Iger and Chapek Livid With Lucasfilm

[larryz]

One of the reasons Leslye Headland is such a PR issue is because of quotes like these:

Not to mention that her name sounds like she just fell out of an Austin Powers movie...

 

[Randyland]

Who really knows what goes on behind the curtains....

Could it be this is all about MONEY...??

Consider the current situation of the world; Disney Parks are CLOSED around the world...

Retail stores are flat line closed as well as cruise ships and movies...

So Disney income is in crisis...

But Disney has made many HUGE buy outs in recent years...

It is very likely that these multi million and perhaps BILLION Dollar Deals are made with a payment structure over TIME...

Perhaps these payments are PAST DUE....

And there is no real hope of getting that money in the immediate future as world recovery to normal spending and crowding into amusement park current lines and crowds is highly unlikely...

Could it be that someone wants to take their intellectual property BACK for non payment default???

When you buy other people's stories, they never really are your own, even after they are paid for in full.

 

[SpoiledBlueMilk]

So just received this info:

One of the reasons Leslye Headland is such a PR issue is because of quotes like these:

"It was so funny and great. When I was working there, that was all I wanted — I would daydream that someday I’ll be making movies and Harvey will buy them and, and he will want to support me. You know, as coworkers essentially. There’s nobody like him. He’s genius. You sit across from him and you’re like, “I cannot believe how brilliant this guy is.” So his interest in me as a filmmaker just makes me feel like I made the right choice to move on." -- https://ew.com/article/2012/02/28/h...ersonal-assistant-writes-tell-all-play-sorta/

You have to understand, quotes like these come WELL after there were many, many, many reports about Weinstein and his predatory, criminal behavior towards women. And while you might think the hundreds of social media posts she had disappear in conjunction with the Variety leak were all lewd things, the truth is they were often loving, over-the-top endorsements of Weinstein.

Additionally, Bob Iger is currently being sued by Paz de la Huerta about Harvey Weinstein (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywoo...erta-harvey-weinstein-lawsuit-disney-bob-iger), which means that not only is he attempting to get out of that situation... but Kathleen Kennedy has brought the fox into the hen house by bringing in Harvey Weinstein's personal assistant, and NOBODY at the top of Disney knows what information she was privy to her in her time working directly under Weinstein. I was curious what the legal issue was that Disney was concerned about beyond the PR issue, but that's the big one I've discovered. You could potentially, although perhaps (?) unlikely, see a situation where Kathleen Kennedy has hired someone who would have compromising information about the CEO, former CEO, and others at Disney.

So now the fact that Lucasfilm hired someone with significant PR issues becomes more intriguing, AND you begin to understand why Disney execs were livid about Headland not having been previously vetted outside of Lucasfilm. So what is Kathleen Kennedy's play here?

The Bobs are right to be livid. This is a PR own goal when the last thing they need are unforced errors. Between the bad look of the Weinstein tie-in to the potential legal exposure this should end with some people losing their jobs.

 

[The_Jobu]

Kk has gone cray cray. Lucas should never have trusted her.

 

[juniorthomas]

The Bobs are right to be livid. This is a PR own goal when the last thing they need are unforced errors. Between the bad look of the Weinstein tie-in to the potential legal exposure this should end with some people losing their jobs.

Kennedy has overseen a number of less than stellar projects at the helm of Lucasfilm. Most in her position aren’t afforded too many disappointments without some sort of consequences.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

It's amazing that a studio with as much storyteller talent as Disney can be so consistently bad at live action films not featuring Marvel.

 

[Dragonman]

Did anyone else get a Disney “terms of use” email? Cause I literally just did. The only reason I feel like I did is because I’m a member here.

 

[peter11435]

Did anyone else get a Disney “terms of use” email? Cause I literally just did. The only reason I feel like I did is because I’m a member here.

Your membership here would have nothing to do with it. This site is not associated with Disney.

 

[doctornick]

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't sound like anything of consequence. If her big sin was being associated with Weinstein and saying positive things about him, then that's the type of thing that half of Hollywood has "problems" with. Was Russian Doll developed after all the Weinstein stuff hit? If so, at least it seems Netflix was okay with the degree of her past association.

Obviously, if she scrubbed her social media, it's a bad look. But the question is what exactly was being erased? Nowadays it seems like people are trying to avoid anything even slightly controversial being on social media as that is easier than having to defend or explain. It's certainly plausible that she was told/asked to just remove her past social media comments over an abundance of caution.

Anyway, if it just supportive things of Weinstein, then I would think it could/should be addressed in a standard "I was unaware of the actions that he's been accused of; if I had known about them, I would have never wanted to work with him or have praised him as I previously did" type of response. Is it more than just positive comments about Weinstein? Is she implicated in covering up anything for him?

Of course, I'm also one of those people who can't believe how much Disney overreacted with James Gunn. I assumed that that was because they were in the midst of finishing the Fox acquisition and did not want anything to potential impact that.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't sound like anything of consequence. If her big sin was being associated with Weinstein and saying positive things about him, then that's the type of thing that half of Hollywood has "problems" with. Was Russian Doll developed after all the Weinstein stuff hit? If so, at least it seems Netflix was okay with the degree of her past association.

Obviously, if she scrubbed her social media, it's a bad look. But the question is what exactly was being erased? Nowadays it seems like people are trying to avoid anything even slightly controversial being on social media as that is easier than having to defend or explain. It's certainly plausible that she was told/asked to just remove her past social media comments over an abundance of caution.

Anyway, if it just supportive things of Weinstein, then I would think it could/should be addressed in a standard "I was unaware of the actions that he's been accused of; if I had known about them, I would have never wanted to work with him or have praised him as I previously did" type of response. Is it more than just positive comments about Weinstein? Is she implicated in covering up anything for him?

Of course, I'm also one of those people who can't believe how much Disney overreacted with James Gunn. I assumed that that was because they were in the midst of finishing the Fox acquisition and did not want anything to potential impact that.

I don't know when it started happening, but it surely ties to social media and the echo chamber we're able to create for ourselves, but MANY people demand for everyone to have black and white opinions of basically anything and anyone. Shades of grey and nuance are no longer tolerated. James Gunn - perfect example. People who were angry over Roseanne Barr being fired refuse to see the difference between being fired for actions taken while employed vs. being fired for actions that took place prior to employment. They are two very different things, but we still saw many demanding that Roseanne Barr be re-hired because Disney chose to re-hire James Gunn. As a society, we need to re-learn the importance of nuance and realize that NOTHING in life is black-and-white...except maybe zebras, pandas, and skunks.

 

[easyrowrdw]

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't sound like anything of consequence. If her big sin was being associated with Weinstein and saying positive things about him, then that's the type of thing that half of Hollywood has "problems" with. Was Russian Doll developed after all the Weinstein stuff hit? If so, at least it seems Netflix was okay with the degree of her past association.

Obviously, if she scrubbed her social media, it's a bad look. But the question is what exactly was being erased? Nowadays it seems like people are trying to avoid anything even slightly controversial being on social media as that is easier than having to defend or explain. It's certainly plausible that she was told/asked to just remove her past social media comments over an abundance of caution.

Anyway, if it just supportive things of Weinstein, then I would think it could/should be addressed in a standard "I was unaware of the actions that he's been accused of; if I had known about them, I would have never wanted to work with him or have praised him as I previously did" type of response. Is it more than just positive comments about Weinstein? Is she implicated in covering up anything for him?

Of course, I'm also one of those people who can't believe how much Disney overreacted with James Gunn. I assumed that that was because they were in the midst of finishing the Fox acquisition and did not want anything to potential impact that.

Indeed. There is still no evidence of an actual PR issue. It appears to only be a problem to like three websites and whoever keeps shilling the information here.

 

[WDW Pro]

Indeed. There is still no evidence of an actual PR issue. It appears to only be a problem to like three websites and whoever keeps shilling the information here.

Never assume that everything which is out is all that will be out.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Did anyone else get a Disney “terms of use” email? Cause I literally just did. The only reason I feel like I did is because I’m a member here.

No. What did it say.

I would create my own "terms of use" and send it back to them (when I say them - find a couple of real email addresses in Marketing/Legal and put a read receipt on it) with a clause stating that failure to respond within 3 business days signifies Disney's acceptance of your terms. Have fun with it.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

No. What did it say.

I would create my own "terms of use" and send it back to them with a clause stating that failure to respond within 3 business days signifies Disney's acceptance of your terms. Have fun with it.

My husband loves messing with telemarketers like that, lol.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I don't know when it started happening, but it surely ties to social media and the echo chamber we're able to create for ourselves, but MANY people demand for everyone to have black and white opinions of basically anything and anyone. Shades of grey and nuance are no longer tolerated. James Gunn - perfect example. People who were angry over Roseanne Barr being fired refuse to see the difference between being fired for actions taken while employed vs. being fired for actions that took place prior to employment. They are two very different things, but we still saw many demanding that Roseanne Barr be re-hired because Disney chose to re-hire James Gunn. As a society, we need to re-learn the importance of nuance and realize that NOTHING in life is black-and-white...except maybe zebras, pandas, and skunks.

Uh huh. Or maybe the issue is that Iger pretended that the firing of Roseanne was based on "standards", yet he had no trouble hiring and rehiring a man who posted many-multiple tweets about the joys of pedophilia.

Just saying.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Uh huh. Or maybe the issue is that Iger pretended that the firing of Roseanne was based on "standards", yet he had no trouble hiring and rehiring a man who posted many-multiple tweets about the joys of pedophilia.

Just saying.

You're proving my point.

 

[Magenta Panther]

You're proving my point.

How, exactly? Are you saying that because Gunn posted all his cretinous stuff on Twitter before working for Disney that it's somehow okay for Iger to disregard his "standards" (if he truly has any) and re-hire him after "firing" him when word got out?

 

[Dragonman]

No. What did it say.

I would create my own "terms of use" and send it back to them (when I say them - find a couple of real email addresses in Marketing/Legal and put a read receipt on it) with a clause stating that failure to respond within 3 business days signifies Disney's acceptance of your terms. Have fun with it.

This is it. I’m not a member of anything having to do with the company besides being subscribed to a couple of their official YouTube channels so maybe that’s why.

Seems to be the same one from the May the 4th tweet.

 

[DarkMetroid567]

Never assume that everything which is out is all that will be out.

No, but the point is still that a conclusion can't really be made with all that we have. He never said "this is all the evidence that exists."

 

[DarkMetroid567]

In general, you have to wonder if the Bobs are actually livid considering the news about Leslye Headland is out and everyone knows about her past...

yet this doesn't seem to be a talking point at all on social media. Her only frequent mentions on Twitter in general are those Star Wars fans.

In general guys, I'd hold back on saying "KK is in for a bad time now" or "this will surely make sure Kathleen is fired!" based on an unsubstantiated rumor predicated on a potential link that might (and at the moment, isn't) upset people.