George Clooney To Hedge Fund Honcho Daniel Loeb: Stop Spreading Fear At Sony

Fascinating info - thanks for posting Way2.

I didn't see After Earth in the theater but watched it on DVD. I thought it was an interesting film. Special effects were good.

But I think Will focusing (or forcing) a film on Sony to showcase his son is a bit arrogant - if that's what happened.

See Will should look to his own career and see no one was pushing open any doors for him so why should he use his clout for his son? He's not THAT talented and frankly, from what I've heard about his current antics, is probably going the route of too many spoiled rich kids. Too much money, not much substance in their lives.

Yes agree Will Smith kids come across like rich kids...and arrogant....Not sure why he pushes them in the industry. And why Sony would spend so much money just to promote his son?

Way2Old4Dis wrote:I'm pretty sure MM did break even. I'm nearly as certain that it made a small profit. It certainly was not a flop. I'd have to look at the box overall office numbers again, but with a budget of $80M, they would need only to get to $160M to break even, and they did $170-175M, I think. So they didn't go gangbusters, but nobody lost money.

Nikke Finke has very, very good sources and breaks good stories, and she prides herself on naming names and not pulling punches. But if she does not like a person or a company, she tends to cherry pick facts to support her position. She (obviously) does not like Sony. And she has never been a big fan of George Clooney. So factor that into the statement. I suppose that somewhere in an alternate accounting universe that has its own financial performance parameters, MM could be said to fail on a money scale.

But not in this one. Monuments Men was a successful movie, by all the right standards.

Ok thanks for sharing. Never heard about Nikke Finke...always good to hear about the background about a writer... For sure she does not like Sony but she does like Jeff very much ...

Way2Old4Dis wrote:I'm pretty sure MM did break even. I'm nearly as certain that it made a small profit. It certainly was not a flop. I'd have to look at the box overall office numbers again, but with a budget of $80M, they would need only to get to $160M to break even, and they did $170-175M, I think. So they didn't go gangbusters, but nobody lost money.

Nikke Finke has very, very good sources and breaks good stories, and she prides herself on naming names and not pulling punches. But if she does not like a person or a company, she tends to cherry pick facts to support her position. She (obviously) does not like Sony. And she has never been a big fan of George Clooney. So factor that into the statement. I suppose that somewhere in an alternate accounting universe that has its own financial performance parameters, MM could be said to fail on a money scale.

But not in this one. Monuments Men was a successful movie, by all the right standards.

Money was not lost, but those who signed on for a backdoor cut must be pretty disappointed.  And out boy's ego definitely took a hit!

I agree (and I said long ago) that I thought George was feeling the effects of an 'off' year and that his state of mind had a part in his quick engagement.

But as far as any disappointment over little or no backend money: everybody who makes those deals (and I don't know if any of the cast of MM did or not) understands that there is a risk of not seeing anything if the box office revenues don't hit a certain level, and that creative studio accounting can push back the point at which that money is supposed to start coming in. So any time an actor or producer or director makes any amount of money on the backend, it's almost a surprise and always welcome. You don't make a backend deal expecting to see the money. You weigh your risks and options and get the best terms you can, but most of them do not pay off. The $70M Gravity money for Sandra Bullock and even the relatively low millions George makes on his movies are not the norm. So making a small amount of money on the backend is only a disappointment if the talent involved only did the project for the cash, and not for the love of the project or the experience, or whatever.

Do you think George got backend money for MM? Or was the success not enough for that???...

Now reading all that can we say that Loeb was right with his critics about Sony? But why was George defending Sony so much when there is something wrong with Sony and Loeb just pointed it out?

Because, as I understand it, Daniel Loeb is regarded by some as an asset stripper, who buys large numbers of companies, splits them up and offloads those that don't make so much money...I can imagine His Nibs, who would know far more about Hollywood politics than I, wouldn't really care for that behaviour, particularly if Loeb had no experience of how Hollywood operates.

Do you think George got backend money for MM? Or was the success not enough for that???...

Now reading all that can we say that Loeb was right with his critics about Sony? But why was George defending Sony so much when there is something wrong with Sony and Loeb just pointed it out?

Oh, maybe, but probably not, unless his backend starts at "first-dollar" profit, which is not an easy deal to get. If the movie made only $10-15M profit (isn't it strange how the movie business accommodates the word "only" in front of that kind of money?), I think it most likely went to the studio.

But George is a producer, so he will get a significant percentage from residuals. Plus, it's possible to make separate deals for backend as writer, as director, and as actor, so he may have several pots to dip into.

I don't think Loeb was right at all. Not at that time, and not for the reasons he was complaining, and not with the solution he was proposing. It may look that way in hindsight, but Sony was operating under what was basically a run of bad luck, with the exception of greenlighting 'After Earth' at the budget it demanded (I don't think it was nearly as bad as critics said, and at a smaller budget it might have been justified). Other than that, everyone makes decisions based on the information they have at the time, and at the time, Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx, for instance, are actors any studio would have gone in on big time. But no matter how good the models are, it's impossible to predict the audience or how well a picture will perform. I don't think it would be wise for any business to get rid of proven executives, or to place an important part of its business -- which has historically done well overall -- under the control of an arm that knows nothing about the creative aspects of making its product, which in this case is movies.

If that's what George was saying in his rebuke of Loeb, then obviously I agree with him. If he got a little testy in defending the people he works with, and who go to bat for him in his filmmaking ventures, then that's understandable. If those people in turn used George's rebuke for cover at the time, then that just shows they're human, and not the bottom-line numbers machines that Loeb apparently wants running the place.

Thanks for explaining you two   Now it is more clear. 

Movie business is really complicated. You know a lot about this business Way2old4dis.   

Wonder if Sony can change things to the better.....

Is it only Sony at the moment who has this bad luck with those movies or others like Warner Brothers have that too? Maybe the film industry is not doing well in general?

Well, that depends on who you talk to. At one extreme are the people who say the movie business is on its deathbed, and at the other are the ones who say its future has never been brighter. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.

There are enough numbers out there to support just about any projection you want to make about the film business.

This has been a lackluster summer, box office wise, compared to last year. Yet, there are several movies that have either surpassed or are coming close to half a billion dollars in box office revenues alone. That's "billion with a b." Those are not numbers to scoff at, by anybody's standards.

Gross dollars are higher, but some of that is due to rising ticket prices and the premium prices for 3-D and IMAX showings. So you can find a way to support just about any theory.

The facts are that studios are making fewer movies than ever, and a higher percentage of them are source-based adaptations, sequels, and franchise movies. From a business sense, there's nothing wrong with that because a built-in audience lowers the financial risk, and people get to keep making movies because these properties make money, and the movie business stays solvent. 


BUT, it also means the same people are getting work over and over, and there are fewer opportunities for aspiring artists to break into the studio system. It also means  that the small independents have to scrounge for funding and distribution, so it takes years to make a movie that is often better than what the studios back, and few people get to see them because they don't have the distribution deals. So the cycle continues. And the filmmakers who are in between, doing the mid-budget movies that are too small for a studio's efforts, but too big for private funding, are disappearing from the landscape. So we're probably missing a lot of very worthy work.

When you hear people say that the movie business is bad, just know that it means that the profit margins aren't as big as they used to be. But none of the studios is going broke anytime soon. Every one of their executives is a millionaire many times over, and so are the top producers, and that money is coming from somewhere.

Interesting , thanks. 

I agree that we probably miss a lot of good work from some good filmmakers. That's why I like curtain kind of festivals who give those filmmakers a chance to show their movies but at the end that's it. After the festival you never hear really about it again. That's sad. I wish that would change....

Way2-- Do you think the original cable shows are taking up some of the slack from fewer independent movies being made?  I don't have too much time for watching, but I hear about so many good shows (many languishing in my netflix) queue and now ever Oscar winners are doing limited run shows.  Seems like a great time for TV creatively speaking-- I know nothing about profitibility and I do think we are moving away from the network tv, specific time and day model to a watch-when-you-want one.  I has happened to music (I still feel sad for the death of the album as a concept!) and I think it will happen to the publishing and movie/tv industry.

I think as more people -- both creatives and viewers -- move to cable and streaming content for a more artistic and engaged experience, the shows will only get better. In the meantime, the studios will continue with their big-budget superhero whatevers... until the balance is tipped. There may even be a brief period where all you will see in movie theatres are super-effects blockbuster movies, and everything else will find other platforms for distribution. But the moment that those platforms start taking a critical mass of dollars from the theatrical-release venue, the studios will move into a sea change to tip the balance back in their favor.

Right now, most people who like movies watch TV/streaming and go to the theatres. But as soon as the things they want to see are all or mostly available at home (or wherever), the choice will be theatre or home, and most of them will choose home. That's the only thing that will get the studios and large producers to widen their content. Until then, if things like Transformers and Ironman are a billion-dollar franchises, that's what will be on the screens, because everybody's looking for the next one.

Most content creators and talent have an eye on television/cable/streaming now. It's the most artistically progressive and financially democratic medium.

This does seem harsh on the 'creative' minds of Hollywood, doesn't it? just makes you want a small budget, heartwarming film to go to the top of the tree. I think Matt Damon alluded to it, didn't he?

Very hard work to find the backers, I think

Maybe if they stopped spending so much on tentpoles they could produce more smaller, better films and charge lower admission prices. People are already paying a small fortune to view content at home. Why pay an exorbitant amount to go to a theater to see a movie (which may turn out to be a stinker) when it will turn up on tv or dvd in a couple of months? People are struggling to make ends meet and can't afford to go to the movies at $15 a pop.

Thanks so much Way2!  Am I remembering right that George once said something about the profitability of DVDs?  A film can go tits up in the theater and then burst out in glory in DVD sales.

That quote was probably a while ago. DVD sales aren't the boon to revenues they used to be, thanks to streaming and VOD. So I think it's rare anymore that a movie that doesn't do well in the theatres will get pushed into profitability by DVDs. Still, they're are cheap to make and sell, so any number of them is almost all profit.

I think you're right Way2.

Way2Old - What kind of money is there for studios/producers, etc. when a film is shown on tv - either network or cable? Don't they get some sort of residuals?

It varies for each movie and each medium, and depends on how big the movie was during release and the size or viewership of the television network or the cable company. The money that the producers get is a percentage of a negotiated fee that buys the right to re-broadcast for a certain period of time. The studio gets the rest. It's not a residual. Residuals go to the cast, writer(s), and maybe the director. They get a small fee every time the movie is shown, usually paid in quarterly periods, and comes out of the studio's share.

Way2Old - Thanks. I was wondering if Sony made much money from tv deals and if it was more profitable than other kinds of distribution of their product.
I'm thinking George could probably retire on the residuals from just a handful of his movies that keep playing, and playing, and playing like the energizer bunny! I can almost recite "Oh, Brother.." by heart- not to mention "Ocean's Eleven"!

Re-broadcast fees are huge, and for some movies they are higher than returns on DVDs.

Yes, George could probably stop working right now and not do another movie for the rest of his life, not touch the money he has banked, and live more comfortably off his percentages and residuals than 95% of us working stiffs do hitting the bricks every day.

I want to marry him then, cuz' I don't want to work anymore.  I could live off on a percentage of him and his residuals!

Way2Old - You're in one weird business! Seems like there's more money to be made from movies everywhere butin the movie theaters.

I just keep thinking back to when I was a kid (many moons ago) when we went to the movies at least once or twice a week. There were all kinds of movies to see, not just tentpoles and sequels, and you didn't have to stop eating for a week to afford it.

melbert wrote:I want to marry him then, cuz' I don't want to work anymore.  I could live off on a percentage of him and his residuals!

   You want to marry him for his money   Melbert I think we need to have a serious talk....what about his sex appeal?   

Besides, if you marry him you still have to work....You have get rid of all women who try everyday to hit on George.....So you have to do some work out  

LizzyNY wrote:Way2Old - You're in one weird business! Seems like there's more money to be made from movies everywhere butin the movie theaters.

I just keep thinking back to when I was a kid (many moons ago) when we went to the movies at least once or twice a week. There were all kinds of movies to see, not just tentpoles and sequels, and you didn't have to stop eating for a week to afford it.

Yes true...I remember when I was little how many theaters we had in my home town and today most of them closed down. One big one is left which shows all movies in one cinema with popcorn which taste like 3 days old.....Theaters are not the same anymore like before. 

Do you think theaters will die out one day?  I hope not...I love cinema..... 

Nicky80 wrote:

melbert wrote:I want to marry him then, cuz' I don't want to work anymore.  I could live off on a percentage of him and his residuals!

   You want to marry him for his money   Melbert I think we need to have a serious talk....what about his sex appeal?   

Besides, if you marry him you still have to work....You have get rid of all women who try everyday to hit on George.....So you have to do some work out  

Oh, there will be sex everyday!!!       And  I would only use a little of his money to pay all my bills off so that I wouldn't have that worry.  And oh, the other women????  Not when I'm around.  Of course, you girls would always be welcome at Villa Oleandra, Casa de Clooney, and Casamigos Cabo.  And, he wouldn't have to eat prepared rabbit food anymore, so he would look more healthy!

Well get on it Mel. I am in serious need of a vacation!

         

Me too I need my vacation at Cabo       

He might will look healthy Melbert due to proper food but if you have sex everyday he will be tired.... You better give him Vitamins everyday or you give him a break and I do a day trip with him of course just sightseeing  

I have a tub of Vitamins.... so I could come
along too ?   

Oh....just remembered....
no current passport.   

passport smashport - we fly PRIVATE, remember Joanna?!  We'll swing by and pick you up too!

Way2Old4Dis wrote:I'm pretty sure MM did break even. I'm nearly as certain that it made a small profit. It certainly was not a flop. I'd have to look at the box overall office numbers again, but with a budget of $80M, they would need only to get to $160M to break even, and they did $170-175M, I think. So they didn't go gangbusters, but nobody lost money.

Nikke Finke has very, very good sources and breaks good stories, and she prides herself on naming names and not pulling punches. But if she does not like a person or a company, she tends to cherry pick facts to support her position. She (obviously) does not like Sony. And she has never been a big fan of George Clooney. So factor that into the statement. I suppose that somewhere in an alternate accounting universe that has its own financial performance parameters, MM could be said to fail on a money scale.

But not in this one. Monuments Men was a successful movie, by all the right standards.

Yes I think that you are right W2O4D and some where on the MM threads I think I remember an article say from one of the head honchos saying (paraphrase; saying thanks to George, he never disappoints). This tells me that the movie didn't lose but didn't expect it to be a block buster. This was before the DVDs were released if I'm not mistaken.

LizzyNY wrote:Way2Old - You're in one weird business! Seems like there's more money to be made from movies everywhere butin the movie theaters.

I just keep thinking back to when I was a kid (many moons ago) when we went to the movies at least once or twice a week. There were all kinds of movies to see, not just tentpoles and sequels, and you didn't have to stop eating for a week to afford it.

Way 2, are you in the entertainment industry?  ( if it's posted somewhere and I missed it, I'm sorry.  I'm packing to move..and I'm blirry-eyed. Bed left days ago and I'm sleeping on the sofa amongst the clutter that is currently my life.  YUCK!)

Pipen, maybe this link will help about your question about Way2old4dis

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hey PP....good luck with the move.
Hope it's a Happy One for you & yours.   


Sorry off topic.

Nicky80 wrote:Pipen, maybe this link will help about your question about Way2old4dis

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

WOW!  Even sleep deprived, exhausted and totally overwhelmed, I truly am impressed.  Way 2, you rock, honey!!


PS... wasn't Pipen a Charles Dickens character?  Maybe I should change my log in name.  My original 2 choices were PigPen or The Bitch Goddess from Hell. sorry for the off topic.. told you I'm  tired ( which is just a cover for not being too bright to begin with!!)

You don't get out much, do you? :-)

Pig Pen is a 'Peanuts' character in the Charles Schulz cartoon. Little boy always surrounded by a cloud of dirt.

I like Bitch Goddess. A goddess of bitches will always have a huge queendom over which to rule.

Hey, Way - I thought that's what Roseanne called herself!

Pigpen - Good luck with the move. Hope everything (including you) gets there safe and in one piece.  

Way2Old4Dis wrote:You don't get out much, do you? :-)

Pig Pen is a 'Peanuts' character in the Charles Schulz cartoon. Little boy always surrounded by a cloud of dirt.

I like Bitch Goddess. A goddess of bitches will always have a huge queendom over which to rule.

Smarty Pants, Way 2!!  I know who PigPen is, that's why I chose it.  I was teasing Nicky for writing Pipen ( left out the "g")  hahahahaha

  didn't  realize   

By the way, Way2old4dis when you posted Behind-The-Scenes With Sony Pictures’ Problems: Part One....is Part two already out? I couldn't find it at the link.....

Smarty Pants, Way 2!!  I know who PigPen is, that's why I chose it.  I was teasing Nicky for writing Pipen ( left out the "g")  hahahahaha

Ah. My bad. Never made the connection to 'Pippen.' I assumed the missing 'g' was a typo and the Dickens reference was a Freudian slip. :-) You know what they say, what happens when you assume.

The "You don't get out much..." was in reference to you being impressed with me. You shouldn't be, unless your standards are really low.

I'm having problems expressing myself clearly. I need to update and restart.

Nicky80 wrote:  didn't  realize   

what's a missing "g" among friends?!  Unless it's "g" (eorge).  Better get back on topic... Katie's back                          

Nicky80 wrote:By the way, Way2old4dis when you posted Behind-The-Scenes With Sony Pictures’ Problems: Part One....is Part two already out? I couldn't find it at the link.....

Not yet, I don't think. I haven't gone through my reading list for the day yet, though. I'll post it as soon as it comes, unless somebody who's looking for it does so first.

Ok thanks  

Way2Old4Dis wrote:

Smarty Pants, Way 2!!  I know who PigPen is, that's why I chose it.  I was teasing Nicky for writing Pipen ( left out the "g")  hahahahaha

Ah. My bad. Never made the connection to 'Pippen.' I assumed the missing 'g' was a typo and the Dickens reference was a Freudian slip. :-) You know what they say, what happens when you assume.

The "You don't get out much..." was in reference to you being impressed with me. You shouldn't be, unless your standards are really low.

I'm having problems expressing myself clearly. I need to update and restart.

I have fabulous standards, and they think you are talented, loyal and an all around "great broad"  in the truest most fabulous sense of the term. 5:13 PM here.  MARTINI TIME.  Meet you @ the bar.                

Didn't know where to post it but as it is Sony I thought might here...

Sony is planing a female spider man. I thought I didn't read right. I thought it is a joke but when I read the article it sounds right....Is this now the new change Sony likes to go to get better movies???



Sony is planning a female-centric 'Spider-Man' spin-off

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ever since The Amazing Spider-Man 2 grossed a mere $700 million worldwide, Sony has been shifting its plans for a Spidey-centric mega-franchise. Amazing Spider-Man 3 moved to 2018, a delay that would seem to scotch the previously announced Amazing Spider-Man 4. In its place, Sony fast-tracked The Sinister Six, a spin-off focused on Spidey’s nemesis superteam, to be helmed by Cabin in the Woods‘ Drew Goddard. And now there’s an even more intriguing project in development: EW has confirmed the Deadline report that Sony is developing a Spider-Man spin-off starring a female superhero. This would be the first female-superhero comic book film ever—besides Supergirl and Catwoman and Elektra—so for the sake of argument let’s pretend this would be the first female-superhero comic book film ever.

It’s unclear who would be the lead character of this potential Spidey spin-off. Pure brand recognition might point to the character Spider-Woman, a.k.a. Jessica Drew, a character with a byzantine comic book history. (She has variously been a clone of Peter Parker and a double-agent alien imposter.) The most likely candidate is almost certainly the Black Cat, an amoral superthief who was also Spider-Man’s most intriguing love interest by far. (Mary Jane, shmary jane.) Black Cat was kinda-sorta introduced in The Amazing Spider-Man 2; her real name is Felicia Hardy, and Felicity Jones played a character named Felicia, although she was such a non-entity in the film that a recasting/retconning would be inevitable.

If Sony is looking to put a new spin on a recognizable character, there is a history of female versions of the Venom character–though apparently Sony is still developing a different Venom spin-off, because one rule of modern day Hollywood is that someone is always developing a Venom spin-off. Personally, I would advocate that the time is ripe for a Silver Sable movie, which would basically be like Commando starring, let’s say, Jessica Chastain in a white wig and a white jumpsuit.
Per Deadline, the superheroine spin-off is being written by Lisa Joy Nolan, who also wrote the hot script Reminiscence and is working on HBO’s Westworld series. (She is also Christopher Nolan’s sister-in-law, so Nolan family reunions must have a lot of fun superhero conversations.) On a purely financial level, Sony’s current Spider-Man scheme looks a bit wild: If people didn’t want to see a Spider-Man movie, why would they want to see a Spider-Man movie without Spider-Man? On the other hand, you could argue that Sony is finally taking the right page out of the Marvel Studios handbook, launching new franchises Thor-style instead of constructing entire feature films as spin-off advertisements. (Coughcoughcough Batman vs. Superman vs. Wonder Woman vs. Cyborg coughcoughcough.) And since Marvel Studios doesn’t seem interested in launching a female-centric franchise, the Untitled Spider-Man Superheroine Spin-off is already by default one of the more interesting projects on the distant horizon. So come on, Silver Sable Origins!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Activist investor Dan Loeb sells stake in Sony Corp

Activist investor Dan Loeb sells his 7% stake in Sony Corp.


More than a year after questioning Sony Corp.'s management approach and sharply criticizing its film and television studio for a handful of box-office flops, activist investor Dan Loeb has sold his shares in the Tokyo-based company.
Loeb's hedge fund, Third Point, had owned about 7% of Sony, whose entertainment arm, Sony Entertainment Inc., includes film and television studio Sony Pictures Entertainment, Sony/ATV Music Publishing and Sony Music Entertainment.
The sell-off caps a 17-month stretch that saw Loeb put Sony Pictures under a microscope and the studio respond by enacting major changes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Related: Time Warner investor day: Five things to watch
Meg James

Time Warner Chief Executive Jeff Bewkes is poised to explain why bigger wouldn't have been better.

Time Warner Chief Executive Jeff Bewkes is poised to explain why bigger wouldn't have been better. ( Meg James )


On May 14, 2013, Loeb hand-delivered a letter to Sony President and Chief Executive Kazuo Hirai that outlined a proposal centering on the beleaguered electronics giant's making an initial public stock offering of up to 20% of its entertainment arm.
For years the company's electronics business had suffered as competitors including Samsung and Apple strode past Sony in the television and smartphone business.
"Many casual observers would be surprised to learn that while Sony is electronics, much of its current value is derived from a hidden gem — Sony's Entertainment division," Loeb said in the letter. 

lRelated [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Company TownSony Pictures names Josh Greenstein head of marketing, distributionSee all related


8




Loeb later ratcheted up his rhetoric in public pleas for the company to adopt his proposal and said in his second-quarter 2013 letter to Third Point investors that Sony's entertainment arm "remains poorly managed." He also criticized Hirai for giving "free passes" to Sony Pictures Chairman and CEO Michael Lynton and co-Chairman Amy Pascal.
He also referred to two disappointing Sony Pictures releases -- the Will Smith action picture "After Earth" and the Channing Tatum film "White House Down" -- as "2013's versions of 'Waterworld' and 'Ishtar' back-to-back," alluding to two of the most infamous flops of all-time.
But on Tuesday, in a third-quarter letter to investors that was posted on Third Point's website, Loeb said that Sony had made changes for the better in its entertainment business, including implementing cost-cutting measures, improving dialogue with investors and making management changes.
"We still managed to generate nearly a 20% return on this investment before exiting," the letter said. 







[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Caption2013's highest paid media executives
Rajesh Nirgude; Justin Sullivan/Getty Images; AP Photo/CBS / Monty Brinton
For top media moguls, base salaries are high. Bonuses, stock options and stock awards are higher. See how a group of elite executives fared in 2013. By Christy Khoshaba
For top media moguls, base salaries are high. Bonuses, stock options and stock awards are higher. See how a group of elite executives fared in 2013. By Christy Khoshaba (Rajesh Nirgude; Justin Sullivan/Getty Images; AP Photo/CBS / Monty Brinton)



See more galleries



CaptionChase Carey | $27 million
Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg
Carey, chief operating officer of News Corp., received a compensation package of $27 million, a 9% increase from the previous year. Carey was lauded for his handling of the media company's breakup and spinoff of the publishing properties.
Carey, chief operating officer of News Corp., received a compensation package of $27 million, a 9% increase from the previous year. Carey was lauded for his handling of the media company's breakup and spinoff of the publishing properties. (Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg)



See more galleries



CaptionRupert Murdoch | $28.9 million
Adrian Sanchez-Gonzalez/AFP/Getty Images
Murdoch, chief executive of 21st Century Fox, received a compensation package of $28.9 million. On top of an $8.1-million base salary, he received a performance-based cash bonus of $12.5 million and stock awards valued at $5.1 million.
Murdoch, chief executive of 21st Century Fox, received a compensation package of $28.9 million. On top of an $8.1-million base salary, he received a performance-based cash bonus of $12.5 million and stock awards valued at $5.1 million. (Adrian Sanchez-Gonzalez/AFP/Getty Images)



See more galleries



CaptionTom Dooley | $29 million
Kevin Winter / Getty Images
Dooley, chief operating officer of Viacom Inc., received a compensation package of $29 million. In addition to a base salary of $2.5 million, Dooley collected a $13.4-million cash bonus and $8.3 million in stock.
Dooley, chief operating officer of Viacom Inc., received a compensation package of $29 million. In addition to a base salary of $2.5 million, Dooley collected a $13.4-million cash bonus and $8.3 million in stock. (Kevin Winter / Getty Images)



See more galleries



CaptionSteve Burke | $31.1 million
Scott Eells / Bloomberg
Burke, chief executive of NBC Universal, which is wholly owned by Comcast Corp., received a compensation package of $31.1 million. That's an 18% increase from the $26.3 million he made in 2012.
Burke, chief executive of NBC Universal, which is wholly owned by Comcast Corp., received a compensation package of $31.1 million. That's an 18% increase from the $26.3 million he made in 2012. (Scott Eells / Bloomberg)



See more galleries




Sony rejected Loeb's spinoff plan in August 2013, but the studio committed to big changes a few months later. At a November 2013 investors conference, Sony Pictures said it would cut costs and concentrate more on television. 
"In 2013 we had some movies in the summer that didn't meet our expectations," Pascal said at the time. "That has led us to take a hard look at what we are doing."
Sony Pictures, which includes Columbia Pictures, TriStar Pictures, Sony Pictures Classics and other entities, said at the meeting that it was lowering overhead by at least $250 million. 

cComments
Got something to say? Start the conversation and be the first to comment.
Add a comment


0




The studio has achieved cost reductions by eliminating jobs, and there have been several rounds of layoffs at the company in the last year.
Sony Pictures also has reshuffled its executive ranks, saying goodbye to Marc Weinstock, formerly its head of domestic and international marketing, and Chris Cookson, formerly president of Sony Pictures Technologies, among others.
Sony Pictures has also added several high-profile executives to the fold.
In August 2013, Sony teamed with former Fox Filmed Entertainment co-Chairman Tom Rothman to restart its TriStar Productions banner. And in December 2013, the studio named producer Michael De Luca, whose credits include "Captain Phillips" and the forthcoming "Fifty Shades of Grey" adaptation, president of production for its Columbia Pictures unit.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Related: Warner Bros. unveils a slate of superhero films after poor summer
Daniel Miller

Warner Bros. has unveiled a slate of superhero films that the big Hollywood studio believes will help drive profit after it suffered through an uncharacteristically poor summer.

Warner Bros. has unveiled a slate of superhero films that the big Hollywood studio believes will help drive profit after it suffered through an uncharacteristically poor summer. ( Daniel Miller )


Also, in September, the new film company of Jeff Robinov, the former Warner Bros. Pictures Group president, signed a distribution deal with Sony Pictures. Sony will distribute up to six movies a year from the new firm, called Studio 8.
This year, Loeb has largely remained quiet when it comes to Sony. In January, the Los Angeles Times reported that, according to a source with knowledge of Loeb's thinking at the time, the recent changes at the studio -- from the budget cuts to a new emphasis on television production -- had left the hedge fund investor "hopeful."


For the fiscal first quarter that ended June 30, Sony Pictures posted operating income of $78 million, up 109% from a year earlier. Revenue increased 23% to $1.93 billion.
Since May 13, 2013 -- the day before Loeb delivered his letter to Hirai -- shares of Sony are down about 8% to $17.43.
"They have a long way to go and we continue to believe that more urgency will be necessary to definitively turn around the company’s fortunes," Loeb said in Tuesday's letter.
Sony Pictures declined to comment, saying: "We don’t comment on any specific investor’s shareholding." 
Follow @DanielNMiller for film business news

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times

Interesting....wonder why he did it.....or if he felt like he must do it.....maybe sony put pressure on him to get rid of him????

Yeah, why drop an investment that earned  20% for your fund? Doesn't make good business sense to me, so something else must be going on.

I have never understood the rationale of stock investing anyway. It's a trend-driven, hysteria-prone, herd-mentality market, and therefore a volatile way to try to make money.