Hollywood Tussle: Roth vs. Murdoch : Movies: The former Fox film chief fires back at his former boss, who accuses him of being only a one-note wonder (two ‘Home Alones’) while at the studio.

When studio chief Joe Roth departed 20th Century Fox last November for a production deal at Walt Disney Studios, he was a very happy man. His newly formed Caravan Pictures would produce five studio-financed pictures a year. He had the right, unheard of for a producer, to greenlight pictures without clearance from above. Not least, he’d be getting out from under News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch who, for the past year, had also served as head of Fox Inc.

Roth has been jolted out of Fantasyland however, by some well-placed jabs from Murdoch. Not only was Roth’s departure less than voluntary, Murdoch is now suggesting, but his 3 1/2-year stint less than stellar. Months before his contract was up, the studio had been eyeing a successor. Though Roth’s desire to form his own independent company was a factor, Murdoch said, other considerations also entered in.

“The appointment of Peter Chernin was planned not by me but by Barry Diller,” said Murdoch, referring to the ex-chairman of Fox Inc.--a News Corp. subsidiary that encompasses both the film studio and Fox Television--who left his post last February. “Diller felt strongly that Peter was the stronger executive. He was restless with the film division. And, for reasons I won’t go into, he and Roth weren’t getting on.”

Though it was well known that there were sparks between Roth and Diller, the 44-year-old Roth left Fox on a high. As the first director in nearly 55 years to head a major studio, he tripled the number of Fox releases, more than doubled its market share and propelled the studio from a last-place tie among the major studios in box-office standing to a third place finish last year.

Numbers, Murdoch cautioned, can be misleading. “Joe got this place activated and going very well,” he acknowledged. “But, minus the two ‘Home Alones,’ profits from the releases were not only unimpressive . . . they weren’t there.”

“Revisionist history,” charge Roth’s fans. And, in the wake of a gushy Vanity Fair story on the producer (“Mighty Joe Roth”), sour grapes. Murdoch--whose dynasty was the subject of a recent downbeat story in Business Week, they claim, is out to cut Roth down to size.

“News Corp. is a publicly traded company,” notes an executive at a rival studio. “And if Chernin’s slate doesn’t work, stockholders are going to ask why they replaced a classy film executive with a ‘TV guy.’ Murdoch is trying to justify that move by saying that Roth wasn’t so good in the first place.”

The books back up Murdoch. Without the $400 million in domestic box office from the “Home Alone” duo, confirms a company official, the profits and losses from the other releases were basically a wash.

“Joe’s second and third years were the two most profitable in Fox history with earnings in the range of $200 million and $150 million,” he says, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “But, without ‘Home Alone’ and ‘Home Alone 2,’ (Roth’s regime was) only marginally so. A case can be made that profit was lackluster. In that sense, Rupert is right.”

Roth picks up the gauntlet in his behalf. “Whatever the statistics, I took a dormant company and turned it into an active one--one that made movies. Some worked. Some didn’t. But we were up there with the big guys, Warner Bros. and Disney--two stable, moviemaking juggernauts.”

Using what he terms the “Katzenberg Criteria”--espoused by the Disney chief--any film grossing more than $50 million domestically is considered a “hit.” By those standards, he says, Fox had 13.

“ ‘The Last of the Mohicans,’ ‘Hot Shots,’ ‘My Cousin Vinny,’ ‘Edward Scissorhands’ . . . I could go on,” Roth says. “I don’t know of anyone else who had more of them during that time. Foisting the idea that we were a one-hit studio is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that Murdoch did ask me to stay on--though at the same terms at which I’d been working until that point.”

Roth doesn’t deny he had his share of big-budget flops (“For the Boys,” “Shining Through,” “Toys”). Nor that a sizable percentage of his slate--”Dutch,” “The Five Heartbeats,” “This Is My Life,” for starters--failed to take off. But check the results of any of the studios, he suggests.

“It’s not about getting a hit every time you’re up,” he said, “but about having three or four movies that bang out your year. You have to take a lot of shots to get them. One big hit gives you 10 times as much as you lose on your biggest loss. Together, the profits of ‘Die Hard 2,’ ‘Sleeping With the Enemy’ and ‘White Men Can’t Jump’ were well in excess of $150 million.”

Industry analysts point out that box office is not always a barometer of profitability. A number of films that seemed to fizzle were more lucrative than they seemed. “Joe’s a genius with numbers,” remarks one executive, “and frequently hedged his bets.”

The inner-city drama “Jumpin’ in the Boneyard” grossed only $15,000 but, with a bare-bones budget of $600,000 and ancillary sales, the studio still came out ahead. “Night and the City” (gross: $6 million) cost considerably more, but potential loss was minimized by pre-selling foreign rights--a strategy that unfortunately also reduced Fox profits on the hit “The Last of the Mohicans.” Since the studio only picked up the tab for marketing on the ecological animated feature “Fern Gully” (gross: $24.5 million), Fox actually did very well.

Corporate bookkeeping clouds things even more, since the Filmed Entertainment Division includes revenues from films in the Fox library and TV, as well as those generated by new movie releases. According to a Fox official, Murdoch’s contention about the studio’s lack of profitability is valid only by assigning, as the studio does, all the annual overhead solely to new releases. The 60% drop in the division’s operating income in fiscal 1992 was also influenced by the fact that at least part of the remaining dispensation on Diller’s contract was said to have been deducted from it.

“Joe’s years here were very profitable, but keep in mind that the industry has expanded,” adds the official. “Revenues are 3 1/2 times what they were two decades ago and the numbers have to be adjusted for inflation. The real issue is return on investment and sales. And in that context, those years were not extraordinary.”

Roth--a director-producer and co-founder of Morgan Creek Productions, first came to Fox in 1988 to discuss the possibility of an independent production deal. Barry Diller persuaded him to take on the top job. The relationship between the two was a tempestuous one but, in the end, the chemistry worked. Diller saw 20th Century Fox back on track after a succession of short-term chiefs. Roth knew that by locking horns some of the best work got done. “I helped Barry out,” he says, in retrospect. “If there was bad blood I didn’t know about it.”

Diller acknowledges that the idea of replacing Roth with Chernin was his. “Joe told me consistently that he didn’t want to be a long-term executive,” he says. “I took him at his word.”

Ironically, it was Diller himself who bolted the studio, leaving Roth and Murdoch to work things out. When Murdoch decided to step into Diller’s shoes and oversee the film division, insiders saw the writing on the wall. “Once Murdoch took over, Roth had to go,” one states. “He’s a free spirit and won’t be broken by anyone. He’s not used to doing anything on demand.”

Though Roth initially chalked up his exit to the need for lifestyle and professional change, he now admits that, given more money and greater profit participation, he might have signed on. After holding a hot hand for the better part of two years, now was the time to cash in.

A source close to the proceedings confirms that an offer was made. “Joe would have stayed if they’d met his terms,” he says. “Rupert would have kept Joe if he’d gotten him for a deal. He’s primarily concerned with economics.”

Dollars and cents, counters Murdoch, were never an issue. Negotiations revolved solely around an independent production deal. “Joe’s departure was not about money but about his desire for his own company,” he says. “No question, he wanted to make a change. We passed on his terms which he thought he could get from Columbia. They passed--and he got his Disney deal.”

Whatever the fiscal realities, outsiders rate Roth’s artistic output pretty high. And relationships with filmmakers such as John Hughes (“Home Alone”) and James Cameron (“Aliens”) moreover, should serve the studio well.

Murdoch acknowledges that, even under the best of circumstances, the role of studio chief can be a thankless one. “The job is a hot seat,” he says, “and this is a very difficult business. Joe had his share of successes and failures. I don’t want to seem too critical.”

Roth, too, raises a white flag. “I have no hard feelings,” he insists. “I admire Murdoch. I’m fond of him and his wife, Anna. I’m particularly fond of his children--one of whom I’ll probably end up employing on a picture this summer.

“I served as long and hard as I could,” he concludes, “and walked out of there believing Murdoch honestly wanted me to stay. The bottom line is that I did my job . . . and thought everyone was happy with it.”