Hey James. Thanks for the kind words and shout-out. I've chosen to avoid naming people and projects, as each situation will be different. The data can only provide a very top-down view, meaning that localising it to a single set of people or projects might not be fair to them.
The deeply thoughtful, thorough detail that went into this post is remarkable and should be applauded. Everyone can posit and swear anecdotally and qualitatively this is happening... but the proof is in the (data) pudding. Thank you for illustrating and quantifying this. Your graphs are gratifying.
I guess the agencies would say, 'of course we have a number of our clients on the same film, we have big clients'! And I guess it's natural if a writer client come sup with a great script, the agent is going to say, 'that would be great for this actor, or that director' and if they have a below the line client list - cinematographers, designers, editors etc. Phew, it's a package!
Thanks, Geoff. Yes, I'm sure all would say that, and many would also believe it honestly.
I don't know what is best for each writer, and it will differ in each case. But it feels fair to expect that if a writer's agent is looking for the best director for a project, they should want to cast the net as widely as possible. I.e., rather than looking for "the best director we also rep", they should be looking for "the best director, period".
These numbers imply that there are many cases in which they are not acting solely on behalf of a client (singular) but in the interests of their clients (plural). This was at the root of the objection to packing in TV.
Thank you, as always, for your detailed and insightful reporting @StephenFollows
Very informative and well researched @StephenFollows
Awesome article! Can you please cite a known CAA cluster film from the last 5 or so years? I’m making a video and will be sure to cite you.
Hey James. Thanks for the kind words and shout-out. I've chosen to avoid naming people and projects, as each situation will be different. The data can only provide a very top-down view, meaning that localising it to a single set of people or projects might not be fair to them.
Thank you just the same—I’ll be sure to send you the link to the video.
The deeply thoughtful, thorough detail that went into this post is remarkable and should be applauded. Everyone can posit and swear anecdotally and qualitatively this is happening... but the proof is in the (data) pudding. Thank you for illustrating and quantifying this. Your graphs are gratifying.
I guess the agencies would say, 'of course we have a number of our clients on the same film, we have big clients'! And I guess it's natural if a writer client come sup with a great script, the agent is going to say, 'that would be great for this actor, or that director' and if they have a below the line client list - cinematographers, designers, editors etc. Phew, it's a package!
Thanks, Geoff. Yes, I'm sure all would say that, and many would also believe it honestly.
I don't know what is best for each writer, and it will differ in each case. But it feels fair to expect that if a writer's agent is looking for the best director for a project, they should want to cast the net as widely as possible. I.e., rather than looking for "the best director we also rep", they should be looking for "the best director, period".
These numbers imply that there are many cases in which they are not acting solely on behalf of a client (singular) but in the interests of their clients (plural). This was at the root of the objection to packing in TV.