4 ms·

When you say director, do you mean film director or a director in a company? Film directors are insane with the amount of technical, artistic, and people knowle

by bmitc 3y ago

When you say director, do you mean film director or a director in a company? Film directors are insane with the amount of technical, artistic, and people knowledge that they need to have and be able to utilize. The amount of stuff that a film director needs to manage, all on the ground, is insane. I wouldn't say that for CEOs, not by a long shot. CEOs mainly sit in meetings with people reporting things to them and then the CEO providing very high-level guidance. That is very different from a director's role. I have often thought that we don't have enough information on how film directors operate, as I feel it could yield a lot of insight. There's probably a reason why many film directors don't hit their stride until late 30s and 40s, presumably because it takes those one or two decades to build the appropriate experience and knowledge.

Apocryphon 3y ago
Would it be accurate to liken CEOs to film producers?
- bmitc 3y ago
  No. I'm pretty sure that my comment describes why.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    > CEOs mainly sit in meetings with people reporting things to them and then the CEO providing very high-level guidance. Isn’t that essentially the job of a film producer? You do see a lot of productions where there’s a ton of executive producer titles given out as almost a vanity position.
    - bmitc 3y ago
      A producer, yes, but not the film's director.
      - Apocryphon 3y ago
        My original post literally asks if it’s more accurate to compare CEOs with film producers and not directors.
        bmitc 3y ago
        I misread it then with directors instead of producers. Apologies for that confusion.
      - dagmx 3y ago
        Out of genuine curiosity , and I mean no disrespect , have you worked in film production? Because directors sit in many meetings directing the people on the project. It kind of feels to me like you’re describing the way the industry works from an outsiders view since it doesn’t match the actual workings of any of the productions I’ve worked on. the shoots are only a portion of production. You have significant pre production and post production time. A producer is closer in role to a CFO or investor , depending on the production since it’s a relatively vague term.
        bmitc 3y ago
        I suppose that I had and have in mind a certain type of feature film director (usually the good ones) that are involved in all things: pre- and post-production, writing the script, directing, the editing process, etc. Your original comment mentioned auteurs, which is what influenced the type of film director I was thinking of, which often are also producers and even writers and editors on their own films. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any famous CEOs that fit the style and breadth of these directors, as the CEO is almost never actually doing anything nor even knowledgeable in the things they're tasking others to do. So to summarize, I feel there are auteur directors but not CEOs, despite many thinking there are auteur CEOs. If there are, they are certainly none of the famous ones and are likely running smaller companies. I generally think of CEOs as completely replaceable, and usually the only reason one stands out is that they don't run the business into the ground or have a cult of personality surrounding them. If you take away an auteur director from their project, it will never materialize into anything remotely close to what was to be.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Interesting. Intuitively no. But then, hm... maybe. There are some aspects that ring true but many others that don't, I think it is a provocative question and there probably is more than a grain of truth in it. The biggest difference to me is that the producer (normally) doesn't appear 'in camera' but the CEO usually is one of the most in camera. But when you start comparing the CEO with a lead actor who is also the producer of the movie it gets closer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachary_Quinto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachary_Quinto Is pretty close to that image.
dagmx 3y ago
I mean a film director and I disagree with your assessment that they have to be savvy in many fields. Many of the directors whose projects I’ve worked on are very much not savvy outside their narrow needs of directing talent and relying on others like the DoP or VFX Supervisor , editors etc to do their job. In fact most movie productions don’t even have the director involved with story. Many are just directors for hire and assigned by the studio to scripts. Of course there are exceptions but they are the rarities. And the big reason directors don’t hit their big strides till later is movies take a long time to make and it’s hard to work your way up there unless you start as an indie darling. But even as an indie, let’s say you start at 20, your film would likely come out by the time you’re 22-24 based on average production times. You’d only be able to do 2 or 3 films by 30, and in many cases would be put on studio assignments till you get enough clout to do what you want. And with that clout comes the ability to hire better people to manage the other aspects of your shoot. Again, I think this is people prescribing to auteur theory. It takes a huge number of people to pull off a film, and the film director is rarely well versed in most. Much like a CEO, they delegate and give their opinion but few extend beyond that. For reference I’ve worked on multiple blockbuster films, many superhero projects, some very prestigious directors and many not. The biggest indicator that a director is versed in other domains is if they worked in it to some degree before being a director. That’s where directors like Fincher excel and many others don’t

by bmitc 3y ago

Apocryphon 3y ago

Would it be accurate to liken CEOs to film producers?

bmitc 3y ago
No. I'm pretty sure that my comment describes why.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  > CEOs mainly sit in meetings with people reporting things to them and then the CEO providing very high-level guidance. Isn’t that essentially the job of a film producer? You do see a lot of productions where there’s a ton of executive producer titles given out as almost a vanity position.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    A producer, yes, but not the film's director.
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      My original post literally asks if it’s more accurate to compare CEOs with film producers and not directors.
      - bmitc 3y ago
        I misread it then with directors instead of producers. Apologies for that confusion.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      Out of genuine curiosity , and I mean no disrespect , have you worked in film production? Because directors sit in many meetings directing the people on the project. It kind of feels to me like you’re describing the way the industry works from an outsiders view since it doesn’t match the actual workings of any of the productions I’ve worked on. the shoots are only a portion of production. You have significant pre production and post production time. A producer is closer in role to a CFO or investor , depending on the production since it’s a relatively vague term.
      - bmitc 3y ago
        I suppose that I had and have in mind a certain type of feature film director (usually the good ones) that are involved in all things: pre- and post-production, writing the script, directing, the editing process, etc. Your original comment mentioned auteurs, which is what influenced the type of film director I was thinking of, which often are also producers and even writers and editors on their own films. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any famous CEOs that fit the style and breadth of these directors, as the CEO is almost never actually doing anything nor even knowledgeable in the things they're tasking others to do. So to summarize, I feel there are auteur directors but not CEOs, despite many thinking there are auteur CEOs. If there are, they are certainly none of the famous ones and are likely running smaller companies. I generally think of CEOs as completely replaceable, and usually the only reason one stands out is that they don't run the business into the ground or have a cult of personality surrounding them. If you take away an auteur director from their project, it will never materialize into anything remotely close to what was to be.
jacquesm 3y ago
Interesting. Intuitively no. But then, hm... maybe. There are some aspects that ring true but many others that don't, I think it is a provocative question and there probably is more than a grain of truth in it. The biggest difference to me is that the producer (normally) doesn't appear 'in camera' but the CEO usually is one of the most in camera. But when you start comparing the CEO with a lead actor who is also the producer of the movie it gets closer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachary_Quinto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachary_Quinto Is pretty close to that image.

dagmx 3y ago

I mean a film director and I disagree with your assessment that they have to be savvy in many fields. Many of the directors whose projects I’ve worked on are very much not savvy outside their narrow needs of directing talent and relying on others like the DoP or VFX Supervisor , editors etc to do their job. In fact most movie productions don’t even have the director involved with story. Many are just directors for hire and assigned by the studio to scripts. Of course there are exceptions but they are the rarities. And the big reason directors don’t hit their big strides till later is movies take a long time to make and it’s hard to work your way up there unless you start as an indie darling. But even as an indie, let’s say you start at 20, your film would likely come out by the time you’re 22-24 based on average production times. You’d only be able to do 2 or 3 films by 30, and in many cases would be put on studio assignments till you get enough clout to do what you want. And with that clout comes the ability to hire better people to manage the other aspects of your shoot. Again, I think this is people prescribing to auteur theory. It takes a huge number of people to pull off a film, and the film director is rarely well versed in most. Much like a CEO, they delegate and give their opinion but few extend beyond that. For reference I’ve worked on multiple blockbuster films, many superhero projects, some very prestigious directors and many not. The biggest indicator that a director is versed in other domains is if they worked in it to some degree before being a director. That’s where directors like Fincher excel and many others don’t