Studio executives Fox's Jim Gianopulos, Universal's Donna Langley, Disney's Alan Horn, Paramount's Rob Moore and Sony Pictures Classics' Tom Bernard share their experiences for THR's roundtable series.
The interviewers should NOT be sacked. Surely their job is not to make the interviewee comfortable. Surely it is to elicit interesting responses, which they have done.
As someone trying to break into the film industry as a composer this was interesting to see the perspective of the suits upstairs who deal with major pictures on an executive level.
THR is doing a great job, and usually they bring a lot of good questions to the tables, but these roundtables lacks intensity and people really speaking their mind. When you bring such public figures and public topics to the table, you're never going to get the real truth to the things that are being debated, because everybody is looking to protect their image - whether it's their own or in this case, their studio.
You're not wrong because that's your opinion, but I do disagree to an extent. I think they'll always be two very different mediums. In film you have one consistent director who's there to make decisions all the time in reference to the story or the visual style, but in TV directors don't have as much freedom, because they can't leave a mess for the director who's up next. Also in terms of story and character development I think that TV has always excelled at that because TV series have like 50 hours of content to mold the characters and move the story, whereas basic narrative filmmakers only have say 2 to 2 1/2 hours to tell their story.
Brandon Schmidt I think the only reason why TV excels better than film is because TV is always trying new things. But mainstream film is always giving us the same thing over and over.
Posting December 2018, it is interesting to see the change in interviews from the year before, this year, and the year after. This interview, while it has 3 less execs, is the most convivial. Next year they move to a THR table similar to the ones they use for the actors, so not neutral ground of a restaurant, and the same two interviewers, are much more aggressive, to the point of combative. The filming next year is more intrusive and ridiculous.
The interviewers just love Disney.. that's all they want to know and talk about the first part of the video... Not to mention, Pamela just sits ask laugh at the wrong time. I would rather want to hear the other chiefs talk about their work. Not to just focus on Disney..
The chick with the spots sounds wasted. And why didnt anyone ask if the paramount guy was okay? His neck was fully inflamed with redness and hives lol. Wtf.
A study done by entertainment-securities attorney, John W. Cones, finds that 70 - 80 percent of the top three executives in the MPAA studio/distributors are "politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage." Given this, why is there such little diversity in the executive ranks when many are calling for more diversity in Hollywood? Could discrimination (cronyism, nepotism and favoritism) in the executive suites be the cause of the lack of diversity at the talent, crew and conglomerate levels? Does a narrowly defined "control group" of executives only green-light movies that appeal to their interests, values, cultural perspectives and prejudices? Is this why Hollywood studios and New York networks are promoting a liberal agenda and suppressing conservatives? Is this why Hollywood is promoting European style- socialism and anti-Christian values? Is this why Hollywood is promoting the Globalist Agenda Trump is working to roll back? MAINSTREAM -- a 4-part mini series NOT "coming to a theater near you" addresses the lack of diversity in Hollywood and its repercussions on a democratic society. Get on high quality DVD at www.mecfilms.com/mainstream.html or watch at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-evYyDsmSzdo.html
well ALLAN HORN why dont you start making the BLU RAY's with better extras! the problem is, the BLU RAY's are coming with crap! of course people wont buy it.
Donna Langley, how the hell is "Best Man's Holiday" a movie for a "specific audience"? You need to understand that there isn't such a genre as "black movie". Is "Goodfellas" a movie for "specific audience"? Absolutely not. This woman's talking nonsense.
@@dreambig9444 It's a movie comprised of mostly African Americans, but I highly doubt that the movie was made with the hope or the idea that only African Americans would watch it, is what i believe @ezekiel is saying. This depends on what your definition of "black movie" is. Does it mean that it was picked up to target black people, or that it was made for black people. If it is the former definition, then your argument would be -- profoundly stupid , to use your words. Lastly, nothing was mentioned about adult black females composing the vast majority of people who went to see the film. She said only said females, one can't conclude with certainty anything about race. Unless you have the data.
Stannis target for black people or made for black people is the same shit. Think they are making films to progress the “BLM”? Guess again. All these executives care about is gaining more profit, more audience members, and more accolades. Don’t get it twisted. They are not in the business of being a social movement.
@@asianmaddness56 No. When you target a specific demographic by race, you are appealing to this audience on the basis of cultural relativeness by adding a cast of one race in its entirety, and/or having a story line depicting cultural norms within this demo. It's exclusive to other demographics. In this case we are trying to maximize the awareness within this target audience in hopes of converting them into box office consumers. A movie that is made for a specific race has looser restrictions. It's more inclusive to other demographics. I understand what you're saying, however.
