I don't see you defending Lucas when he's running Lucasfilm.
The SW fandom has always been like this and toxic for years. The attacks on Jake Loyld, Ahmed Best and Lucas himself are just some of known attacks on someone running the SW franchise. It's a job that will be subject to very harsh personal attacks, kinda like a head coach or manager of a sports team.I'm not saying Kathleen Kennedy can't handle it, though its interesting that your mind immediately jumped to that interpretation. I'm just saying that its arguably disproportionate, and that people need to take into account the difference between the situation she's operating under, and the one Lucas was working under.
I am not saying every criticism is automatically correct. I am saying the job itself is a high reward, but also high risk job to begin with. If you did something right, you'll be praised to high heavens and become worshipped by the fans. If you did something that the fans feel is wrong, you'll be worse than the devil to them.
Yes, of course leadership entails responsibility. However, it does not follow (in the mind of any reasonable person at least) that anything that goes wrong is therefore automatically the top person's fault, or that any criticism is automatically correct and irrefutable. That's a lazy approach to criticism, if nothing else.
Any person who wishes to take over from Lucas must be prepared to face these kinds of criticism, regardless of their validity.
She's the one with the wide range of responsibilities and authority over the direction of the franchise. If she felt she is not given enough control over the franchise, she could leave the job ( it's not like she needs the money). The fact that she stayed on suggest she feels she's given enough control over LFL. If she is not given sufficient control, then she made a mistake by staying on at Lucasfilm.Its also worth noting that Kathleen Kennedy isn't the top person here- at Lucasfilm, sure, but Lucasfilm is now owned by Disney, which means that she is subject to a level of corporate oversight that George Lucas has not been for a very long time. Which I specifically noted, and which point you ignored entirely in favor of questioning my comprehension.
You cannot excuse leadership responsibility simply by pointing at someone higher up the management chain.
That's only valid argument if the prior leaders of Lucasfilm were better treated by the fans. If the creator of Star Wars himself cannot escape extremely aggressive and harsh criticism like "Lucas ruined my childhood" by fans and even professionals in Hollywood ( see Gary Whitta comments about George Lucas), then I am not surprised Kennedy is subjected to similar kinds of harsh criticism. If anything, I'll make an argument that Kennedy has far more goodwill from the fans that Lucas did because of her success with Ep 7 and R1. So yes, I think you're jumping to the gun in trying to defend her on the basis of her gender. It's not a good attitude in trying to promote more woman to take up more leadership position, because you can give people the impression you have a double standards.I bring up gender because I see a pattern here of certain elements of the Star Wars fandom subjecting female leaders to particularly harsh criticism. And while that may be coincidental in some cases, the overall pattern certainly makes an impression on me.
Edit: I have the same problem with knee-jerk "blame everything on this person because they're in charge in politics"- its a big part of how we get reactionary protest votes every election cycle, even if the candidate they're voting for is worse than the status quo in every conceivable way. Its a common phenomenon, but its also an abdication of one's responsibility to use one's judgment- to be meaningful, a criticism should ideally be specific and backed up by facts.