Comments (12)

• What a boring useless article. My vision literally starting blurring from sleepiness. And, ICM didn’t come out so great.

  And, what’s with the chest-thumping self-important tone of the article? Who is this guy? Why so arrogant? Does anyone truly care what he or the LA Times thinks?

  It seems every 6 months or so, the LAT does some sort of vapid article that kisses CAA’s rear end.

  Comment by Pointless MSM — July 3, 2008 @ 1:33 pm  Reply to this post

• What kind of world is it when a blog is reporting real news and the LAT is reporting something that belongs on a livejournal?

  Comment by elliott — July 3, 2008 @ 1:47 pm  Reply to this post

• Well, at least we know who to blame for all the crap out there.

  Comment by Anonymous — July 3, 2008 @ 1:50 pm  Reply to this post

• Commisions are important, but in hollywood, perception is king. You rarely hear about which agency is the most profitable (in los angeles…wall street difft story) but rather who carries the most clout.

  Gone are the days of a BWCS that made more money than god during the 90’s and never repped one actor. You cant find one agent in town, not lourde, huvane, doc etc. whose worth more than Bob Broder.

  In hollywood, perception is both a means and an end.

  Comment by caleb — July 3, 2008 @ 2:18 pm  Reply to this post

• Hi NIkki,

  The LA Times article was very informative to me. You give me lots of information, too. I couldn’t live without either of you. Lighten up on the paper. This city needs this paper. The Los Angeles Times is your ally, not your competitor, Nikki.

  Instead…Sink your teeth in Sumner Redstone’s ass for a while. We haven’t heard too much about him lately. He makes for good mogul fodder better than anybody, any day.

  And when it comes to chewing up the moguls, nobody does it better than you.

  Love and all that…your most devoted leprechaun.

  Comment by Cory O'Connor — July 3, 2008 @ 2:38 pm  Reply to this post

• I think the LA Times motto should be: We gotta print something.

  Comment by Furious D — July 3, 2008 @ 3:41 pm  Reply to this post

• thankfully I found this article at my local Starbux and thus did not pay for it. Like cherrypicking movie packages to rank “power” is more than a passing resemblance to sports stats. If the Times really wants to right a agency story, let’s talk about all their businesses, which make money, which are prestige, etc.

  Comment by fishorama — July 3, 2008 @ 6:31 pm  Reply to this post

• Ben Barnes, not a WMA client. ICM.

  Comment by the dude — July 3, 2008 @ 7:27 pm  Reply to this post

• the latimes is desperate to be relevant, but since they are falling apart, the few readers they have left are subjected to stories like this. and since jon horn says its a “tremendously subjective” list, its clear that there’s zero news in this story and that he is angling to be a caa client. why they would represent a hack like him is a mystery.

  Comment by somewhatinterested — July 3, 2008 @ 7:42 pm  Reply to this post

• Just what we need, another reason for the major agencies to try and force in-house packaging on every project they touch (to the detriment of the projects and the town).

  Comment by Mojo — July 4, 2008 @ 9:48 am  Reply to this post

• Caleb makes an interesting point.

  Except BWCS is so over, and so are its agents.

  Comment by M. — July 5, 2008 @ 9:19 am  Reply to this post

• What is with the LA Time’s “Eddie Murphy vs. Will Smith” comparison? There’s only ONE thing the two of them have in common at this point and it’s that they’re both BLACK. They tried to make it seem that the comparison was about their “summer box office” record. Bullshit. Eddie hasn’t had a box office hit playing a human in 20 years. Why don’t they compare Obama and one of the black actors that appear in the Ocean’s Eleven movies while they’re at it. It makes about as much sense.

  Comment by peggy — July 5, 2008 @ 8:23 pm  Reply to this post