Okay, and then they negotiate for better pay deals because proven directors have negotiating power. This isn't a contradiction to what I was saying, but I predict I'll get downvoted because Hollywood accounting makes people angry. But people who are proven assets in moviemaking already know how to do an end run around it. The predominant situation in film is that those who marshal the resources to make movies are highly skilled and get payment and/or ownership. It is not the case that the Hollywood corporate mechanism only exists to "market movies", as the OP claimed. That is the point of my post.

I also dislike the implicit assumption that the category of "people who make movies and TV" is "directors". Some directors take a major role in production. Others are tools in a chain, albiet important and highly paid ones. There are lot of people who bring about movies and TV that aren't directors. Vince Gilligan rarely directs, for example.