The day “Barbie” hit theaters in July, Mattel Chief Executive Ynon Kreiz was in New York City visiting his oldest daughter and the pair decided to walk to a nearby theater for some real-time market research. Kreiz, who had been the driving force behind the decision to bring Mattel’s iconic doll to life on the big screen, loved the film, but with its fate now in the hands of the ticket-buying public, his opinion didn’t much matter. He wanted to see how people were reacting.

His answer came quickly. As he and his daughter approached, they found themselves walking among droves of people dressed in Barbie’s signature pink. And when they poked their heads into each of the five packed theaters showing the movie, they were met with roars of laughter. Some viewers were crying.

“Feeling that reaction — that audience reaction — was very telling,” he said, “and very exciting.”

What happened after opening night is now the stuff of Hollywood legend. The Greta Gerwig-directed film became an instant hit at the box office, raking in more than $1.4 billion, and kicked off a cultural phenomenon. Less well known, though, is the role the film has played in the story of Mattel’s revival. It’s a story that was written in large part by Kreiz, 59, who took the reins when the El Segundo-based company was struggling and who over his roughly six years at the helm has orchestrated a remarkable turnaround, making Mattel into one of the biggest corporate success stories of recent years.

At the heart of his plan was a move that seemed obvious to him, but which previous leaders failed to execute: Mattel needed to make a splash in the film business. To Kreiz, Mattel’s intellectual property was a gold mine. The company had a roster of instantly recognizable characters beloved by children and adults alike that he was confident could become enormously lucrative if they were exploited wisely.

For skeptics, that remains a big if. Mattel, in need of a big win in a dark hour, understandably chose to come out of the gate with its most reliable brand. The question now is whether Barbie’s success earned the toy maker’s film division enough industry respect, and breathing room, for the studio to re-create last summer’s magic with other, less potent brands, such as Hot Wheels, Polly Pocket and the card game Uno. Complicating the already uncertain road ahead, earlier this year an activist investor began agitating for the company to jettison some of its key brands to boost its middling stock price.

“This is not a novel concept where you take a strong brand in one vertical and import it to others,” Kreiz said at a conference last fall. “At Mattel, we haven’t done it. … You have ‘Fast and Furious,’ 10, and Hot Wheels, zero.” He believes with certainty that there’s an audience for such a film. After all, Mattel already sells nearly 800 million of the die-cast cars a year.

Kreiz, who gets up around 4:30 or 5 a.m. to kiteboard or get some other workout in before work, brings a similar intensity to the office. He stays impressively on message when talking about Mattel, with seemingly effortless sound bites ready at hand, barely breaking eye contact. Watch clips of his public speaking appearances and it becomes clear he repeats talking points, often word for word, his calm, personable demeanor disguising the discipline with which he approaches the CEO role.

When asked about the key to Mattel’s transformation under his leadership, Kreiz, unhurried and with animated hands, launched into a theory that he has often recounted in interviews. Mattel’s consumers, he said, are more than just consumers — they are fans.

“And when you have a lot of fans, you have an audience,” he said.

Kreiz became Mattel’s fourth chief executive in four years when he took charge, inheriting a company that needed a lifeline. He brought with him extensive experience in the entertainment industry, having made career stops at Fox Kids Europe, Endemol Group — the production company known for its unscripted programs, including “Deal or No Deal” and “Big Brother” — and Maker Studios, a short-form video studio that Disney acquired in 2014.

The once dominant toy maker had lost its way: Some of Mattel’s biggest brands were struggling, and toy sales had been steadily declining since 2013. Its market cap had dipped more than $5 billion below that of rival Hasbro. Its second-largest customer, Toys R Us, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2017. That same year, Mattel reported a fourth-quarter loss of $281.3 million.

Kreiz needed to stop the bleeding. He restructured the company’s supply chain, reduced the number of items it produces by 35%, and cut five factories from its manufacturing lineup. The company slashed more than 2,200 jobs, 22% of its global nonmanufacturing workforce. Mattel was starting to move away from manufacturing and focus on developing its intellectual property, Kreiz told reporters. Between 2018 and 2021, Mattel said it achieved cost savings of more than a billion dollars.

The Mattel of today looks much different from the company five years ago. The toy maker is now outpacing Hasbro and dominating in fast-growing toy categories, such as fashion dolls, which are more popular than action figures at the moment, said Linda Bolton Weiser, a managing director and senior research analyst at D.A. Davidson who tracks consumer goods.

Kreiz’s work at Mattel hasn’t gone unnoticed. With Barbie’s wild success, he and the turnaround he’d orchestrated became the talk of corporate Hollywood. Matt Belloni, an industry prognosticator, recently anointed Kreiz “the Hollywood hero of the year” and said he was an obvious choice to replace Bob Iger at Disney.

When the first draft of the “Barbie” script landed in Kreiz’s inbox, he read it twice back to back. The text felt unconventional and special, and he loved it right away. Kreiz isn’t shy with his praise of Gerwig, often calling her a “creative genius.”

Robbie Brenner, the head of Mattel Films, felt the same.

Brenner, a producer who was nominated for an Academy Award for “Dallas Buyers Club,” was one of Kreiz’s first hires after starting as CEO. The two met at the Polo Lounge at the Beverly Hills Hotel after an agent suggested they connect.

“I mean, we hired Greta Gerwig for a reason, and you don’t hire Greta Gerwig and then try to cut her legs off,” Brenner added. “I think that we wanted her to fly and to tell an authentic, amazing personal story that was unique and different and bold, and surprise people.”

The film was a hit beyond expectations, both financially and in the cultural consciousness. The “Barbenheimer” opening weekend brought crowds of people back into movie theaters in numbers unheard of since the pandemic. More than a dozen fashion brands launched “Barbie” collaborations, including Zara and Vans. Burger King in Brazil sold a hamburger doused in pink sauce and French fries called “Ken’s potatoes.” “Barbiecore” was everywhere.

The movie became the highest-grossing film of 2023, surpassing $1 billion at the global box office just 17 days after its release. At a conference in September, Anthony DiSilvestro, Mattel’s chief financial officer, said that the company expected $125 million in revenue related to the “Barbie” movie — including toy sales — with a profit margin of about 60%.

Mattel declined to comment on how much its cut of the box office revenue is, but industry analysts have said the company’s take-home pay from ticket sales is in the tens of millions. In addition, insiders with knowledge of the financial arrangement said that Mattel also will receive payments for owning the rights to Barbie’s intellectual property in addition to profits as a producer of the movie, the New York Times reported.

The toy aisle also felt the effects of “Barbie” mania. Mattel’s third-quarter performance beat estimates, with sales of Barbie dolls jumping 16%. The doll category as a whole was up 27% from the previous year.

The longer-term dividends the film will pay are harder to quantify but crucial to Mattel’s future.

“Barbie” has laid the groundwork for the future of Mattel’s entertainment sector, Bolton Weiser said. “[Kreiz] is going to be able to go out there and get the best partners in Hollywood to do these future projects. And it’s all good, you know? Very low risk for Mattel. They don’t take any big capital risks doing these entertainment events. So it all makes sense.”

Mattel Films now has 16 projects in development: A J.J. Abrams-produced Hot Wheels movie, Lily Collins and Lena Dunham signed on for Polly Pocket, and Vin Diesel as a partner for Rock ’Em Sock ’Em Robots, among others.

As the scale of “Barbie’s” success became clear, a question began to circulate: Can Mattel repeat this success story? Hollywood is a fickle beast, and the company’s use of its most resonant brand for its first act was a gamble.

“It’s difficult to imagine any other movie based on a toy ever reaching ‘Barbie’s’ heights,” Eliana Dockterman, who reviews TV and films for Time magazine, wrote in August. “Barbie is an icon. She has name recognition across the world equal to Mickey Mouse and Coca-Cola. And, sure, Hot Wheels may be popular, but won’t a Hot Wheels movie just be a racing movie, even if J.J. Abrams is at the helm as executive producer?”

Still, Dockterman admitted that she’s curious about Mattel’s next entertainment ventures, namely “Daniel Kaluuya’s involvement with what sounds like a very meta Barney movie (as in, yes, the big purple dinosaur); whether Lena Dunham can find a quirky take on Polly Pocket; and if a Magic 8 Ball horror movie can actually prove to be scary.”

Kreiz quickly brushed off concerns of “Barbie” as a one-hit wonder. “We’re not saying that every movie will be as successful as ‘Barbie,’” he said, “but we absolutely look to have the same approach in terms of attracting and collaborating with the talent, supporting and backing the talent,” and enticing Mattel’s built-in fan base to the theater.

“The idea is to create something unique in every movie,” he added. “Every project has a unique purpose, and will have a unique voice.”

While “Barbie” captured fans’ collective imagination last year, Mattel’s future is not tied exclusively to films. Company execs like to joke that the nearly 800 million Hot Wheels sold annually make Mattel the biggest auto manufacturer in the world.

In September, the company unveiled a two-story L.A. flagship store for American Girl at the Westfield Century City Mall. On opening day, a line of toddlers to tweens, with dolls clutched to their chests and their parents in tow, lined up in front of the store’s doors. Inside, the cafe serves doll-sized pancakes on tiered serving trays alongside plates of human-sized ones. A hair and nail salon styles dolls and their humans.

But Kreiz’s big bet on entertainment is never far off. Mattel announced in December plans to give the American Girl brand its own Hollywood treatment with a live-action movie directed by Lindsey Anderson Beer. Some of the American Girls have already starred in movies, mostly direct-to-DVD and made-for-TV films, but the company is aiming to go bigger.

Nostalgia, tapped effectively, can be a powerful force at the box office. There is a reason why studios keep reaching for reboots and reimaginings of beloved franchises — fans want to reconnect with characters with whom they have a history. But it can be a tricky business trying to nail the sweet spot of familiarity and freshness.

Kreiz thinks the company is up to the task.

“Play is our language,” he said. “This is how we start the journey. This is how we speak to our fans.”

Two weeks after the sale talks collapsed between Paramount Global and Skydance Media, the company’s co-chief executives tried to rally employees for the future in a packed town hall meeting Tuesday morning.

The company’s so-called “Office of the CEO,” comprising division heads George Cheeks, Chris McCarthy and Brian Robbins, addressed 500 employees on the Paramount Pictures studio lot in Los Angeles while thousands more tuned in remotely.

“We know what a difficult and disruptive period it has been,” Robbins said during the meeting, which was held at the famed movie and TV studio’s Paramount Theatre. “And while we cannot say that the noise will disappear, we are here today to lay out a go-forward plan that can set us up for success no matter what path the company chooses to go down.”

That plan is a multipronged approach intended to increase profits for Paramount’s streaming service while cutting costs and putting some of the company’s assets up for sale. The company has struggled to compete in streaming, while its once-robust cable channels continue to decline.

“Let me be clear … a 61% decline in profits is simply unacceptable,” McCarthy said during the meeting, referring to recent dismal financial results. “We need to act now to reverse this trend.”

Paramount is advancing talks with potential partners to expand the international reach of Paramount+, which could help make up for the declines in linear TV.

The company is also looking at selling certain assets and has already hired bankers to help with the process, Cheeks said. Those assets could include BET and non-CBS-affiliated TV stations. Proceeds from any potential sales could help Paramount pay down its mountain of debt.

It’s all part of a $500-million cost-cutting plan the company previously telegraphed earlier this month, which would include an unspecified number of layoffs. The belt tightening comes after several waves of cost-cutting and previous asset sales, such as the jettisoning of book publishing giant Simon & Schuster and CBS real estate, including its Manhattan skyscraper and the movie and television lot in Studio City.

The Office of the CEO structure was established after the firing of Chief Executive Bob Bakish, who opposed controlling shareholder Shari Redstone’s plan for Skydance Media and its leader David Ellison to take over Paramount.

Skydance, Paramount and Redstone’s holding company National Amusements Inc. has until recently engaged in months of closely watched deal talks. Under the proposal, Skydance would have acquired National Amusements, including Redstone’s voting shares in Paramount. Then Paramount would have acquired Skydance, putting Ellison in charge of the combined company.

Paramount’s special committee was set to vote on the complicated transaction, but Redstone pulled her support at the last minute, killing the deal.

Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for the Securities and Exchange Commission to penalize fund managers accused of defrauding investors.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices said those accused of stock frauds are entitled to a jury trial in a federal court, not an administrative hearing before a judge appointed by the SEC.

The court said the 7th Amendment and its right to a jury trial is not limited to private lawsuits, but extends to suits brought by the government seeking fines or penalties for violating the law.

“A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court. “Rather than recognize that right, the dissent would permit Congress to concentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury in the hands of the executive branch. That is the very opposite of the separation of powers that the Constitution demands.”

Dissenting, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling will make it much harder to enforce regulatory laws.

Congress has “enacted more than 200 statutes authorizing dozens of agencies to impose civil penalties for violations of statutory obligations. Congress had no reason to anticipate the chaos today’s majority would unleash after all these years,” she said. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The decision is consistent with the conservative court’s determination to rein in the so-called “administrative state.”

Congress created the SEC in 1934 in response to the stock market crash with a mission to root out schemes and frauds that cheated investors.

In recent years, conservatives have criticized the SEC as an agency with unchecked power. They say it can enact rules as a legislature does, investigate potential violations as a prosecutor, and at times serve as judge and jury to impose large fines on those who violate its rules.

The case of SEC vs. Jarkesy focused on the agency’s unusual power to seek large fines and penalties through in-house administrative hearings.

In 2007, George Jarkesy launched a hedge fund in Houston that managed about $24 million for 120 investors. It lost money after the Wall Street sell-off in 2008.

The SEC later said he had misled investors by telling them a prominent accounting firm was serving as an auditor and an investment bank was serving as a broker. The agency also said he inflated the value of shares to inflate his management fees.

The SEC brought an administrative claim against Jarkesy and his Patriot28 fund, and after more than six years of review, he was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $300,000 and to “disgorge” $685,000 in illicit gains.

On appeal, his attorney said Jarkesy was “put to trial before a captive agency judge sitting unconstitutionally with no right to a jury.” The SEC “almost always wins in its own courts,” he said.

Congress has steadily expanded the types of cases eligible for administrative hearings. The SEC increased its use of the administrative process after losing a series of jury trials in insider-trading cases, including a 2013 verdict favoring Mark Cuban, then an owner of the Dallas Mavericks.