
An Open Letter to Warner Bros CEO About Layoffs and Donuts- - legodt
http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/an-open-letter-to-warner-bros-ceo-kevin-tsujihara-about-layoffs-zack-snyder-and-donuts.php
======
alexandercrohde
The thing that I think makes this letter great, and the reason I upvoted it on
a tech site, that I haven't seen anybody else mention yet is this: it's a
universal point.

Movies aside, I think his point applies to a lot of other industries, "If I
worked at a donut stand, and I kept fucking up donuts, I'd be fired. Even if I
made a tiny decent one every now and then, it doesn't matter. I'm gonna get
fired." I have found this myself in tech, that often those held as icons of
genius are often held to lower standards and have the potential to do much
more damage than those at the bottom.

For example, a startup may have an awful product yet the pressure always
trickles down to engineers to make it 10% faster or get in trouble. Yet so
often it seems not to be that 10% delivery rate that separates a unicorn from
a failure. It's a truly novel idea, a great design, and architects who can
implement that vision in a stable and smooth way.

~~~
20yrs_no_equity
My experience made me identify with this letter very closely-- in broad
generalized terms, you often have "management" which is a bunch of "business"
people who are directing "creatives" (whether software engineers or movie
artists) based on the management's perception of the state of the market.

Unfortunately, there is always a tendency to believe your own PR, believe you
know more about things than you do, and to believe that, because you're on top
and they are on bottom, you know better.

You see this in startups also when the "management" is a 20 year old CEO who
just graduated business school, as much as when he is a 60 year old who has
worked in the industry (but whose background is not in actually making
things).

This is the big gulf between the makers and the managers.

And I think the correct response is, as makers, to make sure we are managed by
other makers.

An engineer in the CEO role can manage a VP of marketing, or a VP of sales or
a VP of engineering fine. Find a VP of marketing who wants to do customer
discovery, find a VP of sales who can close (and incentivize him to do so, if
he's not hungry don't hire him) and you'll do better, in my experience, than a
CEO who doesn't understand how software is made (and subsequently keeps
inadvertently undermining his own products as a result.)

Apologies if this seems like a bit of a rant- this is a comment on a letter
that is a rant, though-- but I've seen this over and over and over in the past
30 years working for technology startups.

I would say having a technical CEO has a positive order of magnitude
improvement on the outcome, and liklihood of a liquidity event and the size of
that liquidity event, in my experience.

It lowers risks many ways, including increasing retention of your most
valuable employees. (One of the key things that business people can't seem to
get over is the idea that commoditizing employees leads to hiring what Paul
Graham calls "blub" programmers, but that if you hire great programmers you
can't treat them like cogs or they will leave.)

~~~
aidenn0
The problem is that (general intelligence aside) management skills are
orthogonal to engineering/art/other creative work. This means that it takes a
lot of work to find and train creators to be managers. On top of that (at
least in engineering), a large fraction of the quality engineers I know
actively do not want to be managers.

If we haven't seen as many screw-ups due to lack of managerial skills among
engineer-managers as we've seen screw-ups due to lack of engineering savvy
among MBA-managers, it's at least partly due to the fact that there are a lot
more of the latter than the former.

~~~
20yrs_no_equity
Not in my experience. Or put another way, if you take someone with an MBA or a
masters in engineering, neither of them intrinsically has more management
skills or training. (IF colleges are teaching "management skills" they are not
doing a good job of it.)

Yes, many engineers do not want to be managers, and unfortunately, too many
non-engineers want the power. This is a good thing about engineers and a bad
thing about those non-engineers.

I've seen lots of good engineers who manage, but almost no business people who
are good managers of engineering.

I know that what you're saying is a popular perspective, but so is the idea
that we should let wall street manage our retirements and real estate is
always a good investment. Some of this perspective is self serving.

------
thewopr
I am not an insider but wow, this really resonated with me.

> We pursued a potentially great summer movie like Edge of Tomorrow and
> completely botched its release.

Edge of Tomorrow was a pretty solid movie. I would absolutely have gone to it
in the theater, but the marketing just did not connect with me. I've run into
this with a number of movies now.

~~~
kiba
Edge of Tomorrow was a hollywoodized happy version of the original Japanese
novel, which ended on a very bittersweet note.

~~~
moultano
The original novel is terrible though. Everything that was interesting or
moving in it was invented for the movie.

~~~
clevernickname
Your taste is terrible though.

------
privateersman
I think this is a symptom that the movie industry is on its way out, in much
the same way as has happened to music.

They were flush with cash during the early 2000s thanks to TV and DVD. It was
like a golden age with lots of studios producing unusual material.

The problem is the internet has damaged their tiered selling technique, yet
their projects are still as expensive and risky.

~~~
thewopr
But what's interesting is that TV is having such a different trajectory (TV as
in video packaged as episodes, the lines have blurred). Netflix and the like.

I often wonder if TV is winning because it has built-in sequels. If a series
doesn't stick, whatever, money lost. If a new series does well, you can milk
it for many many more seasons. TV vs Movies, the risk in cost is the same but
the upside is much higher for TV.

~~~
tw04
That's because instead of trying to fill 3 movies, TV can just flow naturally
until it's done. Yes, for some shows they end up with filler either because
they want to drag it out, or they don't have quite enough to fill an entire
last season... but for the most part it feels like TV shows don't have that
pressure to fit into a very tight box.

~~~
manarth
> _TV can just flow naturally until it 's done_

If only it stopped when it really _was_ done: Firefly, The 4400, Terra Nova,
SGU…

~~~
maxerickson
Firefly+Serenity could be a pretty great ~20 episode series.

If it followed TV success, it would have 50-100 forgettable episodes to go
with 20 good ones.

I think this applies to an awful lot of stuff on TV. The economics of it mean
that buying season 5 is a better choice than taking a risk on something new. I
think better stories would get told if series were generally shorter.

------
jfoutz
To throw things in a greek setting, Marvel is traditionally comedy and DC is
tragedy. Iron Man is a drunken, womanizing asshole. Robert Downey Jr was is
brilliant because he's still likeable. Sure, he's rich, but his life is a
mess. You can look down on him. He's a fun guy, you want him to make it, but
he's still kind of a scumbag. Christopher Nolan's Batman is the opposite.
Sure, he's rich, but he's facing some big demons. There's a note of sadness,
because in spite of his advantages, he faces some terrible challenges. You
feel for the guy, because he suffers so much. Marvel is relatable, at least
i'm handling my life better than that guy. DC is aspirational, i wish i was
strong enough to handle what they handle. This is a sweeping generalization,
but i think it's generally true.

I've seen most of the movies the author called out, and i enjoyed them. I
can't say i enjoyed them enough to see in a theater, but they're fun. I think
of them as Saturday afternoon matinee movies. I like movies. I don't mind
flaws, but those popcorn movies are something i'll wait to watch on a Tuesday
night with a couple of beers.

I think warner's big problem is they're spending 100+ million dollars to
produce something that's in the 20-60 million range. I'll watch them,
independent of production value, because i like movies. But i'm going to get
the $2.99 SD itunes version, i'm not going to spend the 12 bucks to see that
in the theater. (i did see suicide squad opening night, but the ticket was
free)

I hope they figure it out. WB made some great stuff, and some fun stuff.
They're just not quite calibrated right. If you're going to blow 100M+ on a
movie, you really need the details right. Calling back to Suicide squad, it
was fun. I really enjoyed it, and i'd be happy to pay 3-5 dollars on a
weeknight to watch it. If i had to pay $12 for the ticket, and another $10 for
the popcorn and soda (how can you not get popcorn and soda?!? it completes the
experience!) I'd be annoyed.

~~~
sandworm101
Iron man is a jerk. He is the embodiment of all that is wrong with our
economy. But that is why the Marvel movies work. That's what I like about
them. The characters are human enough for me to actually care. Superman? He is
too flat for me to have any opinion.

For all the bluster, the MCU is full of metaphor and leveled humor. My
favorite is the 1-minute WWII skit in Avengers (The old jewish man about to be
killed by the german, saved by the soldier who then needs the scientist to
force a surrender ... that's the american story of WWII.) It isn't
historically accurate, but it's fun. You don't see stuff like that in the DC
movies. They have no metaphor, no depth. That requires writers and crews who
both care about the work and aren't afraid for their jobs.

~~~
jfoutz
> Superman? He is too flat for me to have any opinion.

IMHO, Superman is ethical. He'll stop a nuclear launch and get a cat out of a
tree, because he's the ultimate boy scout. Every problem is important to
solve, and he has the power to, at least try, to solve them all. Violate
ethics for the greater good? Never.

I don't think the Superman point has really come across since Christopher
Reeve. I really liked the Nolan Batman movies. He was able to really capture
the spirit of that character. It's a shame WB couldn't put that together for
Superman.

~~~
sandworm101
That he is ethical is part of the problem. He is the perpetual rescuer. He
doesn't initiate action, only reacts to situations forced upon him. IronMan
does things because he wants to. He has an internal personality. Thor has an
internal life. Even Hulk makes decisions on his own occasionally. Superman's
role, like Captain America, is to apply ethics to a situation created by
someone else. They are perpetually innocent, perpetually perfect, and
therefore perpetually boring.

My favorite characters are probably Colson and Fury, both dynamic people who
take action on their own. The make mistakes because they make mistakes, not
because they are forced or tricked into doing so by evil guy. We don't always
know what they are thinking, or by which ethical rules they operate. That's
interesting. That's worth watching. Batman and Superman are empty shells in
comparison.

------
eggy
Great letter especially mixing in love of the material, and company vs. poor
leadership and execution. It's a shame, since this is an amazing time for
comics/fantasy fans around the world. So many old properties being mashed up,
brought to the screen, and a younger generation eager to watch them.

I wonder if it has stolen a large part of the Western anime market?

Edge of Tomorrow was a sneaky surprise. I've seen it several times, and my
children loved it. A lot of fun for such a simple premise. I wasn't aware it
didn't do well fiscally, since everyone I know loved it. I guess it might be
doing better on DVD/digital release?

I grew up in the late 60s early 70s, and it was always DC vs. Marvel. As much
as I appreciated Batman and Superman back then, even though Batman wasn't a
thing for me until Frank Miller in 1986, I was a Marvel fan. Spiderman,
because he was a local boy, the underdog, and kids in my neighborhood could
relate.

I guess I will wait for Suicide Squad on DVD/digital, and not waste the
theater ticket.

[Edit] Pretty strong objections from Director of Wonder Woman, Patty Jenkins,
basically saying the letter misinformation -
[https://twitter.com/PattyJenks?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw](https://twitter.com/PattyJenks?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

------
kiba
I wonder why story quality in movies such a toss-up?

They got screenwriters, producers, and editors, right?

You think movie studios should had managed to figure out 'consistent quality'
by now.

~~~
jedberg
Sunk cost fallacy. A director shoots bad material, they don't go back and
start over. They make due with what they have because of what they've already
spent on it.

Disney does the opposite. Look at what we've heard about the Rogue One -- the
studio felt that it was good but not great and sent them back for a whole
bunch of (expensive) reshoots. Pixar does the same. If they don't like the
final product they'll rip it apart and do it again.

~~~
sangnoir
> If they don't like the final product they'll rip it apart and do it again.

WB dies that too, but they can't seem to do it _right_. In the aftermath of
_Batman v Superman_ flopping, WB panicked and asked Ayer to "punch up"
_Suicide Squad_ adding more humor and faster pacing - this included reshoots.
SS wasn't originally meant to be a blockbuster, but an end of summer fun movie

------
native
Hollywood. What does that even mean anymore ? They've run out of good ideas
along that ago and with all the writing talent in the world to boot. And its's
not by accident. You've got MBA execs with not a atom in their soul about art
or creativity calling the shots.

------
neveroffensive
Am I the only one who kind of liked Suicide Squad? I mean the sound track was
great...

~~~
madebysquares
Suicide Squad was very entertaining sure it had a few missteps but it's not
that bad. I mean was anybody expecting Inception? It was far more enjoyable
than Man of Steel or BVS or Pan or many of the other bombs WB has made
recently.

------
mouzogu
Is there some reason that Zack Snyder is allowed to keep directing and
producing these mediocre films?

It's clear that storytelling is not his strength. So what is it exactly that's
keeping him in the directors chair?

------
basicplus2
This resonates with me too.. similar to screw over workers who get the job
done and steal all the I'll gotten gains with a personal payrise..

------
Grue3
Didn't Suicide Squad break the box office record? This whole post reads like
sour grapes.

~~~
20yrs_no_equity
It was a fun movie, but it was weak in a lot of the same ways that Batman vs
Superman were weak. So, I see the criticism.

Well and poorly executed movies both can connect with the audience, but the
author of the letter presumably believes that well executed movies are more
likely to do so.

------
ekianjo
A decent article, but the end weakens it bad:

> I love that studio, and you're allowing it to sink. It's not about making
> movies for 'the fans' and not 'the critics.' It's not even about 'ruining
> childhoods.' It's about protecting livelihoods.

Companies do not exist to make their employees happy and employed forever. The
fact that they do is because it goes with their interest for a given amount of
time, but that does not mean it always do. Pretending it's the company goal to
"protect livelihoods" is just wrong. Companies are not welfare agents.

~~~
slantedview
This misses the point of the article entirely. The point was that when
leadership screws up, the lower level employees suffer. No accountability at
the top.

~~~
CamatHN
The top has to have the ability and leeway for things to go wrong so that they
can take risks. To make sure they take the right risks they are stakeing a %
of their pay if its in options or bonuses as well as in their reputation.

~~~
dpark
> _To make sure they take the right risks they are stakeing a % of their pay
> if its in options or bonuses as well as in their reputation._

Did you manage to hold a straight face while you wrote that? The people at the
top still walk away with millions or more when they screw up. The people at
the bottom walk away with very little. Whether the risks are worth taking is a
good question, but certainly the people at the top don't feel the bulk of the
pain if the risks don't pay off.

