects, isn’t it?

            Don’t think too hard, wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself.

          • November 23, 2016 at 6:56 am
            Permalink

            You are completely dense.

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:29 pm
            Permalink

            Nice rebuttal, bro.

          • November 23, 2016 at 6:53 pm
            Permalink

            It’s not a rebuttal, it’s an accurate statement of your brain matter.

        • November 22, 2016 at 11:40 pm
          Permalink

          So do you think it’s ok that every Star Wars film was directed by a male even though there are loads of talented female directors chomping at the bit to direct one too?

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:16 am
            Permalink

            i just hope they don’t do what other studios are doing where women can only direct female led franchises.

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:29 am
            Permalink

            Yes. As long as they didn’t reject female candidates solely for being female. Sometimes the best person for the job happens to be a man. Often, actually, because statistics.

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:27 am
            Permalink

            Too bad you can’t engineer yourself some common sense.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:00 am
            Permalink

            I do. If a female director can prove that she’s the best one for the job, she should be hired, just like how it is for men. Otherwise, don’t go hiring women just to show how NOT sexist you are. You’re just being sexist against men.

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:26 am
            Permalink

            The point is, genius, there are no female directors because it’s a boy’s club that has been nigh impenetrable since the birth of Hollywood.

            It’s affirmative action on Lucas Film’s part to try and open up the exclusivity of being a Director having directly to do with what’s between your legs.

            Because it does. They’re almost entirely male.

            And no, it’s not because women don’t want to direct. They’ve filled roles in film production in every other niche for decades now. The glass ceiling for women in Hollywood is Executive Producer.

      • November 22, 2016 at 11:38 pm
        Permalink

        “Equal representation takes conscious effort.” But what’s the point, exactly? It seems like it’s just virtue signalling to me. “See guys? We’re totally not racist/sexist. We really tried to hire a black guy/woman. Why is “equal representation” so important?

        • November 23, 2016 at 12:19 am
          Permalink

          Because people don’t like being left out.

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:47 pm
            Permalink

            So you don’t like chinese movies, right? Because you can’t identify? And what about asians, two bilions of them, watching 99% of international production without asian actors??????

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:52 pm
            Permalink

            I said people “tend” to feel that way. Of course there are people who don’t.

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:23 am
            Permalink

            They also all have their own film industries that make movies featuring..shocker..people of their culture and country.

          • November 25, 2016 at 3:20 am
            Permalink

            …and no one calls them racists 🙂

          • November 25, 2016 at 4:29 am
            Permalink

            Because their countries aren’t a mix of cultures and ethnicity’s that are nearly as diverse as you find in the United States and some European nations.

            It’s alright Tuareg. I know you want your Star Wars white. I won’t call you a racist. Just ignorant.

      • November 23, 2016 at 1:34 am
        Permalink

        “Defaulting to white”…except when it doesn’t. In a majority white nation, the majority of non-race-specific roles is going to go to white people.

        • November 23, 2016 at 1:40 am
          Permalink

          Disney is a global company

          • November 23, 2016 at 1:51 am
            Permalink

            Right. I’m not saying you shouldn’t make movies that have female leads. I just think you shouldn’t do that for the sake of doing it. Do it because you have a good story that involves a female lead. Or do it because the story doesn’t call for specific gender as lead and a female happened to fit the role the best. When you force it, you get things like the Ghostbusters remake.

          • November 23, 2016 at 2:11 am
            Permalink

            I understand where you’re coming from; I have my gripes about how Rey was presented in TFA despite her being a likable character in a great film, and while I didn’t see Ghostbusters, it looks from the surface like they put making a statement above everything else. But it doesn’t have to and won’t always be that way. Hollywood seems to be undergoing a paradigm shift right now, to correct mistakes of the past, and with any shift it will take time before things move smoothly. We may see some hard lines taken and some hits and misses, but I think the means justify the end in this case.

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:44 pm
            Permalink

            The studios probably think that man star power bring more paying moviegoers to the theathers, as simple as that, they want their money back, not a sexism….

    • November 22, 2016 at 11:45 pm
      Permalink

      If Lucas didn’t unbalance it so badly to begin with we wouldn’t have to have such a massive course correct today.

      • November 23, 2016 at 1:26 am
        Permalink

        Define “have to”. Why do we need to do this? What’s the point?

        • November 23, 2016 at 1:59 am
          Permalink

          Exactly. There’s nothing wrong with a Sausage Fest as long as girls are still allowed when they want to be there.

        • November 23, 2016 at 2:04 am
          Permalink

          I don’t want to play word games. Kennedy wanted more female characters and now we have them. That’s the point. It only seems like it’s a lot because SW started at practically zero women in these stories. Now it’s more balanced and the sky hasn’t fallen.

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:38 pm
            Permalink

            Princess Leia “zero” Organa…

          • November 23, 2016 at 11:09 pm
            Permalink

            “practically”

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:18 am
            Permalink

            Good job. You found one. How about another?

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:18 am
            Permalink

            The best thing about this is they have nothing to complain about.

            They’ve yet to cast someone who would fit their description of committing an act of Social Justice that has failed to perform in a film.

            We’ll see how Rogue One goes.

        • November 23, 2016 at 6:51 am
          Permalink

          Have you seen how many little girls want to be Rey now?

          When I was growing up, girls didn’t like Star Wars. Gee, I wonder why.

          Now they’re all dressing up as characters for Halloween and freaking out that there are more movies coming out.

          Now imagine if you’re an African American and you have more than Lando and Mace Windu to celebrate.

          Imagine if you’re Asian after Rogue One and there are people you can relate to on the big screen.

          Diversity is the spice of life. And it’s fucking Star Wars, kid. Literally, diversity is built into it.

          A galaxy full of awesome looking aliens and … white males. Hrm.

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:27 pm
            Permalink

            Are you saying I can’t relate to Lando or Princess Leia because I’m a white man? Are you saying Asians can’t relate to Luke because they’re Asian? What a racist thing to say!

          • November 23, 2016 at 6:54 pm
            Permalink

            I’m saying it’s much easier for people to see faces that look like theirs to be able to relate to a character then all white males.

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:15 pm
            Permalink

            How so? I relate to the thoughts and actions of a character, not what they look like. I look nothing like Han Solo or Luke. Their being white does nothing to make them relatable to me.

          • November 24, 2016 at 3:13 am
            Permalink

            Are you white?

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:36 pm
            Permalink

            I guess Asia still waits for its Mace, Lando or Finn…1/3 of Earth popularion….

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:37 pm
            Permalink

            But what percentage of America’s population? To be fair.

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:20 am
            Permalink

            LOL

            So now you’re saying we should cast actors who are members of minority populations in films to the same percentage they make up of one country’s population?

            Separate but equal TUD. L O L.

          • November 24, 2016 at 3:11 am
            Permalink

            You may have noticed the Asians cast in the new film.

    • November 23, 2016 at 3:35 am
      Permalink

      The film industry has had forced NON-diversity for about the first 100 years of its existence. No one seems to have had a problem with that very intentional casting on the basis of gender or race. But when you hire a woman or an an non-white, ignorant and childish white men are going to whine about it because they feel as though, by the aforementioned precedent, that they have the entitlement to star in or direct every film ever made, and any deviation from that arrangement is “forced diversity.” When you are trying to break down that sense of entitlement, you are going to make decisions that seem “forced.” But it was certainly forced all along – just not in a way that you took notice of, because you were used to it.

      • November 23, 2016 at 4:07 am
        Permalink

        Therefore, the best thing to do would be to remove all bias and to hire all individuals based on their skillsets, not based on race, gender, etc. I’m glad we’re all in agreement.

        • November 23, 2016 at 7:59 am
          Permalink

          You cannot remove bias without giving people who have historically been marginalized opportunities they wouldn’t have otherwise had. Only when people are given opportunities can they fully prove that they indeed have the skill sets to excel at their craft.

          • November 23, 2016 at 3:53 pm
            Permalink

            I think a movie studio would rather just hire the best director for the job. After all, that is what results in quality most of the time.

          • November 23, 2016 at 10:46 pm
            Permalink

            But they don’t. They hire men a hell of a lot more than women.

          • November 24, 2016 at 1:34 am
            Permalink

            So a man can’t be the best person for the job? That seems (uh oh!) sexist!!

            See where your line of thinking gets you?

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:15 am
            Permalink

            At least he’s thinking.

          • November 26, 2016 at 12:29 am
            Permalink

            Sure he can. But film companies don’t hire according to talent. Why do we gave so many godawful movies today? Is that the best these supremely talented people can do? Sexism already exists and has for decades. And, sorry, film companies have a very clear preference for male directors over female directors.

          • November 26, 2016 at 5:34 am
            Permalink

            Film companies don’t hire for talent, you’re right. they hire for money, which is something that certainly overpowers sexism when ti comes to a purely money-driven industry. Maybe some female directors just need to make more money. But unless you can actually PROVE that female directors are being discriminated against, then I have no reason to believe your unproved claims.

          • November 26, 2016 at 5:13 pm
            Permalink

            You gave me proof that there are film school grads that are women, but you haven’t given me proof that anyone is being *denied* an opportunity. And unless you can proof such a thing, I have no reason to believe it.

          • November 26, 2016 at 6:17 pm
            Permalink

            -Sigh- OK, I will give you the statistics once again – only 1.8% of big budget film directors are women, when a far more equal number of film grads are women. Do you understand that disparity, and how it suggests that women are not hired to direct films nearly to the extent that men are, despite being educated to a equal degree that men are?

          • November 27, 2016 at 12:50 am
            Permalink

            Yes, it suggests that women aren’t getting hired. What it doesn’t prove is the reason behind that.

          • November 28, 2016 at 8:22 pm
            Permalink

            Well, it’s not for lack of education. It’s not like sports, where physical strength prevents women from competing evenly with men. It’s not that women are artistically deficient compared to men. So what could it be other than a long-established standard that men are simply preferred for being men?

          • November 28, 2016 at 10:07 pm
            Permalink

            That women aren’t interested, though they should be encouraged to get interested. Just like women aren’t as interested in being doctors, and men aren’t as interested in being nurses. It’s no one’s fault if one gender doesn’t pursue a career as much as the other. Either get over it, or actually try to change it using FACTS instead of blaming the EVIL white males.

          • November 29, 2016 at 9:15 am
            Permalink

            Not interested? Why do women study film if they’re not interested in it? That makes no sense. How many times do I need to say that half of film students are women? And they certainly do pursue careers in the field. But they simply don’t get hired. You are in some serious denial about this.

          • November 23, 2016 at 4:26 pm
            Permalink

            What you are talking about is going back in time. It’s impossible. Equal opportunity exists now. There’s no need to make it unequal again.

          • November 23, 2016 at 10:38 pm
            Permalink

            Equal opportunity doesn’t exist now by any stretch of the imagination. You can see how much friction is caused when a woman or non-white is cast/hired. That is not equality.

          • November 24, 2016 at 6:13 am
            Permalink

            LOL. Equal opportunity exists now. What plane of existence do you live on?

    • November 23, 2016 at 6:47 am
      Permalink

      How is it forced? Stating they want to have something other than a middle aged white guy Directing a movie?

      How about “Why are we disgusted and indignant when someone says they want a woman to occupy a role usually reserved for middle aged white men?”

      Please look at EVERY Director chosen so far for all 5 films. What are they? Women? African American? Asian? Gay? No.

      Middle. Aged. White. Guys.

      You’re going to get an entirely different lens to a view a story when it comes from an individual who isn’t…a middle aged white guy. They’ll still shop around for the best individual to make the film. What’s wrong with deciding they want a woman to Direct?

      Were you one of the folks crying that the lead character in VII was a woman? AND OMG IT WAS ON PURPOSE. SO TERRIBLE.

      I bet you’re sore about Jyn Erso too. Cause TWO GIRLS BACK TO BACK!? You wouldn’t cry foul if there were two men in different Star Wars movies starring in back to back films. But when you make it a woman. ZOMG! This is FORCED.

      It’s funny, really. The level of ignorance put on display about this subject. But it no longer surprises me, not after recent events.

      • November 23, 2016 at 4:25 pm
        Permalink

        Nope. I have no problem with two female leads in two movies. The roles called for it. I have a problem with sexism/racism.

        • November 23, 2016 at 6:54 pm
          Permalink

          Yes, you do. I agree.

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:16 pm
            Permalink

            Where did I say that I had a problem with it? Your username suits you. You don’t have a problem with sexism/racism. You have a problem with sexism/racism against minority groups. There’s a subtle, but important, difference.

          • November 24, 2016 at 3:13 am
            Permalink

            That one went so far over your head that I’m still laughing as I type this.

          • November 23, 2016 at 7:30 pm
            Permalink

            Casting a director just becouse it’s man, woman, black or yellow is just stupid. Maybe if it’s an experiment with no desire to achieve succes or make money. Otherwise you always hire the best director you can find for the project. Aassuming that there are not tons of great directors around when you need them, if you say that most of them are white men in middle age, it means that they were the best directors available at the moment. Perhaps you, if you will invest your money in a project, you would hire specifically a gender or a color, and not the best profesional you could afford, but capitalistic world doesn’t work like that. Who invest his money want it back and will do whatever he think is best to succes

          • November 24, 2016 at 3:12 am
            Permalink

            They aren’t going to cast a Director just because it’s a woman.

            They want to open up the boys club of directing to women by giving the position to a woman who they feel will be capable of leading the film.

            You’re not investing money in anything. You’re being obstinate and sexist. And it’s hilariously sad.

          • November 24, 2016 at 3:51 am
            Permalink

            I agree with a lot of what you said (but not all). A woman is not going to get a directing job on a Star Wars movie just because of gender. She will have to earn it. Disney loves money, and they aren’t going to risk the opportunity to make money because of social agenda. Nerd culture is far more reaching than it used to be – there are a lot of nerd girls out there now, giving us nerd boys a run for our money. I believe it will happen. But it can’t be forced. Those white guys (like myself) just have to get used to it. I think we’ll all be better for it.

          • November 27, 2016 at 7:40 am
            Permalink

            I think the problem is the way she stated it. Why not just say we’re looking for the best and keeping all doors open?

            By pointing to the fact of who they are wanting to direct because of their sex, ethnicity becomes no better than we’re looking specifically for an old white guy.

            I really don’t care as long as they are talented, but she’s gonna cause herself issues with statements like that…imo.

          • November 27, 2016 at 6:30 pm
            Permalink

            Because she’s making an affirmative action play. And she’s making it public in an effort to give more women the opportunity to direct, period, let alone big budget adventures.

          • November 27, 2016 at 9:10 pm
            Permalink

            She’s doing that for sure…but in her position there’s many ways for her to help that cause without making it seem she wants a woman director for SW just because they’re a woman. If that makes any sense? To be honest I don’t know of any big directors that are women with the exception of television shows.

          • November 28, 2016 at 12:19 am
            Permalink

            It does. Thanks for the civil convo.

    • November 23, 2016 at 1:57 am
      Permalink

      Notice that she didn’t say *war* film. S T A R W A R S I S R U I N E D /s

      • November 23, 2016 at 2:17 am
        Permalink

        So ur saying it’s time to panic? 😉

        • November 23, 2016 at 2:19 am
          Permalink

          PaNiC®

          • November 23, 2016 at 6:35 am
            Permalink

            Don’t panic.

  • November 23, 2016 at 12:03 am
    Permalink

    For the love of ..!!!! Not the same boring debate. THE BEST PERSON GETS THE JOB! End of. We don’t want another ghostbusters remake. Why did they remake Anne? Couldn’t it have just been a new film on its own merit! TFA worked as Rae was a good casting and the story, so far works. Obvious the route they were going and it could have been a huge flop. If the story, directing and casting is good who cares!

  • November 23, 2016 at 7:36 am
    Permalink

    If they’re going to forgo the crawl, Giacchino’s going to have to compensate music wise, since Williams’ signature score would normally play out during the crawl.

    And fun fact: RO had a slightly larger budget and twice as many effects shots as TFA.

    • November 23, 2016 at 4:23 pm
      Permalink

      Can you cite a source fr the information? Box office Mojo, maybe?

  • November 23, 2016 at 8:37 am
    Permalink

    When a CEO calls you at 4am, that’s means they’re in love with you.

Comments are closed.

LATEST POSTS ON MOVIE NEWS NET