A Quote by Nelson Peltz

I'm willing to have two directors on the DuPont board, me being one of them. — © Nelson Peltz
I'm willing to have two directors on the DuPont board, me being one of them.
I think every responsible public board at every board meeting should be discussing succession. And, of course, Walmart has a very mature board: our chairman Rob Walton and other members. So succession is an ongoing. I think when I first joined the board of directors, it was discussed then. And it's discussed at every board meeting continually.
General Motors could buy Delaware if DuPont were willing to sell it.
Lots of entrepreneurs don't want to be hassled by a board of directors early on. The entrepreneurs want to control the company, don't want to be responsible to a board, or don't want to waste time communicating with board members. This is a classic error of thinking about the early stage board incorrectly.
I was representing our chemical company clients, and I would routinely talk with or meet with the DuPont attorneys, would be there representing DuPont at these same cleanup sites. So I knew those folks.
I always feel like I learn more from directors that are new, and I also am able to understand how much I really do know about filmmaking when you work with directors that maybe don't have as much experience, so you're able to sort of take the reins. I know how to do these movies, I've done so many of them and have learned from new directors who are usually willing to try new things and are more open to allowing someone like me to kind of come in and just do what I know how to do.
The role of a board of directors is to be a sounding board for the vision of the company - to hold executives accountable in executing that vision and to ensure a management succession plan is in place.
Having an investor on your board of directors who is naive about public markets or finds them complex or scary is non-optimal.
A board member should be perfectly willing to leave at any time and willing to make the tough calls.
There are two types of directors: the directors who take and directors who give.
I've always thought that as long as directors and casting directors don't see me as just Harry Potter, I'll be OK. People have shown a lot of faith in me, and I owe them a huge debt. They're letting me prove that I'm serious about this.
Frankly speaking, I hate comparisons. Two individuals are doing two different films, playing two different characters: how can you compare them? It is not fair to get into ratings. It really doesn't matter what I think about other actresses; what matters is what the directors think of them when they are casting them in a project, because I think it's the director who's behind a successful piece of cinema.
In terms of directors, great actors make directors - Gary Oldman was great to work with, for me; Tim Roth, too. You work with Scorsese and Spielberg and they were wonderful directors, but for me, working with actor/directors is special.
I adapt to directors, I don't like making directors adapt to me. If I'm with Clint Eastwood then I'll do two takes, if I'm with Fincher I'll do 50 - though the thought of that sounds horrible.
Part of being an artist is being willing to be shocked, being willing to be surprised, being willing to be hurt.
There are two kinds of directors: There's the kind where two plus two equals four, and you have to help them figure it out. And then there's the kind that throws you in a room, locks the door, sets the house on fire and films it.
Here's an idea: Spend two or three hours a day at least five days a week in front of a bookstore wearing a sandwich board with your bookcover on it while you chase and chat with anyone you can corral and who is willing to talk to you.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!