Kathleen Kennedy is stepping down

[greenmachines]

That's my thinking. I cannot picture Kennedy literally making the show without Disney's approval. But it could be a situation where she raised a fair amount of outside money to finance part of it.

She probably just ended up on the hook when the show bombed. I mean, it's possible to get pretty leveraged with debts if you are overconfident with a high-profile project. She could have made multi-season deals with lenders or subcontractors. They were starting work on 'The Acolyte' back when Star Wars was still considered a slam-dunk investment, at least in business circles. Even Kennedy's first couple of SW movies made a lot of money.

I was curious if, and this is if she really does owe anything, if it is the over budget amount. Just how much of her contract as producer makes her responsible for over budget? Over budget by definition would be breaking or, said politely, exceeding your contractual rights. She is down for producer on 8 episodes which puts her in line with that possibility of breaking her contract by exceeding agreed levels (obviously that isn't a new thing as a producer's contract) but without seeing the contract, there is likely no way to prove that at all. But, I am sure that overbudget would have been ignored if they made a profit. It looks like it would eventually on streaming, according to rough budget figures. However, those numbers that I saw could be projected and not even reliable. The only solid truth is that without the serious tax breaks given, it would be already a loss in the tens of millions.

 

[greenmachines]

I'm far from an expert but I was under the impression corporations like Disney were LLCs precisely so managers/employees/ownders/etc can't be saddled with company debts.

Hollywood financing is always "spread the risk" and has been for many decades. Even giants like Disney are not solely responsible entities. Contracts are placed for temporary financing (spreading the risk) and clauses are placed about who profits from non negotiable debt, who profits from revenue, who profits from actual bookable profit (revenue above expenses), the list is staggering and long. Disney did not get where it is by taking on all risk. They got where they are by having scapegoats when necessary as any responsible company would. No company gives unlimited check writing authority to any employee. There would very likely be clauses in place for her share of responsibility AND her share of profits if they were beyond original projections.

Making her standard pay subject to profiting from her productions would be the same as her "paying it back" in some contracts, if early or spread out payments were in play.

Contracts are insanely complex, even with behemoths like Disney. They are not likely unprepared to claw back. I would say, with plenty of history/experience in their backpocket, they have "clawback options" in all of their contracts.

 

[Treadwell]

She is not an independent producer who got a co-financing deal for a project she offered a studio. She's an employee. There's no way she can just go make a show, with all the associated costs going through the Disney financing system, and checks being cut, without their approval.

 

[Paul Andrew]

Opening this thread is becoming very akin to perusing the old supermarket tabloids.

 

[Astyanax]

She is not an independent producer who got a co-financing deal for a project she offered a studio. She's an employee. There's no way she can just go make a show, with all the associated costs going through the Disney financing system, and checks being cut, without their approval.

I'm not convinced all the associated costs went through the Disney financial system.

 

[greenmachines]

I'm not convinced all the associated costs went through the Disney financial system.

This is my point in a nutshell. She went offscript, over budget and outside of contractual boundaries. Believing that the finance department is instantaneously aware of her every move is a pipe dream. They don't function on debit cards. Any producer within Disney has the ability to sign contracts that come due later. It is in the actual job description of "producer". This is what they do. They negotiate with many entities to use resources on numerous payment methods, time plans and allotments. She could easily over promise and over purchase before the finance department was aware of the over budget issues. Heck, Walmart used to bankrupt entire companies by contracting for huge shipments and then paying much much later. It is not instant and there isn't someone watching her every move. There isn't a Disney producer police watch looking over her daily activities.

But that isn't the point anyway. We were talking about Disney holding no two party financed projects, not whether hers was that way. There is no way that Disney has functioned as a sole financier throughout its entire history on all projects associated with Disney. It simply isn't the way entertainment functions in finance.

As for my point on her, I specifically stated she may be contractually obligated to covering where she caused the overrun if it was not in her contract to do so without approval and none was given. Thus the comment about not seeing the contract so not having any clue if there is a clawback clause in her contract.

 

[batguy]

Given Kennedy's history, she would have been crazy to accept much financial exposure (for cost overruns on 'The Acolyte'). She had to shoot 'Solo' twice over.

"It seemed excessive. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen." -Vincent Vega

 

[greenmachines]

Given Kennedy's history, she would have been crazy to accept much financial exposure (for cost overruns on 'The Acolyte'). She had to shoot 'Solo' twice over.

"It seemed excessive. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen." -Vincent Vega

I struggled with how to say what you just did and ended up not saying it. The truth is, her entire life has been using other people's money as though it were her own. But in each of those instances (before recent failures), she partnered with others on how to spend it. I can't find an instance where she was solely responsible as the only producer on her early life successes (and they were hugely successful). But when solely on her own, it seems to reveal that was a lifetime of being held harmless by the other producers' final decisions. I have no reason to try to naysay her life's work but when you really dig into it, she seems to be, "also there" and married the money right out of the gate on her first or second project. I don't think I want to look any closer.

 

[greenmachines]

The other thing I find staggering is how much she has changed her publicly spoken views since gaining real power. She has been known to say very uplifting and logical things. She could deep dive into why Hollywood was more free and less bigoted than the rest of real life. No claims to nirvana or perfection but claims that it was possible to be any ethnicity, belief or even be a women in a historically man's arena. After becoming Lucas films president, staggering proof of her own statements, she went Sith and openly makes statements that are clearly bigoted in their root logic. Statements that do not even vaguely align with her previous positive outlook or any of what could be considered truth. She makes clear attack statements based on gender while claiming to be gender attacked. The clear understanding that there will always be someone who is attacking you with false bigoted logic does not mean you can do the same back. It is still wrong, logically, and will never make anything better. To be a bigot, in any form, shows proof of a serious mental illness and stupidity. If she had just stuck with the truth and continued to speak truth and positive outlooks, she would look a hero when insulted by others.

She truly seems to be a mirror image, lifetime for lifetime, to Anakin. The comparisons are staggeringly accurate as though she just lived the storyline in an alternate universe......

"From my point of view, the Jedi are evil" a quote from Anakinnady (from my point of view )

 

[batguy]

Her last decade at LFL speaks louder than anything we could say about her. The proof is in the wrecked franchises. She seemed like a solid choice on paper back in 2012 but it just didn't turn out that way.

If there's a lesson here, I think it's "Don't ever make anybody un-fire-able". Lucas should have left Bob Iger some way of unseating Kennedy when things got ugly.

Bob Iger should also have acted earlier to get her under control. The reason why Doomcock has a career is because Kennedy was leaving a trail of wreckage and chaos. Announcing fictional projects, moving forward on stuff before it's greenlit, power plays against others like Favreau, etc. Iger seems to have finally cut off her money supply after twin trainwrecks with Star Wars #9 and Indy #5. But that was too late. She was giving off red flags several years earlier.

Just from a management POV (never mind my own feelings as a fan), I think Iger made a clear mistake to leave her in creative control of Indy #5. By that time the situation was clear. I suspect the movie was allowed to happen because Harrison Ford's age was giving them a deadline. Iger probably figured it was better to get a weaker movie done with Harrison than stall the project for several more years. But IMO the reasoning was flawed when you consider how badly Kennedy can damage a franchise and nuke a budget. In the final analysis I think Indy#5 did Disney/LFL more harm than good.

 

[greenmachines]

Her last decade at LFL speaks louder than anything we could say about her. The proof is in the wrecked franchises. She seemed like a solid choice on paper back in 2012 but it just didn't turn out that way.

If there's a lesson here, I think it's "Don't ever make anybody un-fire-able". Lucas should have left Bob Iger some way of unseating Kennedy when things got ugly.

Bob Iger should also have acted earlier to get her under control. The reason why Doomcock has a career is because Kennedy was leaving a trail of wreckage and chaos. Announcing fictional projects, moving forward on stuff before it's greenlit, power plays against others like Favreau, etc. Iger seems to have finally cut off her money supply after twin trainwrecks with Star Wars #9 and Indy #5. But that was too late. She was giving off red flags several years earlier.

Just from a management POV (never mind my own feelings as a fan), I think Iger made a clear mistake to leave her in creative control of Indy #5. By that time the situation was clear. I suspect the movie was allowed to happen because Harrison Ford's age was giving them a deadline. Iger probably figured it was better to get a weaker movie done with Harrison than stall the project for several more years. But IMO the reasoning was flawed when you consider how badly Kennedy can damage a franchise and nuke a budget. In the final analysis I think Indy#5 did Disney/LFL more harm than good.

well stated