https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachary_Quinto
Is pretty close to that image.
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.
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.
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, 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.
Thinking of directors with distinctive styles like Hitchcock, Fincher, Spielberg, Wes Anderson etc… they’re maybe some who have a much larger influence than others, but I think there are very few projects that depend on that specific director being involved to make a good film, just not the exact film that was made. The best of them know exactly how to lean on their crew and maximize their results.
Taking that kind of influence, I’d say there have certainly been CEOs of that calibre. Steve Jobs instantly springs to mind. Apple and Pixar definitely continued and had great success even after he left them/this world, but he had such an outsize influence that it’s hard not to call him an auteur by the same standards.
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
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.