This is why studio execs operate out of fear: “John Lesher, Brad Weston out at Paramount”:
An executive earthquake rocked Paramount Pictures’ Melrose lot Friday afternoon as chairman and CEO Brad Grey fired Paramount Film Group president John Lesher and production president Brad Weston.
Why fear? Because studio regimes typically go through some sort of executive upheaval or overhaul every 18-24 months. Witness Paramount:
The revolving door began when Grey first turned to former television executive Gail Berman, who lasted less than two years in the post, departing in early 2007. After a year in which the heads of Paramount’s production labels reported directly to Grey, the studio chairman then turned to Lesher, who had been heading the studio’s speciality division Paramount Vantage. But Lesher’s tenure, which began in January 2008, has now proven even more short-lived.
And why the axe?
While a studio release headlined the latest shake-up as an effort to “streamline (its) production executive structure,” Lesher and Weston appeared to be taking the fall for failing to move more projects thought the production pipeline.
So while other studios are cutting back their movie slates (like Disney), Paramount has been trying to increase the number of movies they produce.
More. Less. Push. Pull.
Corporate whims shift like the wind. And the people who get caught in the tornado, flung far away to the land of “First Look Deals” are studio execs.
Every time they greenlight a movie, they put their ass on the line. Much easier to say NO and not risk a B.O. bomb than to say YES and have everyone involved in the dud run for the hinterlands, leaving only you, red ink, and your corporate overlords glaring down at you.
Does this help you understand why Hwood movie studios choose to do some many freaking remakes? So many sequels? They represent safe choices. And when your baseline operating principle is fear, studio execs try at all costs to minimize their risk and exposure.
Cue screenwriting mantra:
Make it impossible for a studio exec to not say YES.
In today's economy I HATE hearing about ANYONE loosing their jobs.
With the recent success of "Star Trek" I thought all would be peachy at Paramount. Hit of the year right?
I think execs. NEED to takes risks. That's where the most reward is. Find the next "Blair Witch Project." Find the next "Matrix." FIND the next breakthrough tallent be it writer, actor or director. THAT'S what you want your name assoicated with. Your accomplishemnt and vision speak volumes. Playing it is safe is DULL and in the long run WILL bring-out your own firing anyway, because you dind't have the balls to take the risk that someone else did, and cashed in on.
- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA
I think what's arguable is this idea that endless remakes are "safe". When they bomb (which happens more often than not) because they are terrible and viewers don't want to pay for crap, how can they be regarded as safe?
Hollywood is killing itself with the downward spiral of low-quality retread material. New blood in the form of new (great, well-told, *original*) stories is desperately needed… yet an A-lister whose work helped make studios billions (yes, I typed that correctly) tells me that he doesn't think Hollywood wants new i.p. — and that's just crazy.
This town is becoming the creative equivalent of a Nintendo Wii. Pretty, gimmicky and inundated with garbage pushed on the buying public. Of course, the Wii makes truckloads of cash on even the worst shovelware dreck, so why stop the gravy train?
No one's going to bother until the wheels come off.
Luzid, your analysis is spot on. And it is crazy not to seek out new IP instead of the presumed tried-and-true.