The Studio Chief Betting Millions Michael Jackson Can Still Fill Seats

Adam Fogelson was photographed March 17 in Santa Monica. Photographed by Christopher Patey

Adam Fogelson is seizing his moment. The chair of Lionsgate’s Motion Picture Group is coming off a string of major hits, including the threequel Now You See Me: Now You Don’t ($243.7 million worldwide on a $90 million budget) and the franchise starter The Housemaid ($398 million on a $35 million budget). The success feels affirming, with his slate still in its nascent stages; it only officially launched in September with the critical darling The Long Walk, from Hunger Games franchise director Francis Lawrence (returning for the upcoming new installment Sunrise on the Reaping).

It’s good timing, too, since Fogelson stepped in to lead the motion picture group in January 2024 — after which the studio dropped some high-profile disappointments that spelled trouble. The video game adaptation Borderlands cratered. The Crow did not fly. The John Wick universe extension Ballerina didn’t wind up extending much at all.

But Fogelson is eager to unpack it all. Over the course of a wide-ranging interview with The Hollywood Reporter from his Santa Monica office, he argues that those headline-grabbers — both the smashes and the flops — don’t paint the complete picture of Lionsgate, a unique player in an industry otherwise increasingly driven by consolidation and streaming. The former STX and Universal Pictures head discusses the lessons still being learned, good and bad, in his time since taking over Lionsgate — and ahead of a year filled with potential for both major breakthroughs and fresh controversies. 

You’re coming off of a great few months and an up-and-down few years. What’s your overarching assessment of where Lionsgate is right now?

There will always be both pleasant surprises and unpleasant surprises. It’s the nature of the business, but if you are operating efficiently and with the right team and you have the right material, we can be an incredibly compelling place to make, market and distribute motion pictures.

Fogelson (far right) at CinemaCon with The Housemaid stars Amanda Seyfried (left) and Sydney Sweeney, as well as filmmaker Paul Feig. A sequel is set for Christmas 2027. Ethan Miller/Getty Images

The Housemaid was a massive hit for a mid-budget film. What lessons are you drawing from that as you plot a sequel? 

When you are working at a company like STX or now Lionsgate, the opportunity to make films that are more focused on their target audience — it changes the equation a little bit about how many slots a year you can give to films that aren’t potentially billion-dollar films. 

We also believed that the marketing questions that we were going to be able to ask the audience on this film, with this filmmaker and this cast, were going to be really provocative — and that’s one of the biggest challenges right now. When I was growing up as a marketer, you couldn’t guarantee people would want to see your movie, but if you bought enough commercials on the right television programs, you could pretty much guarantee people were going to know it existed. That is not true anymore. People’s attention is way too dispersed across all of the channels and opportunities. … The filmmaking team and the cast that we assembled were willing to not only do the hard work to make a great film but were excited to do the hard work of promoting that film. 

Amid the positives, what scares you the most right now about the industry?

We are a pure-play content creation company — there aren’t yet other at-scale lines of business that can mitigate what happens if you were to go on a really bad run. The industry surprises not only to the positive but to the negative have gotten so extreme that you certainly worry [about] that. But that challenge is mitigated by the fact that this company has demonstrated its resilience. In the year that Borderlands was released, on paper, you couldn’t have a more challenging 18 months than this company had. The mid- and low-budget films that worked actually worked really well but don’t generate a lot of positive press. And there was one big movie, and it wildly underperformed. However, when the company reported its earnings, we reported a profit as a pure-play entertainment company.

How do you see Lionsgate’s place in this moment of industry consolidation?

If the deal goes through and Warners and Paramount are each making 15 movies a year, it might be that nothing changes. If that number were to come down by a bit here or there, every movie that doesn’t get made by one of those studios is another opportunity for us. I understand why people talk about the volume of films being critical to the health of the industry. I don’t disagree, but I would say even more important than the volume of films is the quality of films being made. We will absolutely be monitoring where we can take advantage of open space because we have the luxury of doing that in ways that others can’t and shouldn’t. If there is more consolidation and it creates more opportunities for us to make additional films, to win additional projects that might have previously gone elsewhere and attract filmmakers who don’t feel like they may have all the support they need somewhere else? Fantastic. 

Going back to The Housemaid, the ability to put a movie like it in the Christmas corridor is partially a function of not having a $200 million tentpole that needs to occupy the Christmas space. You have to have a movie you believe can compete and you have to have filmmakers who trust you.

Was that a tricky conversation with the Housemaid filmmakers? 

Sure. Look, all dating and marketing conversations are tricky. We have as many of the conversations before the greenlight as we possibly can. … You’d better have really well-thought-out answers to a question that you can’t prove anything on. There is some degree of speculation in how you make those decisions, but I can tell you on that movie: Paul Feig and Todd Lieberman and Sydney Sweeney and Amanda Seyfried asked all of the right, really hard questions, and when we were finished giving them our answers, they said, “You’ve clearly thought about it and we trust you.”

Jaafar Jackson (in red) plays his late uncle Michael Jackson in Michael, which likely will be a two-part feature. Glen Wilson/Lionsgate

Michael is your next big release. There’s lots of anticipation and speculation around it. What can you share about the plan in terms of reports of a two-film release strategy?

This first movie stops well short of telling the full story of Michael Jackson. There is a lot of amazing music in this catalog that this part of the story doesn’t get to. So we have said that there is room for another film, and I can tell you that the filmmaking team has been hard at work being ready for a second film, and when the right moment comes, we would be excited to announce that that is definitively happening. … I’m encouraged that there is more story to tell and that we have a really good shot at being in a position to deliver.

Michael’s original third act depicted someone who alleged sexual abuse against Jackson when he was 13 and later reached an agreement to not be depicted in any dramatization involving Jackson. This led to a legal challenge against the film. You pushed the release date and rejiggered the film in reshoots — how did you decide to move forward? 

We sat with [director] Antoine Fuqua and [producer] Graham King and talked about both the challenges and the opportunities that were created when the situation arose. The opportunity was to take more of our time with a very meaningful and full part of the story of [Jackson’s] life and not be worrying about a movie that was going to really be struggling with a hyper-epic length. Let’s use the opportunity to tell this part of the story of the rise of the King of Pop in a way that is the most artistically satisfying. Then we will determine if, when and how to tell more of the story. 

But Jackson obviously is a controversial figure here. Is that something you’re talking about when you’re discussing the shape of the film — addressing that? 

The credibility that Antoine and Graham bring to a project like this shouldn’t be undervalued. These are not water-carrying people. I don’t believe either of them would join a project that they didn’t believe was a valuable and authentic representation of whatever it is they were trying to tell. Let me start there. 

There are a few things that are inarguable. Michael Jackson is one of, if not the most, influential artists in human history. The idea that there can’t or shouldn’t be a biopic about him doesn’t seem particularly fair. The point is to get some insight into who this person was, and the movie absolutely does justice to that — whatever you want to make of that, each individual person will have the opportunity to think for themselves.

You attracted an impressive cast of decorated actors for the next Hunger Games movie. What distinguishes this franchise for talent? 

There is depth and nuance to these characters that you don’t often find in something that also qualifies as tentpole popcorn fare. When you marry that to the trust that talent has with our filmmaking team, you couldn’t get all of the casts that we got if it didn’t speak to a general joyfulness and affection that people have for both the material and the filmmakers. This just indicates how powerful the IP is and how entrusted the filmmaking team is. 

You’re following Suzanne Collins’ lead with her Hunger Games books, but how do you think about expanding IP universes like Now You See Me or Saw, without overplaying your hand? 

Is there something we know the audience wants or is there something we could deliver for the audience that we believe will inspire genuine and meaningful enthusiasm? That’s the question. I don’t think Now You See Me 3 could or should have existed two, three, four, five years after the last film. Part of the calculus was recognizing how much affection people still had for both the characters in the movie and the actors who played the characters in the movie and an assessment of what a reunion of those characters would feel like. … When we talk about something like [the upcoming sequel to] Dirty Dancing, if you sit in a room and say to people, “Would you like to go back to Kellerman’s with Baby?” the emotional response that you get is pretty profound.

The filmmaking team that has worked on the last nine or 10 Saw films did an extraordinary job, [and] James Wan has become one of the foremost filmmakers in that space since working on [the first] Saw. What would it mean to bring James back to the Saw franchise and give him enough creative control? In hearing his pitch on what he would like to do with the franchise, we think the fan base, old and new, is going to be wildly compelled by that. The risks are that sometimes there can be pressure to extend a franchise that the audience isn’t really all that excited about anymore.

How do you reflect on the underperformance of a movie like Ballerina, which was an extension of John Wick?

The exits on Ballerina are I think the second most favorable exits of any of the Wick films, so all credit to the entire filmmaking team for delivering what was ultimately a very satisfying movie. That said, Ballerina was not constructed to answer a question. Does the studio wish it had done more? Sure. Do I think in any way that speaks to people’s desire for more John Wick movies? Not at all. The ballerina was not a character that ever existed in the John Wick lore. But we have been asked all the time since John Wick 4 [about leaving] Caine [played by martial artist/actor Donnie Yen]in a very interesting and precarious place. What happens from there — and by the way, who is that character? Donnie is now directing and starring in a movie with his particular style and flair and expertise that isn’t copying anything from the Wick world but is furthering the story of one of the most extraordinary characters to come out of the Wick universe ever. Those all feel like authentic reasons to expand.

Fogelson (right) is plotting another John Wick with Keanu Reeves. Vivien Killilea/Getty Images

You brought in a chief AI officer earlier this year. What role do you see AI playing at this point in the actual development of films at Lionsgate?

I’m personally proud of the company for having said early on we think it’s important to understand this space. It made a lot of noise when we first said it, but subsequent to that, everyone else has now said it, too. What we’re not using it for is to replace the creative talent that is essential to making great content. That is not the intention, and I don’t believe in my lifetime that could ever be the intention. It can be used in various ways in the preproduction process and in the postproduction process to make movies better or more efficient.

I paid attention to a lot of conversation around the viral AI video of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt fighting on a rooftop, and there were a large number of people whose quick response was, “Oh no!” My response was, if that was me and you fighting on that rooftop, no one would’ve cared. 

You mentioned building out a go-forward Lionsgate slate at the beginning of our chat. We’ve discussed quite a range of films, so how would you define it?

One, having a healthy stable of IP that you believe in and have some evidence to support the audience wants more of is a lovely place to be. We think that Michael fits that bill. This Hunger Games book sold faster than any Hunger Games book in history; the audience has told us they really want to know more. The Resurrection [of the Christ] in two parts: I will say that in my travels around the country and around the world over the past 20 years, when people find out I work in this business, just out in the general population, “Will Mel Gibson ever make a sequel to The Passion of the Christ?” is the movie I have been asked about more than any other film. 

Why is that the question you get the most? What about that particular general public resonance feels unique?

Passion was the most successful R-rated movie in history for years, and it’s still definitely in the top echelon. It told one of the most important stories in human history, no matter what perspective you bring to it, and I think it spoke to — among others — a large group of people who don’t feel like the traditional Hollywood community made content for them. I’m not suggesting that Passion was made exclusively for a faith audience, but certainly part of what made it so amazing at the time was there hadn’t been a movie that had committed to being authentic for that audience. Many more pieces of content exist now than did previously.

And the last upcoming film I want to ask you about is the one you’re making with Johnny Depp. It’s his first American movie since his highly publicized trial — really, since the pandemic. What was the conversation around bringing him back into a mainstream studio space?

The criteria for Day Drinker is the exact same criteria that I talked about using on every film. Do we think it can be creatively great? Do we have a vision route to market it? And is there a rational business plan attached to it? From a creatively great standpoint, we thought the script was wildly compelling. We thought that with Marc Webb as a director and Basil Iwanyk and Erica Lee as primary producers, we were in really good hands. The role feels like it was in fact tailor-made for Johnny Depp today. And every piece of industry research that I have seen in the past five years: When you ask people here and around the world to list their top five favorite actors, male and female, there is not a list I have seen where Johnny isn’t on it.

This story appeared in the April 8 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. Click here to subscribe.

THR Newsletters

Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day

Subscribe Sign Up

• PGA Awards 2028

  Producers Guild Sets PGA Awards Dates for 2027 and 2028