The power structure in Hollywood is very complex and cannot simply be determined by one person's position.
Often, the only way to understand a person's apparent and potential power is to see where he reports to in Hollywood. If a studio president is directly responsible to the top management of the parent company, his power may be as powerful as that of the CEO. As for a big-name director like Spielberg, because he can communicate directly with Steve Ross, his potential influence is even higher than that of the studio CEO.
Robert Rem's proposal did not surprise Simon.
In Hollywood at this time, Disney CEO Michael Eisner and President Frank Wells had this kind of equal relationship. Both of them were directly responsible to the Disney board of directors, and Michael Eisner had a higher position than Frank Wells. Wells is at the first level, but in fact, he has no jurisdiction over Frank Wells. The two have separate cooperation, and Michael Eisner cannot appoint or remove Frank Wells from his position.
From what I can remember, this check-and-balance power structure was largely responsible for Disney's meteoric rise in the decade before Michael Eisner took the helm of the major studio.
…
…
The power structure in Hollywood is very complex and cannot simply be determined by one person's position.
Often, the only way to understand a person's apparent and potential power is to see where he reports to in Hollywood. If a studio president is directly responsible to the top management of the parent company, his power may be as powerful as that of the CEO. As for a big-name director like Spielberg, because he can communicate directly with Steve Ross, his potential influence is even higher than that of the studio CEO.
Robert Rem's proposal did not surprise Simon.
In Hollywood at this time, Disney CEO Michael Eisner and President Frank Wells had this kind of equal relationship. Both of them were directly responsible to the Disney board of directors, and Michael Eisner had a higher position than Frank Wells. Wells is at the first level, but in fact, he has no jurisdiction over Frank Wells. The two have separate cooperation, and Michael Eisner cannot appoint or remove Frank Wells from his position.
From what I can remember, this check-and-balance power structure was largely responsible for Disney's meteoric rise in the decade before Michael Eisner took the helm of the major studio.
The power structure in Hollywood is very complex and cannot simply be determined by one person's position.
Often, the only way to understand a person's apparent and potential power is to see where he reports to in Hollywood. If a studio president is directly responsible to the top management of the parent company, his power may be as powerful as that of the CEO. As for a big-name director like Spielberg, because he can communicate directly with Steve Ross, his potential influence is even higher than that of the studio CEO.
Robert Rem's proposal did not surprise Simon.
In Hollywood at this time, Disney CEO Michael Eisner and President Frank Wells had this kind of equal relationship. Both of them were directly responsible to the Disney board of directors, and Michael Eisner had a higher position than Frank Wells. Wells is at the first level, but in fact, he has no jurisdiction over Frank Wells. The two have separate cooperation, and Michael Eisner cannot appoint or remove Frank Wells from his position.
From what I can remember, this check-and-balance power structure was largely responsible for Disney's meteoric rise in the decade before Michael Eisner took the helm of the major studio.
The power structure in Hollywood is very complex and cannot simply be determined by one person's position.
Often, the only way to understand a person's apparent and potential power is to see where he reports to in Hollywood. If a studio president is directly responsible to the top management of the parent company, his power may be as powerful as that of the CEO. As for a big-name director like Spielberg, because he can communicate directly with Steve Ross, his potential influence is even higher than that of the studio CEO.
Robert Rem's proposal did not surprise Simon.
In Hollywood at this time, Disney CEO Michael Eisner and President Frank Wells had this kind of equal relationship. Both of them were directly responsible to the Disney board of directors, and Michael Eisner had a higher position than Frank Wells. Wells is at the first level, but in fact, he has no jurisdiction over Frank Wells. The two have separate cooperation, and Michael Eisner cannot appoint or remove Frank Wells from his position.
From what I can remember, this check-and-balance power structure was largely responsible for Disney's meteoric rise in the decade before Michael Eisner took the helm of the major studio.
The power structure in Hollywood is very complex and cannot simply be determined by one person's position.
Often, the only way to understand a person's apparent and potential power is to see where he reports to in Hollywood. If a studio president is directly responsible to the top management of the parent company, his power may be as powerful as that of the CEO. As for a big-name director like Spielberg, because he can communicate directly with Steve Ross, his potential influence is even higher than that of the studio CEO.
Robert Rem's proposal did not surprise Simon.
In Hollywood at this time, Disney CEO Michael Eisner and President Frank Wells had this kind of equal relationship. Both of them were directly responsible to the Disney board of directors, and Michael Eisner had a higher position than Frank Wells. Wells is at the first level, but in fact, he has no jurisdiction over Frank Wells. The two have separate cooperation, and Michael Eisner cannot appoint or remove Frank Wells from his position.
From what I can remember, this check-and-balance power structure was largely responsible for Disney's meteoric rise in the decade before Michael Eisner took the helm of the major studio.
The power structure in Hollywood is very complex and cannot simply be determined by one person's position.
Often, the only way to understand a person's apparent and potential power is to see where he reports to in Hollywood. If a studio president is directly responsible to the top management of the parent company, his power may be as powerful as that of the CEO. As for a big-name director like Spielberg, because he can communicate directly with Steve Ross, his potential influence is even higher than that of the studio CEO.
Robert Rem's proposal did not surprise Simon.
In Hollywood at this time, Disney CEO Michael Eisner and President Frank Wells had this kind of equal relationship. Both of them were directly responsible to the Disney board of directors, and Michael Eisner had a higher position than Frank Wells. Wells is at the first level, but in fact, he has no jurisdiction over Frank Wells. The two have separate cooperation, and Michael Eisner cannot appoint or remove Frank Wells from his position.
From what I can remember, this check-and-balance power structure was largely responsible for Disney's meteoric rise in the decade before Michael Eisner took the helm of the major studio.
The power structure in Hollywood is very complex and cannot simply be determined by one person's position.
Often, the only way to understand a person's apparent and potential power is to see where he reports to in Hollywood. If a studio president is directly responsible to the top management of the parent company, his power may be as powerful as that of the CEO. As for a big-name director like Spielberg, because he can communicate directly with Steve Ross, his potential influence is even higher than that of the studio CEO.
Robert Rem's proposal did not surprise Simon.
In Hollywood at this time, Disney CEO Michael Eisner and President Frank Wells had this kind of equal relationship. Both of them were directly responsible to the Disney board of directors, and Michael Eisner had a higher position than Frank Wells. Wells is at the first level, but in fact, he has no jurisdiction over Frank Wells. The two have separate cooperation, and Michael Eisner cannot appoint or remove Frank Wells from his position.
From what I can remember, this check-and-balance power structure was largely responsible for Disney's meteoric rise in the decade before Michael Eisner took the helm of the major studio.
The power structure in Hollywood is very complex and cannot simply be determined by one person's position.
Often, the only way to understand a person's apparent and potential power is to see where he reports to in Hollywood. If a studio president is directly responsible to the top management of the parent company, his power may be as powerful as that of the CEO. As for a big-name director like Spielberg, because he can communicate directly with Steve Ross, his potential influence is even higher than that of the studio CEO.
Robert Rem's proposal did not surprise Simon.
In Hollywood at this time, Disney CEO Michael Eisner and President Frank Wells had this kind of equal relationship. Both of them were directly responsible to the Disney board of directors, and Michael Eisner had a higher position than Frank Wells. Wells is at the first level, but in fact, he has no jurisdiction over Frank Wells. The two have separate cooperation, and Michael Eisner cannot appoint or remove Frank Wells from his position.
From what I can remember, this check-and-balance power structure was largely responsible for Disney's meteoric rise in the decade before Michael Eisner took the helm of the major studio.
The power structure in Hollywood is very complex and cannot simply be determined by one person's position.
Often, the only way to understand a person's apparent and potential power is to see where he reports to in Hollywood. If a studio president is directly responsible to the top management of the parent company, his power may be as powerful as that of the CEO. As for a big-name director like Spielberg, because he can communicate directly with Steve Ross, his potential influence is even higher than that of the studio CEO.
Robert Rem's proposal did not surprise Simon.
In Hollywood at this time, Disney CEO Michael Eisner and President Frank Wells had this kind of equal relationship. Both of them were directly responsible to the Disney board of directors, and Michael Eisner had a higher position than Frank Wells. Wells is at the first level, but in fact, he has no jurisdiction over Frank Wells. The two have separate cooperation, and Michael Eisner cannot appoint or remove Frank Wells from his position.
From what I can remember, this check-and-balance power structure was largely responsible for Disney's meteoric rise in the decade before Michael Eisner took the helm of the major studio.
The power structure in Hollywood is very complex and cannot simply be determined by one person's position.
Often, the only way to understand a person's apparent and potential power is to see where he reports to in Hollywood. If a studio president is directly responsible to the top management of the parent company, his power may be as powerful as that of the CEO. As for a big-name director like Spielberg, because he can communicate directly with Steve Ross, his potential influence is even higher than that of the studio CEO.
Robert Rem's proposal did not surprise Simon.
In Hollywood at this time, Disney CEO Michael Eisner and President Frank Wells had this kind of equal relationship. Both of them were directly responsible to the Disney board of directors, and Michael Eisner had a higher position than Frank Wells. Wells is at the first level, but in fact, he has no jurisdiction over Frank Wells. The two have separate cooperation, and Michael Eisner cannot appoint or remove Frank Wells from his position.
From what I can remember, this check-and-balance power structure was largely responsible for Disney's meteoric rise in the decade before Michael Eisner took the helm of the major studio.
The power structure in Hollywood is very complex and cannot simply be determined by one person's position.
Often, the only way to understand a person's apparent and potential power is to see where he reports to in Hollywood. If a studio president is directly responsible to the top management of the parent company, his power may be as powerful as that of the CEO. As for a big-name director like Spielberg, because he can communicate directly with Steve Ross, his potential influence is even higher than that of the studio CEO.
Robert Rem's proposal did not surprise Simon.
In Hollywood at this time, Disney CEO Michael Eisner and President Frank Wells had this kind of equal relationship. Both of them were directly responsible to the Disney board of directors, and Michael Eisner had a higher position than Frank Wells. Wells is at the first level, but in fact, he has no jurisdiction over Frank Wells. The two have separate cooperation, and Michael Eisner cannot appoint or remove Frank Wells from his position.