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

Is pretty close to that image.

No. I'm pretty sure that my comment describes why.

> 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.

A producer, yes, but not the film's director.

My original post literally asks if it’s more accurate to compare CEOs with film producers and not directors.

I misread it then with directors instead of producers. Apologies for that confusion.

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.

Your specific experience may be one way, but it's not the totality of the film industry. 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, 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.

My personal opinion is that there aren’t auteur directors either. Many are only as good as their corresponding editors, producers, or other crew. It’s just an image that people concoct because it’s simpler to comprehend.

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.