" In Hollywood, self-interest always seems to trump everything"
September 8, 2015 9:29 AM   Subscribe

Inside the Agent Raid That Changed Hollywood in One Day
When UTA raided CAA, poaching 10 top talent reps in less than 24 hours, it did more than set off a conflict that threatens to draw in every agency in town, it shined a light on a dark truth: Bankable stars, like oil, are a vanishing resource.

The Reason Behind Will Ferrell's Agency Defection and Hollywood's Major Comedy Shakeup.

A Phone Call, "Betrayal" and How the "Midnight Raid" at CAA Happened
A new era of agency wars begins after UTA poaches 11 comedy sharks (not to mention Chris Pratt and Will Ferrell) and a confidential memo obtained by THR reveals how the rewards of being a top dog at CAA conflict with the economic culture for everyone else.
UTA Lands Five Major CAA Agents in Shakeup


UTA Takes Leap Forward, CAA Dealt Blow in Daring Agency Raid
“If you lose Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt — those two alone are huge enough,” said a veteran industry insider familiar with the agency world. “Those two kinds of clients could be the start of an agency itself.”
CAA has since filed a lawsuit against UTA.

So why is this important? It's not just The Decline Of The American Actor (previously), but The End Of Leading Men, or even the concept of the "movie star". Are Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence 'movie stars?' Who is even a movie star anymore?
That’s how we arrived to a point in which the following two facts are indisputable.

Fact: People believe Will Smith is the world’s biggest movie star (even though he doesn’t make great movies).

Fact: People believe Ryan Reynolds is a movie star (even though he isn’t).

That’s all you need to know about Hollywood right now.
.
posted by the man of twists and turns (42 comments total) 28 users marked this as a favorite
 
It seems like comedy stars are the only bankable stars in terms of opening a movie anymore but that the higher-ups at CAA (and probably in lots of places in Hollywood) don't treat those with the power over them (agents, managers, etc.) that way because that's not the way it used to be.

I’d compare the “leading man” position to the NFL’s quarterback position — we need 32 starting QBs every year regardless of whether we actually have 32 good ones, just like we need 40 to 45 leading men every year regardless of whether we have 40 to 45 good ones.

This is still a very good analogy even if Bill Simmons made it.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:58 AM on September 8, 2015 [4 favorites]


"You have to be pretty douchey to aspire to a job like this," the exec says. "So, in a way, it's a perfect, self-perpetuating system."
posted by destro at 9:59 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]


Also, I think this was an episode of Entourage
posted by destro at 10:01 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]


I noticed something at a studio that did work on movies that were released both domestically and internationally: The international movie posters showed some action: Here's a guy, doing something exciting!

The North American movie posters just showed a single big face: Here's Will Smith! You love him! Here's Nicholas Cage! You... you watch him!

I'm guessing that there was some research back in the '80s showing that the identity of the leading man mattered more for box office receipts than any other factor that they were able to reliably identify, and that one factoid has been running movie marketing in North America ever since.
posted by clawsoon at 10:04 AM on September 8, 2015 [5 favorites]


I didn't know what UTA was a t first si assumed this was a 40s style vice bust, possibly with some commie-hunting on the side.
posted by Artw at 10:09 AM on September 8, 2015 [9 favorites]


MetaFilter: Also, I think this was an episode of Entourage
posted by Fizz at 10:25 AM on September 8, 2015 [4 favorites]


Here's Nicholas Cage! You... you watch him!

Hey now. Nobody can Nicholas Cage the way that Nicholas Cage Nicholas Cages.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:29 AM on September 8, 2015 [16 favorites]


I used to watch a ton of movies. Hollywood's product has lost me, but despite not really watching movies anymore, I find this behind the scenes stuff about not the technical craft but the backstabbing and deal-making just so totally fascinating. Thanks for posting.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 10:31 AM on September 8, 2015 [7 favorites]


This'd make a great movie.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:41 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]


My movie league (there was an aborted attempt at a Metafilter one that I didn't have the time to fully execute - apologies) has made me realize that audiences are fickle. The continuation of a series is no guarantee of box office success. Even having a sentimental dead celebrity attached (like Robin Williams), and the previous movie making over 150 mill. couldn't save the latest Night at the Museum. There seems to be this sort of common knowledge, like August being a bad time for tentpole releases, until something like Guardians comes along and flips that on its head. Super Hero movies are "sure things" for getting you a 100 million dollar roster spot until a dog like Fant. 4 comes along and throws that notion out.

The real success seems to be the crossover hit. I think that's why McCarthy (who brings in women and men), Straight Outta Compton (bringing in a wide variety of viewers), and Chris Pratt (able to lend an everyman charm to boring tripe like JW) are all at least temporary "sure things", that is until they're not.

You think you've spotted a money making trend, and it falls through on you. A Fault in Our Stars was a surprise 124 million dollar smash, but Paper Towns played on the same formula and struggled to 30. Liam Neeson's gruff fatherly action star pulled in a combined 300 million dollars across three movies until suddenly that dried up, with Run All Night and Walk Among the Tombstones both bombing.

In other words, it's hard to predict. For every movie that underwhelms despite its pedigree (How to Train Your Dragon 2, for example), there's one that seemingly comes out of nowhere and tickles the American zeitgeist in just the right way (American Sniper's astounding 4 week rampage).

Next season I'm bumping everything by Universal up two or three spots in my tier list, because they've been having an amazing year.
posted by codacorolla at 10:43 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]


In other words, it's hard to predict. For every movie that underwhelms despite its pedigree (How to Train Your Dragon 2, for example), there's one that seemingly comes out of nowhere and tickles the American zeitgeist in just the right way (American Sniper's astounding 4 week rampage).

It pleases me no end that despite all the Big Data, despite all the franchise-building, despite all the algorithms and forecasts they can't predict what will score and and what will flop with any sort of replicability. It's nice to know that tastes remain fickle and that the entertainment industry still fails spectacularly from time to time.
posted by briank at 10:48 AM on September 8, 2015 [4 favorites]


Hey now. Nobody can Nicholas Cage the way that Nicholas Cage Nicholas Cages.

There, there, English, I know. It's okay to cry.
posted by eriko at 10:50 AM on September 8, 2015 [13 favorites]


Next season I'm bumping everything by Universal up two or three spots in my tier list, because they've been having an amazing year.

I would go the other award. Regression toward the mean and all that.
posted by eriko at 10:51 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]


In 1983, famed writer William Goldman wrote his book about Hollywood, Adventures in the Screen Trade. The exact same points about stars were made then too. Exact. Same. The big lesson from Goldman's book that summarizes Hollywood: "Nobody knows anything."

The QB analogy earlier in this thread is a great one, especially once you expand it out to a whole football team. A great lead is like a great QB. Which means you have to worry about the system you're running and whether your great QB is the right kind for the offense (oh shit, we signed a West Coast Offense short-pass wizard on our hands, but the studio's demanding Air Coryell!) Plus, there are times when even the greats just can't do it. Then of course there's the whole rest of the team to worry about, competent scheming and matching the plans to your personnel, coaching, etc. Focusing on the QB alone is not a great plan.

Thing is, you can maximize everything as best you can (FRANCHISING!) and it still can go blooey. That's what makes moviemaking exciting, goddammit!
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 10:54 AM on September 8, 2015 [4 favorites]


Are sports fans more "reliable" than movie fans? Like, even if you put together a completely forgettable team, you can still at least half-fill the stadium?
posted by clawsoon at 10:58 AM on September 8, 2015


eriko: Hey now. Nobody can Nicholas Cage the way that Nicholas Cage Nicholas Cages.

There, there, English, I know. It's okay to cry.


Somewhere, Xibit read that post, did a few quick calculations on his fingertips, and nodded his assent.
posted by dr_dank at 11:00 AM on September 8, 2015 [4 favorites]


tickles the American zeitgeist in just the right way (American Sniper's astounding 4 week rampage).

Not just the American market to account for though. While American Sniper was a success in its home market it was taking a punt by having a topic which was less likely to appeal outside that market. Clearly it paid off in this case but worth comparing it with a film that took pretty much the same as the US Box Office: Furious 7. Both took ~$350M at home, but AS did $197M overseas while F7 did $1.16bn outside the US.
posted by biffa at 11:00 AM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]


Really great post here! I love anything that involves any kind of industrial espionage.

But also, I'm really getting tired of all the bemoaning about how terrible hollywood is doing. Oh no, your movie is only grossing 10 million dollars of profit instead of 100 million! Oh no agents are only getting cuts off of 20 million deals instead of 50 million deals!

There's very few true "flops" that actually lose money. Especially when you consider overseas distribution and future royalties. The business is still a money printing machine, a "failure" in hollywood is something that doesn't have a 400% return on investment.

Considering how bad the rest of the population is doing, it really just annoys me. Yes. The industry is contracting and changing, but it's like they're complaining they only get to eat three steak dinners instead of four.
posted by mayonnaises at 11:03 AM on September 8, 2015 [7 favorites]


Are sports fans more "reliable" than movie fans? Like, even if you put together a completely forgettable team, you can still at least half-fill the stadium?

I hadn't thought about it this way before, but that certainly could explain the meteoric rise over the last decade and change of the Dork Franchise (Avengers, etc.). Fandom freaks are often just as tribal and gung ho about their thing as sports fans are theirs, and just as willing to suspend good judgment for their "team". My girlfriend's stepfather watches the Mariners lose all the time, but it doesn't stop him anymore than the people I know will stay away from the latest comic book tentpole, even though they kind of suspect it will suck. It's their "thing," so they're "supporting" it.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:10 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]


Not just the American market to account for though. While American Sniper was a success in its home market it was taking a punt by having a topic which was less likely to appeal outside that market. Clearly it paid off in this case but worth comparing it with a film that took pretty much the same as the US Box Office: Furious 7. Both took ~$350M at home, but AS did $197M overseas while F7 did $1.16bn outside the US.

That's true. My leagues only account for domestic, mostly because it makes the differences a little smaller and more competitive. In post-mortem statistical analysis I've done for both leagues, adding in the foreign numbers really does change the overall picture.
posted by codacorolla at 11:11 AM on September 8, 2015


Are sports fans more "reliable" than movie fans? Like, even if you put together a completely forgettable team, you can still at least half-fill the stadium?

I think it depends on the city.

But, the Toronto Maple Leafs are a great example of this; their tickets are among the least affordable hockey tickets on the planet, and they're not a stellar team (last time they won a Stanley Cup the photographs were in black-and-fucking-white).*

* Disclaimer: I'm not actually a hockey fan. I can't actually talk about this stuff. I can just scratch my head and wonder WTF.
posted by el io at 11:15 AM on September 8, 2015


Leaf fans go to see a hockey game. It just happens that the Leafs are always 1/2 of that game.
posted by srboisvert at 11:31 AM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]


What a silly piece. Hollywood was not changed in the slightest by this. Which agency an agent works for is almost entirely irrelevant to anyone except the agencies themselves.

It is the very inconsequentiality of the agencies that made the high number of client switches possible. People followed the agent they personally knew and trusted, caring little or nothing for the logo on the business card. The studios and networks they worked for didn't support, or oppose, the moves, because the moves didn't matter to them.

If you are a producer, financier or network, a director or actor's agency doesn't affect in a material way whether you can hire him or what you can pay him.

If you are writer, director or actor which agency your agent is affiliated with (as long as a major) matters to a very small extent in the opportunities that are offered to you or which you can competently pursue.
posted by MattD at 11:43 AM on September 8, 2015 [5 favorites]


Are sports fans more "reliable" than movie fans? Like, even if you put together a completely forgettable team, you can still at least half-fill the stadium?

Ask the Jacksonville Jaguars, who have averaged a 3-13 record over the past three seasons and still reported average attendance of 65.541 per game (97.5% of capacity). Ask the Edmonton Oilers, who had a relatively undistinguished 2000s, and have spent the 2010s as just a garbage fire of a team, playing to sold out crowds all the way. The lowest attendance NFL team last season, the Raiders, still drew 53,699 fans (85% of capacity) on average. The only NHL teams to drop below 85% attendance are dismal teams in sunny climes.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 12:07 PM on September 8, 2015


Are sports fans more "reliable" than movie fans?

Other way around, I think. Sports are more reliable than movies. I think that's why sequels are so popular lately; they're more predictable.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:26 PM on September 8, 2015


Thing is, you can maximize everything as best you can (FRANCHISING!) and it still can go blooey. That's what makes moviemaking exciting, goddammit!

I think it's even more exciting when a movies goes in the other direction. The leading man isn't all that big a draw, the movie doesn't have a lot of hype or promotion, no has heard of the director, etc. But then somehow everything comes together and it ends up being far greater than the sum of it's parts. Guardians of the Galaxy is kind of an example of this. They cast Burt Macklin as the lead, James Gunn has a decent resume but doesn't really measure up to guys like Joss Whedon, and the comic it's based on doesn't have the kind of traction that The Avengers does.

On paper, the whole thing sounded like Marvel was starting to get to the bottom of the barrel. It seemed like there was too many opportunities for it all to go wrong that there was no way it could be a good movie. Then that first trailer came out.

My impression is that Marvel and Disney have come to the realization that focus groups, demographic research, and that kind of information are how you measure the final product, not how to make it. In other words, it seems like they ignore all that other stuff and just make really good movies. Just find some people that know what they're doing, LIKE doing it, and really love the material (script or source material or whatever), give them a heap of money, then just let them go do their thing.

A LOT of huge hits have that in common. It's clear when watching Mad Max: Fury Road that everyone involved LOVES that world and their main concern is making it the movie that everyone hopes it will be. The Wachowskis talk, in the DVD commentary, making the first sequence for The Matrix, showing it to the studio, and then basically getting told to go off to Australia with a blank check and to come back with a movie.

Worry about making a movie that sells might or might not work but worrying about making a movie good first will usually work and work beyond all expectations.

In fact, concentrating on letting good people do good work, making a quality product, and then letting success be a by-product of that is rarely a bad business model for anything (including talent agencies).
posted by VTX at 12:32 PM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]


In fact, concentrating on letting good people do good work, making a quality product, and then letting success be a by-product of that is rarely a bad business model for anything (including talent agencies).

Apple?

Growing up working at newspapers taught me that corporations that hate their customers, and bosses who are too chickenshit to hire people smarter than them are a surefire formula for making the shittiest product in the world.

The really big question here is why capitalism has evolved into a situation where making the mediocre (MEDIOCRE!) is the norm. Maybe because really superlative product is hard and expensive? And rare?

But like you said, hire the best and make really good shit, and, huh, it seems like money just comes along.

Better Mousetrap. Path to Door.
posted by valkane at 1:04 PM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]


Also: I think the problem is you can't buy passion. Not really. Every third-generation CEO lacks the vision that the founder warmed their heart with; no matter how many hours they work or what, or how many millions they are paid.

True art takes love, not money.
posted by valkane at 1:08 PM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]


Sports are more reliable than movies. I think that's why sequels are so popular lately; they're more predictable.

Totally agree.

Speaking as a sports fan, I think that part of the appeal of individual sporting events is that, even if your team loses, you can still have a really good time. Whether it’s tailgating or dinner/drinks before hand; bar hopping and clubbing afterwards; (increasingly) fancy drinks and snacks during the event; and half-time/intermission entertainment. Not to mention the plush amenities at many of the venues.

But one sports event is really more like a single TV show than a movie, and is embedded in a whole season’s worth of intense media coverage, rivalries, interviews, meta, ancient contentious history, speculation, stats to obsess over, fantasy leagues to participate in, etc. Even casual fans will tune in to the major championships, buy a couple pieces of merch per year (championship hat/jersey), and maybe go to a game if a friend has an extra ticket or guests come in from out of town.

So how to generate that repeatable energy/loyalty via movies? With sequels, of course! Or through character branding, like Disney or actor promotion (if you liked Will Smith in this, you’ll like him in that!) Add in posh movie theaters that serve fancy food and cocktails at your seat and you’ve almost got a skybox experience for 1/10th the price.

/ramble & small derail

disclaimer: worked in film post-production once upon a time
posted by skye.dancer at 1:13 PM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]


Leaf fans go to see a hockey game.

No, the 100-level section is where people check their smartphones.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:36 PM on September 8, 2015


"Hey now. Nobody can Nicholas Cage the way that Nicholas Cage Nicholas Cages."

The Netflix art for Lord of War looks like someone told Nicholas Cage to do a Nicholas Cage impression.

(It reminded my wife and I of a Veronica Mars episode where someone is housesitting for Nicholas Cage, which led the set designer to just put up huge posters of Nicholas Cage's face all over the house.)
posted by klangklangston at 1:37 PM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]


So sports are soap operas, basically, both in terms of consistency and fan engagement.
posted by clawsoon at 2:01 PM on September 8, 2015


This'd make a great movie.

Speaking of sports...
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:25 PM on September 8, 2015


Are sports fans more "reliable" than movie fans? Like, even if you put together a completely forgettable team, you can still at least half-fill the stadium?

I think it depends on the city.


As someone who lives up the street from Wrigley Field and looks out from his office at work at Soldier Field, let me tell you how true this is for this particular city. So sadly true.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:38 PM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]


Screw you all. 22 games above .500, fourth best record in baseball. Just handed a 9-0 beatdown to the Cardinals with our #5 starter, whose Twitter handle is @Ithrow88. Of course, this being the Cubs, the 4th best record in baseball is worth 3rd place in the NL Central, because Cubs.

I have slipped from my universe into a universe where Chicago has Happy Hour and the Cubs are good, and FUCK going back to that other universe.
posted by eriko at 3:27 PM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]


Sports has the whole sublimation-of-mankind's-inherent-tribalism thing going for it that movies will never match... which is why sports metaphors are generally terrible for anything other than... organized intra-regional competitions that aren't war.

But yeah, other than that, I imagine certain people showed up to watch the train-wreck Milwaukee Bucks vs. Cleveland Cavaliers games just to see Lebron James do his thing in the same way some people showed up Fool's Gold to see Matthew McConaughey spend most of the movie shirtless.
posted by midmarch snowman at 4:56 PM on September 8, 2015


I wonder how much of a role social media plays in this?

I can't think of an actress who gives fans the same kind of access as say, a Taylor Swift or a Kim Kardashian. And, even though I don't know anyone who goes to a movie to see a particular star, I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people who would listen to a song just because it's Taylor's...
posted by tinymegalo at 5:59 PM on September 8, 2015


Best part of this post is imagining Nikki Finke sitting in her office screaming GO GO GO GET ME QUOTES FROM THE G-D MAIDS I DONT CARE JUST DO YOUR JOB at interns throughout.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:56 PM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]


Can anyone figure out what those last articles about "movie stars" were about? They all seem to be saying that the definition of "movie star" is "someone who by their presence alone can fill seats", but that's not what I ever understood it to mean. A "movie star" is a just a person who is incredibly famous as a film actor, right? A person who is a household name, not because of some scandal or other career or the like, but because they are in films. Tommy Lee Jones is (was?) a movie star, but he never filled seats, as far as I know.
posted by Bugbread at 10:17 PM on September 8, 2015


I can't think of an actress who gives fans the same kind of access as say, a Taylor Swift or a Kim Kardashian. And, even though I don't know anyone who goes to a movie to see a particular star, I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people who would listen to a song just because it's Taylor's...

I dunno - if I saw a movie had Tina Fey on the creative end of things, I'd be positively inclined towards it, and if Kristen Wiig or Mindy Kaling was staring I'd anticipate some good jokes. These are actress-writers who do a good job of managing their brand, and I trust their taste. (In truth, I think that this actually shows up more with anglophilia. I assume that 90% of the reason people went to see The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel was because they wanted to see delightful & renowned British actors pretending to be besties.)
posted by Going To Maine at 11:52 PM on September 8, 2015


My movie league (there was an aborted attempt at a Metafilter one that I didn't have the time to fully execute - apologies) has made me realize that audiences are fickle. The continuation of a series is no guarantee of box office success. Even having a sentimental dead celebrity attached (like Robin Williams), and the previous movie making over 150 mill. couldn't save the latest Night at the Museum. There seems to be this sort of common knowledge, like August being a bad time for tentpole releases, until something like Guardians comes along and flips that on its head. Super Hero movies are "sure things" for getting you a 100 million dollar roster spot until a dog like Fant. 4 comes along and throws that notion out.
--codacorolla

I don't know much about this, but I think part of the problem is jaded executives who think in broad generalizations like this, completely missing the important details. I contacted an expert on a couple of the movies you mention: my son, who's qualifications include being a kid. He loved the Night at the Museum movies--the first one is one of his favorites. He had no interest in going to the last one because it was pretty obvious from the casting and the trailers that they were just phoning it in. "It is another Night at the Museum movie--it is guaranteed to make money! Oh no, it is a flop. I guess people are just fickle." He also informed me that the latest incarnation of Guardians of the Galaxy, before there was even any mention of a movie, was very fun and cool. When a movie was mentioned he got very excited, while most adults were going "What the heck is this? I never heard of it. It's bound to be a flop."
posted by eye of newt at 12:15 AM on September 9, 2015


Just as a codicil to my previous post, Furious 7 has now done US$390M of business in China alone, giving it the biggest box office in Chinese history, though only just ahead of a homegrown production, Monster Hunt, at $375M. The F7 figure meant it took more in China than the US.
posted by biffa at 4:01 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older The Juggernaut is totes adorbs   |   This is a super-duper group Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments