As I delve into this intriguing narrative, it stirs a sense of nostalgia within me, reminiscent of my own journey through the labyrinthine corridors of Hollywood. The parallels between the experiences of the former production president and mine are striking, albeit with different outcomes.
If you’re intending to go to Tom Rothman’s birthday party in November, it’s important to note that a costume is required. It seems the Sony chairman has hinted at asking guests to dress up as characters from films produced during his tenure. Fortunately, there’s a wide variety of costumes to choose from, spanning many decades. You might consider dressing up as Jack Dawson from the 1997 film Titanic, or Satine from Moulin Rouge! in 2001, or Miranda Priestly from The Devil Wears Prada in 2006, or even Rick Dalton from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood in 2019.
The main idea is that Rothman is celebrating his 70th birthday, having held leadership positions at Sony (previously at Fox) for an extended period.
Interestingly enough, there are several heavyweights in the silver screen industry today, one of whom being him. However, it’s important to note that Bob Iger, aged 73, is a notable figure who has been on and off at Disney’s helm for close to two decades. Ari Emanuel, age 63, has been leading WME for almost three decades, ever since he established his agency in 1995. Jeremy Zimmer, 66, has been presiding over UTA for over three decades, having co-founded the agency in 1991. Michael De Luca, at 59, might seem relatively young, but he’s been presenting studio lineups — at New Line, MGM, Amazon, and Warner Bros. — for a span of three decades as well.
A significant number of these once young Turks have reached the age where they’re eligible for AARP discounts. However, it appears that not many of them feel an urgent need to retire.
As a young, driven individual in the gaming industry, I find myself stuck in the middle, struggling to climb higher. Unlike some of my older counterparts who reached leadership positions in their 30s or even late 20s, I see no straightforward route to the top for me. The path is often obstructed by a powerful generation ahead, comfortably settled in their corner offices since the Bush administration’s early years. It can feel like an uphill battle to break through and reach my full potential.
For over three decades, these individuals have been creating films, as observed by a retired production chief in their mid-50s. This extended tenure in a leadership role and control over cultural choices makes them significant figures in the industry.
A seasoned agent, similarly in his fifties, echoes this sentiment: ‘Things have become incredibly disheartening.’ He recalls that just a decade ago, executives held the allure of movie stars. They were consistently producing films and had the freedom to take risks and be innovative. Nowadays, however, many executives struggle even to hire writers without seeking approval from their superiors.
Indeed, many of these bosses retain their positions for valid reasons. For instance, Rothman is renowned for amassing over 150 Oscar nominations during his extended tenure at Sony. These seasoned leaders have often constructed their empires from the ground up and successfully navigated their companies through various mergers, spinoffs, and acquisitions. They’ve skillfully maneuvered their workforces through a continuous cycle of corporate changes, demonstrating both resilience and the value of enduring leadership. In essence, they’ve shown that staying put can be as powerful as moving around.
Still, fair or not, there’s a mounting resentment among young (or young-er) Hollywood. Speaking (mostly off the record) with studio executives, producers, agents, assistants — dozens of entertainment industry professionals ranging from their 20s to their 60s — there’s a wide consensus that the kids aren’t alright. Many younger execs feel they’re spinning their wheels, going nowhere — and not even particularly fast — with increasing numbers abandoning Hollywood altogether and decamping for careers in other trades (like, gasp, data analytics).
As a gamer, I can’t help but notice the heavy cloud hanging over this town lately. It’s not just one issue, it’s a perfect storm: the lingering impacts of the pandemic, the economic downturn across industries, labor disputes, and layoffs left and right. But there’s another factor that’s been on my mind – the older generation of executives who’ve been leading Hollywood for what feels like an eternity. The younger execs are starting to look around, weary of the old guard who’ve seemingly been in charge forever.
The time has come, you can all but hear them rumbling, to start handing out gold watches.
***
You’re a 37-year-old mid-level studio exec. You wake up in Hollywood in the year of our Bryan Lourd, 2024. From bed, you check your email and find the latest gloomy blasts from the trades: another 15 percent staff reduction at Paramount Global, and Disney is planning about 300 more layoffs. There’s also an email from a former exec you used to do business with, and you almost scroll past it, at first not recognizing their personal Gmail. Lately, there have been a lot of emails from personal accounts as people shed their corporate addresses or, more likely, as those corporations shed them.
This one is a victim from one of the layoffs that happened three or six months prior, you can’t remember which, but you are confident that the quarterly earnings report claimed profitability. They are hoping to take you out to coffee in their latest go around town to see if anywhere is hiring. You thought you had heard they went into real estate, but it must have been someone else. You’ve considered jumping careers yourself, even researched a couple of grad schools, but that was before they finally gave you the promotion they had been talking about since before the strikes. The pay bump wasn’t what you imagined, but you got equity. Or was it that they traded some of your salary for stock? It doesn’t matter, you are barely making what it takes to afford the mortgage on the $1.2 million median home price in Los Angeles County, but it convinced you to hang on for another year. Sunk cost is supposed to be a fallacy, but what do you know? You didn’t get past the home screen for that online MBA program.
As you’re nearing the age of 40, experiencing life as a Hollywood star, there’s a strong desire within you to retreat under the covers once more.
Indeed, things weren’t always as they are now. In 1986, an article titled “Baby Mogul Running Fast for Fox” graced the front page of the Los Angeles Times. This piece spotlighted a young prodigy named Scott Rudin, who had recently assumed the role of president of production at 20th Century Fox. At the time, he was orchestrating releases such as Ron Howard’s “Big” and the Coen brothers’ “Raising Arizona.” The article compared the ages of the heads of the eight major Hollywood studios at that time, including Jeff Katzenberg, who was only 35 in this position. Interestingly, Katzenberg had already held a second stint as studio chief; he was just 31 when he was hired to lead Paramount. On average, the presidents of production at these major studios were 35 years old in 1986.
He remarks, ‘These past prodigies were the ones I had envisioned when I first entered Hollywood.’ Now, having arrived, he finds this position particularly challenging,” says a contemporary studio executive in his 50s.
In less than ten years following Rudin’s tenure at Fox, De Luca managed to outdo him by a single year. At the tender age of 27 in 1993, De Luca was appointed as New Line’s president of production, although he did not have final approval power then. What he had instead was the strong support and attention of New Line’s chairman, Bob Shaye. As De Luca reminisced, his pitch for Paul Thomas Anderson’s film Boogie Nights involved a 170-page script about porn in the ’70s and a character with a 13-inch penis. To his surprise, Shaye was fully on board with it.
In today’s context, it’s tough to envision someone in their twenties or even thirties wielding such influence in Hollywood, not even De Luca, the current co-chair and CEO of Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group, would likely approve a script reminiscent of “Boogie Nights” if it was presented by a junior staff member. As per the perspective of younger executives, this is exactly the problem with the industry in 2024 – it’s still dominated by those who were in charge back in 1994.
According to Stephen Galloway, Dean of Chapman University’s Dodge College of Film and Media Arts and a former THR editor, it appears that individuals like Mike De Luca move from MGM to Amazon, then to Warner Bros., while Tom Rothman transitions from Fox to Sony. This constant shuffling among the top executives reduces opportunities for those working under them to ascend, as these established figures are often preferred over newcomers due to perceived risk.
Instead of just the top studio executives, there’s a trend where many lower-level execs, including executive vice presidents and those below them, are holding onto their jobs for longer periods. This is understandable given the limited job opportunities available currently. On the other hand, retirement costs are escalating, particularly for individuals who have grown accustomed to a specific Hollywood lifestyle. Factors such as rising healthcare and home care expenses, coupled with people living longer, make it challenging to consider leaving one’s position if possible.
A 50-something producer remarks that the difficulties in maintaining a career in Hollywood are intensifying,” he said. “Therefore, one must hang on tightly.
In casual business talk, they often discuss the term “contraction.” However, the phrase that follows can be just as unsettling: “stagnation.
***
If the consequences of these events were limited to the broken aspirations of a group of Generation X and millennial film executives, this article might not have been written. However, the potential impact on the movie industry – and the broader cinematic landscape – is significant, as suggested by several Generation X and millennial executives interviewed by THR.
A 30-something producer remarks that it’s a significant issue that those in power are out of touch with Generation Z. They attend movies when there’s content they relate to, but when they encounter something tailored for Gen Z, it seems like they’ve tripped over a rake,” is one way to paraphrase the given sentence.
In my experience, I find myself residing in this stunning hillside abode, rubbing shoulders solely with affluent individuals, and it’s challenging to establish a genuine connection with my audience. After all, the movie-going public is predominantly youthful, so over time, I start to feel somewhat disconnected from them.
The current trend in Hollywood’s output often leaves viewers feeling like they’ve seen it before. For example, there are numerous remakes or follow-ups being planned for ’80s hits such as “An Officer and a Gentleman“, “Ghost“, and “Dirty Dancing” – movies that may lack emotional impact for anyone born after 1970. Traditionally, remakes have been a reliable source of income for studios. However, the prospect of revisiting films like “War of the Roses” or creating a new version of “Running Man” seems questionable, even to those over 50. On the other hand, younger executives, particularly those from underrepresented groups, are facing studios that remain predominantly white and male, and finding it challenging to gain traction for projects beyond typical four-quadrant family films. As one 30-something agent puts it, “They’ve hired many diversity-focused individuals of color, but these new hires can’t seem to make their personal projects. Now, everyone wants ‘Yellowstone‘.
According to a studio executive in their forties, Baby Boomers often prioritize their personal viewpoints and reinforce one another’s beliefs. They have constructed structures that primarily cater to their own needs. Trust is rarely extended beyond themselves.
It’s important to note that distrust isn’t exclusive to older bosses these days. Instead, there has been an increasing tendency towards hierarchical management in many studios and streaming platforms, irrespective of the age of those in charge. For instance, Netflix’s Chief Content Officer, Bela Bajaria (who is just 53), participates in lower-level pitch meetings, which was unheard of for someone at her level before. As the industry shrinks and becomes stagnant, it has grown more risk-averse, with decision-makers clinging to power rather than delegating it to new talent. This approach deprives up-and-coming professionals of the practical experience they need to progress beyond their current roles, effectively limiting their growth potential. In essence, this approach also stifles creativity and individuality. As a former production president puts it, “The industry used to be a bit more unpredictable. Everyone was a little crazy. Now it feels a bit more formal and corporate.” (Note: People aren’t necessarily wearing suits.)
Setting aside the instance of stapler tossing, Hollywood’s unconventional approach historically led to exceptional productions. Film executives would often take risks by advocating for unique projects, occasionally jeopardizing their careers in the process, only to leverage such successes as stepping stones to higher positions or different studios. However, this practice is less common today. In an era dominated by franchise reboots, it has become more challenging for executives to distinguish themselves. Even when they do, it doesn’t always translate into career advancement. For example, Nathan Samdahl, a production executive who oversaw the original horror film “Smile,” was let go at Paramount Global during cost-cutting measures in 2022 – just before the movie became one of the studio’s most profitable releases for the year. (Samdhal eventually secured a new position at Walter Hamada’s production house.)
Stagnation isn’t kind to those in the front row either; rough patches are typically felt more towards the back of the ship. The pathway to success, once embarked upon in the mailroom – where Emanuel started his climb – has become a steeper ascent these days. Even securing an entry-level job is tougher than before, as Galloway points out that Chapman University’s career center has observed a 30% decrease in such positions over the last year. The fortunate few who manage to secure an assistant role often find themselves putting in longer hours than their predecessors did, juggling multiple tasks, earning between $21 to $25 per hour with diminishing prospects for promotion.
As a devoted movie enthusiast, I can’t help but voice my concerns about the current state of Hollywood’s industry dynamics. The persistent career inertia isn’t only detrimental to the up-and-coming artists; it poses a significant threat to the long-term health and vitality of the business itself. If we don’t address this issue, we risk finding ourselves in a situation where there are no more seasoned professionals left in Hollywood who can navigate the intricacies of set management, project planning, or studio operations – skills that are essential for the continued success of our beloved industry. In essence, this trend could potentially sound the death knell for Hollywood.
Says one 50-something former studio exec of the looming brain-drain crisis, “It’s an existential threat.”
Moving forward, how can we escape this rut? Perhaps we should draw inspiration from the past, specifically the early days of the movie industry. A potential role model for a young upstart turned modern-day film mogul could be David O. Selznick, who took over as head of production at RKO in 1931 at just 29 years old. He went on to produce films like ‘Gone With the Wind’, ‘Rebecca’, ‘Spellbound’, ‘A Star Is Born’ and many more timeless classics before retiring abruptly in 1948, stating that he was simply tired.
He was 46.
This story appeared in the Oct. 30 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. Click here to subscribe.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-10-30 16:25