Who made the money?
After reading your July 26 Calendar story on agents ("Power Players," by Paul Rosenfield and Michael Cieply), I had to figure somebody was paid off. Not only did you allot prominent space to a story that maybe 1% of your readership cares about, Rosenfeld and Cieply didn't even bother to go into any depth on the subject.
The article failed to conclude that the power and influence that agents seem to hold over the film-making community is primarily responsible for the degeneration and decay of the quality of our American cinema.
It claimed that Michael Ovitz, Ronald Meyer and William Haber of the Creative Artists Agency are the most powerful agents in Hollywood. Why?
If you look at their clients, it's basically a who's who of personnel involved in the biggest flops of the last decade.
Ovitz's clients alone are responsible for more than $150 million in disasters, i.e., "Ishtar," "Howard the Duck" and "Legal Eagles." Ronald Meyer's big client Sylvester Stallone has continually assaulted the American public's sense with the worst trash like "Over the Top," "Cobra," "Rhinestone" and "Rambo." His other "big client," Goldie Hawn, hasn't made a decent film in seven years.
William Haber's top client, Aaron Spelling, is probably responsible for more mindless television than anyone in the history of the medium.
Does large waste and poor quality serve as our barometer for who's the "biggest" and most powerful? Please redeem yourselves and educate your readers to the raw facts that truly exist.