Understanding the film business / Awards

[jo]

The older members have reacted to the sweeping changes which affect them mostly --

www.msn.com/en-us/movies/oscars/academys-new-voting-rules-raise-questions-concerns-and-anger-among-members/ar-BBoBONQ?li=BBnb7Kz

[jo]

Hugh was asked at SUNDANCE what he thought of race-related issues re the Oscar nominations and the current membership changes at the AMPAS --

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3420325/Hugh-Jackman-talks-lack-diversity-2016-Oscar-nominations.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

[mamaleh]

In an interview at Sundance, HJ said he "voted for some African-Americans" in this year's Oscar race. I wonder if he bypassed costars Redmayne and Fassbender to do so, or voted for those other actors in different categories. I also wonder how many actors tend to vote along friendship lines? Could that perhaps be a reason why AMPAS wants a more diverse mix of Academy members? Ian McKellen has gone on record as saying the Academy is unfair to the gay community. Stephen Furst (ANIMAL HOUSE, ST. ELSEWHERE) wrote an excellent piece the other day on why he feels changing the rules is unfair:
variety.com/2016/film/awards/stephen-furst-animal-house-academy-rule-changes-1201689253/

I still say it should be purely a meritocracy, but human nature and other factors do enter into how we all make choices. It will be interesting to see how these changes play out.

Ellen

[jo]

I fully agree on the case for meritocracy! Both for awards recognition and even in the casting of roles.

I think when Russell tweeted that he voted for Hugh for the Les Miserables role due to " the character arc and the degree of difficulty, compared to other roles this year", he did cite the right and most appropriate reasons - very professional!

I have not seen DiCaprio in REVENANT and maybe he does deserve an Oscar for his role, but I sort of pity him because of the talk that he is OVERDUE. It diminishes the brilliance of his portrayal because this time, it may be given to him as a consolation prize. And what if he does not win -- I would really feel sorry for him because he is being overhyped this time because of how long it has been due to him. Do you remember when he griped against M McConnaughey's win -- he said bitterly that it is not fair that an Oscar is given not for the strength of the portrayal but because an actor underwent a physical transformation ( that drew some sympathy from the movie audience) - not sure of the exact words but that was the essence. And he is right! May I also add that because an actor was able to copy every mannerism and look in a biopic that he deserves to win, if not supported by strong acting performance. When a film portrayal/performance is still being talked about years and years later - maybe that is a more solid indication of how good the acting was!

And of course, there is always talk of Oscars politicking (the costly " whispering campaign", as Variety calls it in the article I have posted above).

Since we are talking of the creative arts, casting in movies should be role-appropriate, not equal-opportunity appropriate. Maybe there is color-blind casting in the theatre, but I think that is borne of a dearth of talent for the stage ( how many can really act/sing/dance well). True, Broadway is supposed to be considered more liberal, much more so than Hollywood but it is an esoteric community catering to a select market. I think having a woman of color for Fantine but a blonde Cosette would have been questioned in the minds of the moviegoing public, yet that seeming inconsistency happens on Broadway. Or the Thenardiers portrayed by Caucasian actors while Eponine is a woman of color. And what about a revival of CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF with a full cast who are all persons of color - that will probably happen only in the theatre. Not in the movies -- it is really the majority of audience tastes that Hollywood is catering to!

I think what the changes in the AMPAS membership targets in the long run is to evolve a younger voting demos ( as of now the average age is 62) -- or films from the current blockbuster types will never have a chance! As Hugh says : "How can a billion dollars be unsophisticated ??"

Perhaps a keener and more contemporary eye might evolve into a fairer view of how recognition should be given?

Jo

[njr]

I am definitely not prejudiced at all, but can you imagine if there was advertised as an "all-white cast" of a movie or play that traditionally had many persons of color in it? (referencing the "all-black" cast of The Wiz) Or a TV channel called WET (instead of BET) or a NAAWP? Maybe because the Oscars had never had a recipient of color for so many years, that spawned the Black Image Awards, etc. Just thinking out loud.

Nancy

[jo]

variety.com/2016/film/columns/oscar-campaigns-debate-awards-season-1201708491/

Behind the Never-Ending Debate Over Oscar Campaigning


February 18, 2016 | 03:00PM PT

Awards Editor


Tim Gray

Awards Editor

@timgray_variety


In an interview, an Oscar-nominated director was asked how the Academy Awards could be improved. He suggested the trophies be given out every three months, stating: “The disadvantage of the present formula is that the awards invariably go to pictures that were released between September and December 31.” He wasn’t the first person to complain about the year-end glut, and he certainly won’t be the last. The speaker was Alfred Hitchcock in 1972 (quoted in the revised edition of the book “Hitchcock/Truffaut”).



Film fans and journalists enjoy an annual ritual of lamenting Oscar. This year’s diversity protests are significant because they touch on industry-wide issues. But usually, the criticism of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences is much more specific, dealing with the Oscar timetable, the campaigning, and even the media’s coverage of the Academy Awards.

“I’ve come to dread Academy Awards time each spring. The Oscars are always good for an annual smirk in the press. The choices are ‘moribund,’ the ceremony, ‘tacky.’ As a matter of fact, the smirkers have never understood either the Academy or its awards.” This was written by the great journalist-screenwriter John Gregory Dunne in his 1974 essay “Tinsel.”

Some of the Oscar criticism is more recent. In August, Edward Norton complained to IndieWire that Oscar campaigning was “a dog-and-pony show.” Norton proposed that the Academy could rescue the industry by banning campaigns. “They could say that any film putting out paid solicitation ads of any kind — all these for-your-consideration ads that cost millions and millions of dollars, which just solicit awards — they could say that any film using them is disqualified from the Academy Awards. It would end it overnight.”

Norton is a terrific actor and an admirable activist. But he apparently is unaware that Academy execs, in fact, did try to do this, more than a decade ago. They were told by attorneys that any such move would be illegal, a restraint of trade in the U.S. In addition, the FYC ads that appear in Variety and other publications are a small fraction of a campaign costs. Even if the Academy ended ads, strategists have multiple tricks up their sleeves, such as Q&As, parties and other bits of pricey hoopla.

The classic Oscar dismissal was written by Raymond Chandler in the March 1948 issue of the Atlantic.

He said of the awards: “Technically, they are voted, but actually they are not decided by the use of whatever artistic and critical wisdom Hollywood may happen to possess. They are ballyhooed, pushed, yelled, screamed and in every way propagandized into the consciousness of the voters so incessantly, in the weeks before the final balloting, that everything except the golden aura of the box office is forgotten.”

Some things don’t change. Until the Internet boom, few journalists wrote about the Academy. To much of the world, Oscars were decided by some anonymous Hollywood group, and the Academy’s activities for the 364 other days of the year were ignored. But there were always industry grumblings about AMPAS.

At one point, the Academy was blasted as a “closed shop” and young professionals complained that it was difficult to join; the Academy wanted to make it easier. The Academy president announced membership was under review and voting privileges could be revoked for some individuals “who have been professionally inactive in motion pictures for a number of years.” The president was Gregory Peck, as quoted in the April 10, 1970, issue of Variety.

Two months later, Variety reported that the affected members were fighting back, saying that voting rights were “arbitrarily taken away” from some and that this action represented “discrimination.”

In other words, history always repeats itself. The big difference is that the world is moving a lot faster these days, and the protests over Academy proposals took two minutes instead of two months.

[jo]

I am reposting this article from the WOLVERINE 3 thread because it talks about a seeming evolution of a movie genre --

The Hollywood Reporter also writes about what seems to be an evolving trenD -- the move towards R-rated comicbook movies, but more because of the trend towards stronger portrayal of violence.

www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/r-rated-superhero-movie-an-869320




February 24, 2016 2:13pm PT by Graeme McMillan


The R-Rated Superhero Movie: An Evolution for the Genre?

New titles are diversifying their audiences, finding new ways to express themselves and new extremes to explore.


The news that Warner Bros. will be releasing an R-rated version of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice on DVD was met with something akin to disbelief and derision in some corners of social media when it broke.

The surprising news could be seen as a sign that James Gunn's cynicism was well placed regarding the lessons studios would learn from the success of Fox's Deadpool, which has grossed more than $500 million worldwide with a $58 million budget.

Studio executives, the Guardians of the Galaxy director had warned, will "be green lighting films 'like Deadpool' — but, by that, they won't mean 'good and original' but 'a raunchy superhero film' or 'it breaks the fourth wall.' They'll treat you like you're stupid, which is the one thing Deadpool didn't do."



Perhaps Gunn was right. News of the BvS R-rated cut (the movie's theatrical version will still be rated PG-13) was actually the second rumor of an R-rated superhero movie following Deadpool's debut.

Last week, a pamphlet at New York Toy Fair revealed that Fox was anticipating an R-rating for Hugh Jackman's final Wolverine movie. In both cases, the rating is anticipated for reasons of violence, not the "raunch" that Gunn is concerned about.

Indeed, the trend already has its parodies; Ant-Man director Peyton Reed took to Twitter Wednesday to make his own tongue-in-cheek announcement to fans: "Breaking: ANT-MAN AND THE WASP is going FULL NC-17."



Putting the Wolverine III and Batman v Superman news solely down to Deadpool feels like a mistake, however. Fox executives have suggested that Wolverine has been aimed in this direction for some time. And as much as the idea of an R-rated Superman movie feels unusual, it's worth remembering that BvS director Zack Snyder already has one R-rated superhero epic under his belt with 2009's Watchmen.

Similarly, director's cuts of movies with more extreme content being released on DVD is hardly a new phenomenon. In recent months, movies as diverse as Straight Outta Compton, Paul Feig's Spy and 50 Shades of Grey have received "unrated" home versions.

While Batman v Superman is different in that the so-called "Ultimate Version" receives its own MPAA rating, it's not even the first superhero movie to get a more hardcore home release. 2013's The Wolverine was released in a more violent, (slightly) more foul-mouthed format, titled The Wolverine Unleashed.


Instead of placing the credit — or is it blame? — of Wolverine III and the home release of BvS on the record-breaking Deadpool phenomenon, perhaps it should just be seen as a necessary evolution for the genre as a whole. Superhero movies are beginning to resemble the larger action genre they tentatively belong to by diversifying their audiences, finding new ways to express themselves and new extremes to explore.


It should be noted that it's not as if their comic book brethren haven't done the same in the past — both Marvel and DC have published superhero comic books labeled as being for "mature readers" for more than a decade at this point, with the critically acclaimed Marvel Netflix series Jessica Jones starting life as Marvel's first "MAX" (adults only) comic book release.

Of course, if the R-rated Batman v Superman cut features the Man of Steel snarkily commenting on the action directly to the audience before eating some chimichangas, then, sure; it's all down to Deadpool after all.

[jo]

I am elated to read this --

deadline.com/2016/03/bridge-of-spies-supporting-actor-winner-mark-rylance-oscar-campaign-1201714271/

How Mark Rylance Got An Oscar For ‘Bridge Of Spies’ Without Ever Stepping Onto The Campaign Circuit




by Pete Hammond

March 4, 2016 5:12pm



Final Notes On The Season column of 2015-16:

The postmortems are winding down on the just-finished awards season as winning campaigns pat themselves on the back, while losing campaigns hold meetings to figure out what went wrong. There was one Oscar handed out Sunday night, however, that was about as pure as you can get in this era of hand-shaking lunches, brunches, dinners, receptions and Q&As, in which campaigning for Oscars is virtually indistinguishable from running for office. Could that lone example be a game changer and show you really can win Oscar gold on the strength of the movie alone?



Take the case of the four acting winners. Best Actor Leonardo DiCaprio was very visible on the campaign circuit, with Q&As, specially targeted screenings and meet-and-greets with the likes of Oscar voters including Barbra Streisand. He even had a highly publicized meeting with the Pope. Best Actress Brie Larson did not let the fact that she was shooting overseas on Kong: Skull Island for most of the campaign season keep her from making quick one- or two-day trips back to L.A. for lunches, Q&As and awards shows (she won lots of them and got to give speeches). When Larson came in forBridge Of Spiesthe Oscar Nominees Lunch on February 8, she told me she already had made four trips from Hawaii, two from Vietnam and two from Australia this season. After squeezing in a Jimmy Kimmel appearance, she even had to be Skyped in to a Santa Barbara Film Festival tribute or risk missing her plane back to Sydney that night (and the day after the Oscars she was on a plane back to Vietnam).

And despite Alicia Vikander’s own shooting schedule, Focus managed to make the Best Supporting Actress winner very visible on the Q&A and reception circuit while, like Larson, hitting awards shows to make speeches and presentations in order to be constantly visible. It’s a very long season, and by the end of it most winners and nominees have been through the wringer. They are so tired of talking about their work they practically have to crawl to the Dolby for one last round.



Mark Rylance was almost invisible the entire season, missing from all the usual things we expect serious contenders to do. Get this, Oscar cynics: You can win if voters just see the movie. Imagine that…In these days of Oscar being under siege from all corners, it’s nice to see you can win just on the power of the work.

But not Bridge Of Spies’ Best Supporting Actor winner Mark Rylance, who was almost invisible the entire season, missing from all the usual things we expect serious contenders to do. Get this, Oscar cynics: You can win if voters just see the movie. Imagine that. Rylance didn’t attend any campaign events on his behalf. In other words, no lunch was thrown for him to mingle with either East or West Coast voters. No tributes were arranged to get photo ops showing him holding an award, any award. He didn’t go to Palm Springs or Santa Barbara. When he won the New York Film Critics Circle Best Supporting Actor award (announced several weeks in advance of the actual awards ceremony), he was the only acting winner not there to accept in person and reap valuable publicity as Oscar oscars-award-2879-tmagArticle-v2voting was still going on for several more days. The three other acting winners — Michael Keaton, Kristin Stewart and Saoirse Ronan — did show up and give a speech. In the end, only Ronan went on to get an Oscar nom, but, unlike the absent Rylance, no win. When Disney had a massive screening and Q&A for the film with director Steven Spielberg, star Tom Hanks and several other key creatives on the film at the Village in Westwood on November 4, the most glaring absence was that of, you guessed it, Mark Rylance. And unlike countless other hopefuls, Rylance was not seen shaking hands at November’s Governors Awards, increasingly a key campaign stop to be seen in a room full of Academy voters. Nor did he even attend the Oscar maxresdefaultNominees Lunch just days before final ballots went out. He and fellow nominee Tom Hardy, who was making a film, were the only Supporting Actor contenders missing. He was nominated for a SAG Award but also didn’t make that ceremony, nor did he show at the Critics’ Choice Awards. He actually won BAFTA’s Best Supporting Actor prize February 14, but it was picked up on his behalf by Spielberg, so he missed the opportunity of making a speech in front of hundreds of Oscar voters in that room while Oscar balloting was still in motion.



Disney took out several ads for the DreamWorks film, in some of which Rylance was pictured with Hanks, but there weren’t any single ads taken specifically for him or any other category on the film. They did do a “making of ” featurette that had one sequence focusing on him, but that couldn’t be sent directly to Academy members due to stringent rules. And while many nominees found a way to be seen during voting by running around presenting at the endless guild awards events, Rylance wasn’t ever one of them. As for the obligatory appearances on Fallon, Kimmel, Colbert, Ellen, Kelly & Michael or even Inside the Actors Studio? Not a single talk show to his credit this season.

So during the entire season — other than the New York Film Festival on the occasion of the actual premiere of the film — the 56-year-old English thesp was seen only at the Golden Globes on January 1o, where he was nominated for both Bridge Of Spies and his TV SHOW- and at last Sunday’s Oscars, where I ran into him before the show was starting. He told me he was only there because the producers gave him the day off of his new off-Broadway show, Nice Fish. He even seemed surprised about that because as he said normally he would be doing two shows that day, but was certainly happy to be at the Dolby and have a chance to say thanks in person, should he be so lucky. Always thinking of the impact of the work, he even asked Spielberg afterward at the Governors Ball if his Oscar would help the film financially.

The fact is, Rylance isn’t a Hollywood guy. He is a dedicated stage actor, perhaps our finest, and he has been steadily working on the boards since the season began in September where he began an engagement in London starring in Farinelli And The King, for which he was just nominated for an Olivier Award this week. That ran through December. He then went to Boston in January to begin Nice Fish, which he is currently performing eight shows a week in Brooklyn. The fact that he is a working actor, an actor’s actor, ultimately might have played in his favor. He wouldn’t dream of missing a performance if he could help it — even during Hollywood’s high holy awards season.

It used to be common for actors not to actively campaign, except perhaps by way of trade ads. Today’s modern Oscar campaigns usually require much more effort. Often many actors didn’t even show up at the Oscars to collect one, and nobody thought anything of it. If work got in the way, so be it. Now they move mountains to get nominees there. Katharine Hepburn was nominated 12 times and won four Best Actress statuettes, beginning in 1933, but never set foot at any of those ceremonies. Meryl Streep, on the other hand, has been present for each of her 19 nominations. In recent years, it is increasingly rare to win without hitting the “circuit” in some way. Even Streep, who was famously shy about “campaigning,” saw the benefits of getting out there (at the urging of master campaigner Harvey Weinstein) when she finally won her third Oscar for The Iron Lady 29 years after her second.

Most pundits, including this one, thought Sylvester Stallone was a shoo-in to win Supporting Actor for Creed. After all, it was an irresistible story: Sly coming back to the Oscars nearly 40 years after first being nominated for playing Rocky Balboa. And he was great in the movie. But Oscar voters did resist somehow, despite a highly visible campaign that included near-daily full-page trade and newspaper ads touting his performance, several tributes including one I moderated at the Santa Barbara Film Festival and then another for American Cinematheque. There were lunches, Q&As, appearances winning awards at the Globes and Critics’ Choice shows. Add sentiment into the mix, and how can you lose? On the other hand, miss almost every opportunity to make yourself visible, as Rylance did, and how can you win?

In these days of Oscar being under siege from all corners, it is nice to see you can win just on the power of the work. Disney and DreamWorks just did what they needed to do to get the movie, bridge-of-spies-02which was nominated for a total of six Oscars including Best Picture, seen. What a revolutionary idea in a campaign season that can easily swirl out of control. Rylance perhaps is proof positive that you can’t buy an Academy Award. As one rep who worked on the film told me, “We tried to keep the movie in the conversation, which I believe we did, but ultimately people just liked it. It has renewed my faith in the Oscars. People voted for the performance.”

[jo]

Ellen,

I wish I had seen him in JERUSALEM!

I did not realize he is already 56 years old. Was JERUSALEM his first Broadway/offBroadway foray? Have you seen NICE FISH?

He does have such a sterling record on stage --

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rylance

EDIT: It seems he has won a TONY before, for Boeing, Boeing

Jo

[chessie]

Very reassuring to hear this about Mark Rylance. His performance in Bridge of Spies was outstanding. Good for him.

Carol

[mamaleh]

Yes, Jo. The first play I'd ever seen him in was BOEING, BOEING, in which he played a shy midwesterner taught to be a swinger of sorts by an old friend. He absolutely stole that show. He did a total 180 for JERUSALEM as a kind of pot-bellied faux philosopher-Pied Piper to the young hippie types in England. And I'll never forget his 25-minute, nonstop monologue of idiocy in LA BETE, during which he sat down on a commode way upstage and mimed cleaning himself! (he was a silly, hilariously disgusting, self-important oaf in a kingdom a few hundred years ago.) But probably my favorite Rylance stage role was as Viola in the recent production of TWELFTH NIGHT (the one HJ also attended, resulting in an unexpected and very nice intermission chat). His delivery of "Malvoli--OHHHH" was unforgettable.

I haven't seen NICE FISH yet but hope to soon.

Ellen

[jo]

Mark Rylance, it seems without doubt, is an actor who proves that the stage is the actor's medium!

Viola <giggle*>


Jo

[njr]

I know I've seen him before, but the first time I really noticed him was as Thomas Cromwell in Wolf Hall. Excellent actor!

Nancy

[jo]

Fierce defense of the traditional way to distribute movies ( via cinemahouses) rather than via the new concept of the "screening room" at Cinemacon --

variety.com/2016/film/news/cinemacon-analysis-screening-room-1201754079/

[jo]

Interesting article on the superhero phenomenon and how there is belief that eventually every actor you love will do a superhero movie --

www.vulture.com/2016/04/every-actor-will-eventually-do-a-superhero-movie.html#

[jo]

Is the star system still bankable?

variety.com/2016/film/markets-festivals/iron-man-cannes-superhero-movies-1201770087/

[jo]

The title says it all !

www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/movies/in-x-men-apocalypse-and-captain-america-superheroes-versus-movie-stars.html?_r=0

The Superhero Franchise: Where Traditional Movie Stardom Goes to Die

It is a realistic ( although sounding a little cynical) view of what's happening to great and promising actors now that superhero movies are ruling the roost! Are these actors losing their individuality, the talent and magnetism that define their stardom by being in superhero movies? It is a very interesting read!


And a bit of mention of Hugh --

The truth about Ms. Berry in that movie — and James Marsden, Anna Paquin and Famke Janssen, too — became the truth about many actors in most of these movies: There are too many people in them for any one actor (who isn’t Hugh Jackman) to be put to completely satisfying use.

Hugh created the film Wolverine and the film character became as iconic and as much loved as the comicbook hero.  He has been the frontman for many succeeding XMEN movies and his role is usually the significant one in the plot. But has playing him in at least 6 movies to-date and another forthcoming dulled his appeal as a fine actor? Is he more than just Wolverine to film fans? Do fans appreciate that his leaving the Wolverine role could partly be because he wants to explore other artistic opportunities?

In the case of Hugh -- he does both films and the theatre, compared to superhero actors who seem to be stuck in their lucrative franchises.  Hugh has also chosen to be involved in multiple genres -- action, drama, musicals, rom-com early in his career, and even family-friendly movies. He has also accepted lead and character roles ( villain or support roles). In the theatre, he does musicals and straight plays. Maybe he has actually set the trend of famous actors treading the boards every now and then to satisfy artistic fulfillment!


Jo

[jo]

I subscribe to a screenwriting site who sends regular newsletters. It's called SCRIPTSHADOW and is headed by Carson Reeves. I thought I would share this food for thought to help understand why there are hits and there are misses in today's Hollywood environment --

Here’s the thing, though. I see this as good news. When investors watch the stock market crash, they don’t see the end of civilization. They see opportunity. Buying prime-time well-performing stocks for rock-bottom prices? Sounds like good news to me. Screenwriters should feel the same way. When the sky is falling, it means Hollywood needs new product. It’s your chance to offer them something fresh and new. You are the only people who can save this industry!


It won’t be easy though. Even when we see writers try something different (Hail Caesar, The Nice Guys, Keanu, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies), audiences aren’t buying. It almost begs the question, “Is Hollywood right?” Sure, these sequels have been tanking, but they’re still doing better than these films! Of course, maybe these films just aren’t appealing enough. Different does not automatically equal better.

The solution may reside in the year’s biggest surprise hit: Deadpool. At first glance, Deadpool’s success seems useless to the amateur screenwriter. Aspiring writers aren’t allowed to adapt superhero properties.

But there is something to be said for deconstructing a genre. And doing so is often the mother of invention. Remember that Bourne was a deconstruction of Bond. Silver Linings Playbook was a deconstruction of romanic comedies. Find a popular movie type that you enjoy and see if there’s a way to deconstruct it. Even if it’s just a tonal shift.


Another lesson from Deadpool is this idea of taking a big genre, adding a new spin to it, then shrinking it down into a manageable budget so that studios don't have to bet the farm on it. That increases its sale potential. How do you do this? By flipping the ratio of action to character development. Most franchises go with a 60-40 ratio of action to character development. Flip it like Deadpool. That movie comes closer to a 40-60 ratio of action to character development.


That’s how The Matrix got made too. It was originally a 120 million dollar movie that sliced the budget in half by focusing more on the transformation of Neo as a character and less on set pieces. The original draft famously had a scene where we went down into the city of Zion that was replaced by a scene where Neo visited a woman in her apartment (lo and behold, that scene was all about character development).

So don’t always write big. Write smart!

[jo]

Trouble in paradise ??

Major corporate changes at Fox Filmed Entertainment!

Jim Gianopulos will be moved to another position in the News Corporation hierarchy by June 30, 2017!


variety.com/2016/biz/news/stacey-snider-jim-gianopulos-fox-1201796519/


It looks like it will not be a smooth turnover to Stacey Snider.

Stacey Snider Expected to Succeed Jim
Eric Charbonneau/REX/Shutterstock

June 16, 2016 | 10:40AM PT


UPDATED: Twentieth Century Fox co-chairman Stacey Snider is succeeding long-time executive Jim Gianopulos as the sole chairman and CEO of the film studio, a move that will take place a year from now, despite misgivings among some at Fox about Snider’s first 17 months on the Century City lot.




Gianopulos, 65, will take on a new strategic role with the company’s 21st Century Fox parent and continue to report to Lachlan Murdoch and James Murdoch, the parent company’s executive chairman, and CEO, respectively. Variety first broke the news of the impending changes.

Also staying on at Fox will be Emma Watts, the studio production chief who sources say has had a rocky relationship with Snider. Watts’s contract runs through 2019. Although Gianopulos is said to have some concerns about the studio’s operations after his June 30, 2017 contract expiration, the Murdochs went out of their way to praise him in their announcement.




“Jim has played an integral role in growing our global film business into the powerhouse it is today,” they said. “We’ve benefited tremendously from his creative insights, his vast knowledge of international markets, and from his unique understanding of the technologies shaping our future. We look forward to continuing to work with Jim in a new strategic capacity after the close of his current contract term.”

Rupert Murdoch, executive chairman of 21st Century Fox, praised Gianopulos as a close confidant over 25 years and added: “Jim has delivered year after year, with films that truly soared, spanning ‘Titanic,’ ‘Avatar,’ and most recently the wildly successful ‘Deadpool.’ I’m confident that his passion for movies and the business of film will carry through to our next generation of management and am convinced that his decades-long leadership has positioned us for continued future success. I am so pleased Jim has agreed to stay on in a new role and have the utmost confidence in the future of the studio under Stacey’s leadership.”

Gianopulos also embraced the transition in a statement of his own, saying, in part: “I’m looking forward to this final year of an amazing 25-year journey at the studio, and to exciting new adventures,” said Jim Gianopulos. He praised Snider, 55, and the rest of a “great team” he predicted will continue past successes.

The power shift was not set to be announced until later, but when word began to leak out and Variety published its account of turmoil in the Fox management ranks, the parent company rushed to announce the succession plan Thursday morning.

The long-gestating transition is causing unease among fellow executives who are loyalists to chairman and CEO Gianopulos. Having been hand-picked for the job by Rupert Murdoch, Snider has failed to define a role for herself on the studio’s Century City lot, which left insiders confused, frustrated and in some cases resentful.

Over the years, Snider had built a reputation as a smart executive with creative chops and strong talent relationships. She’s held top posts from TriStar Pictures to Universal Pictures and most recently had an eight-year run at Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks studio. But Fox sources said Snider has not carved out a significant perch at a studio whose multi-division structure already features strong, decisive leaders: Elizabeth Gabler, who runs Fox 2000; Emma Watts, who heads production at the main studio; and Steve Gilula and Nancy Utley who oversee Fox Searchlight.

Insiders suggest that seasoned executives at the studio have chafed under the prospect of an outsider calling the shots at an operation that was viewed as well-oiled before her arrival at the studio in November, 2014.

Snider’s hire, orchestrated by Fox supreme leader Rupert Murdoch, suffered from awkward timing. She joined Fox at the end of a year when the studio had won the box office wars for the first time in three decades with a record $3 billion in global ticket sales. Although Gianopulos announced Snider’s hiring and publicly embraced it, he and his lieutenants privately were mystified by her appointment, believing that the studio was running smoothly, sources said.

Even as she was brought on board, a press account quoted an unnamed studio executive asking “Why do we need her?” If more evidence was needed that not everyone wanted a spot on Team Stacey, it came with the revelation that Fox veteran Gabler had no intention of changing the terms of her contract that stipulated she reported directly to Gianopulos.



Snider told people that she would take a year to study the Fox system and ease her way into leadership. She didn’t want to threaten “the finest group of executives and filmmakers in the business,” as she described the Fox incumbents.

Snider has since been scrambling to find an open seat at the Fox table. From the get-go and into recent weeks, Snider has complained to agents and business associates that her role at Fox was undefined and that her underlings have made it difficult for her to assert herself. But, some insiders view that as Snider unfairly playing the victim rather than being more proactive in landing big projects and making her own mark. Some suggest that perhaps Snider’s lack of assertiveness is a function of her simply biding her time and choosing not to step on her colleagues’ toes, believing that she was poised to replace Gianopulos as head of the studio.

“She was hired by Rupert Murdoch and brought here without a mandate,” said one Fox executive, who declined to be named discussing corporate intrigue that he described as “a minefield.” “She has certain allies who support her. But there is speculation and great fear within this organization that the Murdochs may be unaware (that) she (was) able to sell them a bill of goods that she cannot deliver.”




Rupert Murdoch and his sons and heirs James and Lachlan, who now oversee Fox, declined interview requests.

People at Fox said Gianopulos loves his job and has mixed feelings about being replaced. Some found a parallel in Warner Bros. president Alan Horn’s departure as head of the studio, in favor of a younger generation of managers when Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes pulled the cord on his highly successful 12-year run. (Warner’s has bogged down since the 2011 change, while Horn has soared in his new job atop Disney’s film studio, which consistently finishes at, or near, the top of the box office standings.

Gianopulos has been a strong leader from his earlier days building the studio’s international business into the industry gold standard to his 16 years at the helm of Fox and the studio has scored big with hits like “Avatar,” “Deadpool,” “The Martian” and the “X-Men” films. He has guided Fox amidst massive industry changes and technological disruption as the studio’s conduit to Silicon Valley.

Sources said he has been very supportive of Snider’s desire to step up in areas in which she thought the studio was deficient, including franchise development and animation. “She’s been testing the fence throughout the organization to try to find a hole she can get through,” said one Fox insider. Three other executives close to the studio independently offered the same commentary on Snider’s tenure, saying, “I don’t know what she does.”

Some initially viewed Snider as moving slowly and deliberately, like a diplomat navigating a new land, but many of those people say she remains an ambassador largely without portfolio. She has not produced a signature project, acquired significant intellectual property or changed Fox’s world view – as might have been expected for the executive once described as the entertainment business’s “next Sherry Lansing.”




After their own period of becoming more acquainted with the empire built by their father, James and Lachlan Murdoch are now seen as beginning to assert themselves. They pushed for a buyback program at Fox’s film and television units that shed as many as 400 jobs, and recently ousted Greg Gelfan, the studio’s longtime head of the studio’s business affairs, over Gianopulos’ objections, sources say.

The removal of Gelfan was viewed by many as a major break with the old guard. The tough-talking lawyer negotiated many deals with film talent and kept costs low – making him a hero to his overseers inside Fox and an enemy to agents and others who struggled to get top dollar from Fox for their clients. “Nobody knew the business better than Greg,” said one executive intimately familiar with the studio’s operations.




Supporters of Snider say that Fox executives have not done enough to integrate her into the studio’s hierarchy. There are reports that other executives have tried to keep her on the periphery.

“I have utmost respect for her. I think she is a really great manager and leader,” said an executive who has worked with Snider before and has followed the saga closely. “I get the feeling they didn’t want her and they have made it clear they didn’t want her.”

But those arguments cut no ice with other studio veterans.

“She started in an era when just having the chairman’s title meant that everyone rolled out the red carpet. But now you have to be a little more entrepreneurial,” said the executive, who declined to be named. “The chairman’s title, alone, gives you the wherewithal to get things done.”

One agent described his excitement in November, 2014 when Snider arrived at Fox, hoping that the new boss would open avenues for his clients. But he contrasted that with a recent meeting in which Snider agreed he had a good talent prospect but declined to find a project at Fox that suited the newcomer. Instead, Snider told the agent he should work through production chief Watts. The agent remains hopeful that Snider’s powers will expand. “It’s sad in that it’s been a year and half and there is not one movie that has been a ‘Stacey movie…at least that I know of,’” he said.

“That is so frustrating,” he added. “If Stacey can’t drive something forward herself and has to work through Emma then she seems like a lame duck at the studio. And she has been.”

There has been no love lost between the two executives, according to multiple sources at the studio. Watts’ future prospects at the studio under a Snider regime remain unclear. Speculation among insiders ranges from Snider promoting her and bringing in her own production chief to showing her the door.



Snider’s style has also irked people on and off the lot. Even as she tried to delegate decision-making to staffers, her notes to filmmakers and her constant invocation of Spielberg (“Steven would have done it this way”) have rubbed some top directors the wrong way, according to two insiders. Those sources said there was a lot of tension between Snider and “Independence Day” director Roland Emmerich, which he denies.

“It’s not accurate,” Emmerich told Variety. “Me and Stacey are a lot in sync.” He added that he’s known her for 25 years and considered her a friend.

Emmerich credited Snider with helping him remain calm during a difficult “Independence Day: Resurgence” shoot. The film scrambled to make its summer 2016 release date, requiring crew members to spend the final month of production completing a massive 1,000 visual effects shots.

“We got greenlit a little bit too late,” said Emmerich, adding, “I looked at the schedule and went ‘my god we’re missing two months.”

Snider, Emmerich said, was “my cheerleader,” and kept telling him, “you’re going to make it. You can do this.”

Director Ridley Scott’s publicist Simon Halls refuted a rumor that his director client had a run in with Snider over “The Martian.”

“Stacey, in my opinion, is one of the brightest, most talented executives in the business,” said Halls. “I have known and admired her for years. She worked very closely with us on ‘The Martian’ and she was extremely effective in her efforts to help the studio mount a robust and, ultimately effective, Oscar campaign for the film.”




To be sure, Snider has many fans in the creative and business circles, not the least of which are her former bosses, Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen.

“I have no idea about the gossip in town but I can tell you it’s not very valuable,” said Geffen by phone Thursday from Italy. “It’s laced with envy or jealousy or whatever. She is an extraordinarily talented executive. I worked with her for years and I can tell you, she is as good as it gets.”

He said that DreamWorks suffered financial challenges, like many companies, during the recession but that the studio’s principal, Spielberg, remained so high on Snider that he would not let her out of her contract, when Fox came calling. “I don’t know if these other people talk to Rupert Murdoch and Jim Gianopulos, but I do frequently,” added Geffen. “and I only get great reports about Stacey from them.”

Any recriminations would have been hard to imagine at the storybook opening of Snider’s Hollywood career. She was the rare executive who managed to be both a canny player of studio politics and a favorite in the creative community. The combination helped her, while still in her early 30s, to drive Universal from an also-ran to near the top of the box office heap.

However, her years as the top executive at DreamWorks were much shakier. Snider had a decidedly mixed track record with her movie slates. Films such as “Lincoln” and “The Help” — which had notable partners including Fox and Participant Media — connected with audiences, but they were weighed down by laggards such as “Delivery Man,” “Need for Speed,” and “The Fifth Estate,” all of which hemorrhaged millions.




Time will tell what Snider’s ultimate measure of success will be during her tenure at Fox. What does seem certain is that her ascension to No. 1 will not be without a lot of tumult and further executive changes before the dust settles.

Hope this doesn't affect the promotion and marketing of THE GREATEST SHOWMAN ON EARTH!


Jo

[jo]

Variety provides a more in-depth analysis of what the corporate changes instituted by the younger Murdochs at FOX mean --

variety.com/2016/film/news/murdochs-shake-up-fox-ranks-1201800471/

[jo]

If you are an avid film buff or simply interested on how Hollywood works --

www.chrisjonesblog.com/2013/01/get-a-job-in-hollywood.html

[jo]

This is really an interesting study on the demographics of current moviegoers --

variety.com/2016/film/news/study-millennial-moviegoing-changes-dramatically-after-age-30-1201800658/

There are also certain genres that have more appeal to that age group than others. Moviegoers under 25 are twice as likely to see a horror film as those over 30, 25% more likely to see a young adult comedy, and 13% less likely to have seen an animated film. They also are 45% less inclined to check out a drama and 52% less amenable to an indie production.



“We bundle them in one bucket, but the data suggests that as they get older they behave differently,” said Movio Chief Executive and Co-Founder Will Palmer.

Even though audiences in the under 25 age group contribute more to the overall box office, they are tighter in other ways. They spend 22% less on concessions each time they visit, tend to only buy tickets for themselves instead of say a family, and are 27% more likely to opt for 3D showings over 2D showings, which tend to cost less. Overall, they spend 7% less overall during each stint at a cinema than the over 30 crowd.

Interestingly, the gender differences in visitation frequency remain relatively constant over the entire age range. The gap between women’s and men’s average tickets per visit increases as Millennials age, presumably due to the fact that women would be more likely to take children to the movies.



There’s a gender gap in viewing habits. Millennial women comprise 17% of cinema loyalty program members, while men in that age group account for 13% of members.

There have been widespread fears that millennial audiences are abandoning movies for streaming services like Netflix and video games. Those entertainment options may be siphoning off some customers, but the group visits theaters an average of 6.2 times a year and, accounts for 29% of box office spending.

[jo]

From the point of view of the moviegoer --

lrmonline.com/news/editorial-is-going-to-the-movies-worth-it-anymore

Editorial: Is Going To The Movies Worth It Anymore?
Jul.20.16 – by Tyler Richardson


Going to the movie theater doesn’t have the same magic that it once did for me. Don’t get me wrong, movies (for the most part) are still worth seeing. But, the experience of going to the movies doesn’t hold the same value it once did. If you were going by the average cost of tickets and concession stands, apparently it’s gone up in value. But, almost everyone I’ve heard discuss the current movie going experience seems to feel the opposite way.Date night (New York City): 2 x Movie Tickets = $31.98 ($43.98 for IMAX 3D), 1 Large Popcorn = $8.15, 1 Large Soda = $6.31 (let’s assume you share to be romantic). See that? You just dropped $46.44 before the government even stepped in and got their cut. So, the question is “Is seeing this two and a half hour movie worth about $18.50 an hour?” Before you even bring it up, I know that people theater hop which brings the price per hour down considerably. But, make sure you get new concession food between movies. There’s nothing more suspicious than someone going into a new movie with half a bag of popcorn.


For a while Blockbuster Video gave the theaters a run for their money with video rentals. I’ll assume people are still using RedBox, though I’ve abandoned that since I’m using just about every streaming service and found a neat trick for the Amazon Fire Stick (I won’t spill my secrets here but it’s the best $40 ever spent!) So, unlike the early 90’s when we had to wait a year or two for a movie to hit VHS, now we wait anywhere from 2-3 months for something to make it to Blu-Ray/Streaming. So, if you live a little behind the times: Streaming Rental = $5.99, Seamless order of Indian Cuisine for 2= $25.43. See that? $31.42 for a similar experience (after tax), and if you put the $15 you saved in a savings account that accrued 0.25% annually, it would be $15.19 in just five years!Of course, there’s Netflix. For $9.99 a month, you can stream an almost endless amount of HD content on multiple screens. Meaning you can give your friends the gift of Netflix & Chill, and isn’t that what friendship is about in the 21st Century? It’s funny Netflix was a DVD by mail service in 1998, and it wasn’t until 2007 that it actually started streaming movies and living up to its name. Anyway; now that is has such a massive catalog it (and other streaming giants) may be the theaters biggest threat yet.


Now, I've heard some say they still enjoy going to the movie theater. I can understand to a degree, some films are best seen in IMAX 3D. I'm thinking specifically of Avatar, which I waited and saw at home MISSING what made that movie worth seeing. But, I despise crowded movie theaters. I didn't see Star Wars: The Force Awakens in theaters because I was not going to sit there while people applauded from beginning to end. Chatty people bother me, the amount of people on their cell phones is ridiculous, and have you been on the wrong side of an open seat when a large person has to slide through? You know where these inconveniences don't happen? Your home.On the plus side, it appears that some studios are trying new measures to regain whatever profit might be lost due to piracy, disinterest in going to the theater, and frugality. Videos on Demand (VOD) have become more popular, and they're not all terrible. The same way a straight to DVD used to carry a stigma, VODs that release the same time in theaters are gaining momentum. Sure, charge me $12.99 and allow me to watch from home on my nice television while drinking and eating whatever I choose. Ah, the sweet life. Your mission, if you chose to accept it: Find your friend who is holding your seat.

Alright, I'll wind this down by saying "let's say farewell to the movies theaters." Let's work toward holographic technology that will transform your living room. Don't you want to be standing there next to Dwayne Johnson while whoever plays Shazam gets upstaged? Wouldn't it be nice to stand next to Tom Cruise and feel like a giant? You like crowds? Of course you don't. Does the nacho cheese always get cold before the half hour of trailers are over? Yes, so we have to eat it while watching previews like a savage. Go on, tell me why you love movie theaters. But, remember all the times you couldn't get in because your friend forgot their ID, and the usher refused to believe you were all above 17. Okay, your turn. In honor of SDCC coming up, here's some of the fun I had last year at NYCC. I may not be in San Diego this year (forgot to submit, and remembered two days after the window for press closed) but this year I've got all kinds of fun ideas for NYCC '16!

Very interesting coments on the Feedback section.

Here's one that I can relate to --

axebox • 5 hours ago


In theaters the demographic has changed to cater to anyone under 30. There used to be more R rated movies as well as intellectual mysteries, romance, comedies, etc. Now they are mostly PG-13 action oriented fare and in between shitty horror films.

There's truth to your views, Tyler.

Add to that the influx of animated movies!

I hope GREATEST SHOWMAN is going to be one of the rare treats - entertainment without focusing on the millennials and younger demos alone.


Jo

[jo]

After the box office failure of the remake of BEN HUR, Variety posts a thought-provoking article about the need for star power!

A Lesson of the ‘Ben-Hur’ Debacle: Movie Stars Still Matter

Owen Gleiberman
Chief Film Critic
@owengleiberman


August 20, 2016 | 11:19AM PT


Up until recently, when a movie turned out to be a major bomb — not just a financial failure but a symbol of waste, a legend, a stink bomb — there was usually a movie star’s name imprinted on it. The star became part of the movie’s infamy, and he also took on some of the blame. Just think of a folly like “Ishtar” (1987), in which the combined star wallop of Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty couldn’t add up to a hill of beans in the desert, or “Battlefield Earth” (2000), which proved that John Travolta in the middle of the Travoltassance couldn’t sell a sci-fi epic that was really an obsequious vanity project. “Heaven’s Gate,” the movie that brought down a movie studio, was the exception that proved the rule: No one really thought of it as a Kris Kristofferson film, but that’s because there was a much bigger star in his midst, and that star was the director — Michael Cimino, the last auteur superhero of the New Hollywood. It was his name that adorned the legend.

These days, though, notorious movie bombs tend to arrive with an impersonal, disaster-by-committee feeling. For every picture like “The Lone Ranger,” which had Johnny Depp’s name all over it (though it’s worth pointing out that the film’s nominal star, Armie Hammer, wasn’t a star), there are one or two more like the $150 million fiasco “Mars Needs Moms” (2011), a motion-capture fantasy that no one remembers for its actors, or “John Carter,” the sci-fi trainwreck that starred Taylor Kitsch, a pleasant but recessive actor — he has his fans, but he’s about as far from a movie star as you can get — who had the sorry distinction of also starring in 2012’s other infamous debacle, “Battleship.” The disaster of a movie like “John Carter” isn’t hung around Taylor Kitsch’s neck, and it probably shouldn’t be, but in one sense he was connected to it: The way he played the title space traveler (anonymously), he was like a stand-in for the movie star who, theoretically, could have sold the movie.



Ditto for Jack Huston in the new “Ben-Hur.” Now that the film is an official debacle, we shouldn’t blame it on him; the movie is boring and inept on too many other levels. But perhaps the responsibility does lie, to a degree, with the filmmakers and executives who decided that they simply didn’t need a movie star. The ones who figured that Huston, with his handsome but slightly wimpy blue-eyed smiley okay-ness, was enough.



It’s that decision that makes “Ben-Hur,” like “John Carter” before it, a disaster that is so emblematic of its era. It reflects a strain of thinking in contemporary Hollywood that says, “We don’t need movie stars.” But why would anyone who wants to sell a big movie say that they don’t need a star? It all comes down to the logic of spectacle, to the notion that action and special effects and concept can carry the day. It comes down to the way that executives now invest themselves — literally — with an almost religious belief in the power of the package.

Now that we’ve seen what a mediocrity “Ben-Hur” is, a lot of people are wondering how it could have gotten made in the first place. But the context for it is everywhere around you, in every blah extravaganza like “The Legend of Hercules” or “Wrath of the Titans” or “Warcraft.” These movies will sometimes feature a “name” actor (addled producer: “Get me Sam Worthington!”), as well as venerable middle-aged supporting icons who show up for the paycheck (“Get me Liam Neeson!”), but essentially they are post-movie-star movies: spectacle for the global masses, ground out by the yard with showy and expensive digital anonymity.

“Ben-Hur,” by comparison, may look like an episode of “Masterpiece Theatre,” but let’s not kid ourselves about why this movie was made (or why they hired as a director the go-go visual stylist Timur Bekmambetov, who couldn’t stage a good “Masterpiece Theatre” scene if he tried — and in this movie, he tries). Sure, the faith-based demo was a factor, but the real draw was the chariot race, the ten-minute sequence that was the hair-raising action cornerstone of the 1959 version (and, before that, the silent 1925 version). The race was going to be the hook, the lure, the money shot. Remember the famous quote from Dino Di Laurentiis about his 1976 remake of “King Kong”? That movie was a proto entry in the packaging-is-everything era, and what Dino said about it was, “When my monkey die, everybody gonna cry.” The chariot race in “Ben-Hur” is this year’s monkey. Except that no one cared, because it’s the all-action era, when the eyeballs of moviegoers around the world are assaulted with kinetic amazements every week, so no one thinks twice about a bunch of dudes in horse-drawn vehicles trying to get all fast and furious the way Charlton Heston once did.

What they might have cared about, however, is an actor who could summon the contempo equivalent of Heston’s sinew and heart and wrath. Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator” is a superlatively well-made movie, but if you took Russell Crowe out of it, you wouldn’t have the movie. His feral, eyebrow-knitted ferocity infuses every frame. “Ben-Hur” needed an actor like that. But in our era, stardom, more and more, has been cut out of the equation, and that’s partly because it’s been devalued by a culture of 24/7 pinup-gazing. Anyone who’s got the face and the body is potentially a “star,” and there are so many of these smoldering would-be demigods out there — hunks with a modicum of talent — that the people who make movies are forgetting how to tell the difference. He pops on camera. He can act (at least, without embarrassing himself). He looks hot in Zegna on the red carpet. He’s a star!

But that’s not what a movie star is. A movie star — Russell Crowe, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts — has a quality of soul. He or she has character, and the rare ability to project it. Hollywood is still mining true stars (Ryan Gosling is one), but when it comes to the movies that genuinely make the money, more and more of the energy is consumed with putting together packages that transcend stardom. The new interwoven superhero movies, in which every film seems to be a sequel to every other film, are connect-the-dots matrixes that, to an increasing degree, are bigger than anyone in them. How many different actors can play Batman (there have been four since Michael Keaton) before we forget who Batman is? That’s the thing about movie stardom: It’s not just something out there, beyond us. It’s our mirror — it shows us who we are. It does no one any favors (not the audience, not the industry) when a movie like “Ben-Hur” bombs, but in this case there may be a valuable lesson (beyond the obvious one of don’t make lousy movies). The lesson is that movie stars still matter. Because without them, we’re just staring up at movies that are big glittering empty shells.

Perhaps the producers thought that a remake of a box office success story ( with a more conventional period piece) would draw away from the endless parade of superhero and animated movies?

And maybe the author is right in suggesting that as it is already difficult to sway current audience tastes, that a box office name might have helped crowds to see the film. But another factor is if one studied the current demos, it is likely that the more mature audiences are no longer going to the cinema just to see one new movie, without the added attraction of an excellent previous pedigree of the lead(s).

Russell Crowe has gravitas because his acting is always good!

Jo

[jo]

www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/business/media/20th-century-fox-movie-studio-expedites-leadership-change.html?_r=0

20th Century Fox Movie Studio Expedites Leadership Change


By BROOKS BARNESAUG. 23, 2016


Stacey Snider with Jim Gianopulos. She will replace him in his chief executive role in September, much sooner than the 2017 date previously planned. Credit Michael Buckner/Getty Images for CinemaCon

LOS ANGELES — A leadership change at the 20th Century Fox movie studio will happen sooner than expected, with Jim Gianopulos stepping down as chairman and chief executive on Sept. 1 instead of next June, as previously announced.

To his displeasure, Mr. Gianopulos, 64, was effectively edged aside this spring by the studio’s corporate parent, 21st Century Fox. The media conglomerate said in June that Stacey Snider, 55, the studio’s co-chairwoman, would succeed Mr. Gianopulos when his contract expired on June 30, 2017.

Now, the succession plan has been expedited, which could affect other movie studios. Mr. Gianopulos, an experienced and well-regarded film executive who is known to want to continue his career, is considered a candidate to run or help run one of several troubled film companies.

He was traveling on Tuesday and unavailable for an interview, Chris Petrikin, a Fox spokesman said. In a news release from 21st Century Fox announcing the new timeline, Mr. Gianopulos said, in part, “I will miss the place where I have spent the majority of my career, and I wish everyone at Fox the best of success, health and happiness.”

Mr. Gianopulos spent 25 years at the studio, 16 of them in the corner office.

His departure frees Ms. Snider, an experienced movie executive who came to Fox in 2014 after leaving Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks Studios. A long transfer of power may have made sense on paper, but movie industry players — agents, in particular — do not like not knowing precisely who calls the shots. Fox also has a stable of strong-willed movie executives who, at times, have tried to undercut Ms. Snider, who can now begin building a management team.

Fox has had a difficult run at the box office. While “Deadpool” was a smash hit early this year, summer films like “Independence Day: Resurgence,” “Ice Age: Collision Course” and “X-Men: Apocalypse” have been duds. Coming up, Fox has high hopes for “Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children,” set for release on Sept. 30, and “The Birth of a Nation,” due in theaters on Oct. 7 from its art house label.

The original story on the early transition of power was featured on Variety --

variety.com/2016/film/news/fox-film-chief-jim-gianopulos-early-exit-1201842234/


Interesting that two of Hugh Jackman's major new films ( WOLVERINE 3 and THE GREATEST SHOWMAN ON EARTH) fall within the uneasy transition period. Maybe this development makes it easier for the project management teams to deal with the management reporting issues.