Since then we have a parade of crap. And I don't think Pacino has done much better.
After leaving CAA, a post by an insider at the agency left the entertainment industry talking.
Here's the article from Alternative Film Guide.
Robert De Niro’s CAA Controversy
April 22nd, 2008 by Andre Soares
In her blog Deadline Hollywood Daily, Nikki Finke posted an "exclusive" scoop about Robert De Niro’s departure from Creative Arts Agency (CAA) to look for greener pastures at Endeavor. One commenter, purportedly a disgruntled (and anonymous) "CAA Agent," posted the following message that has been circulating all over town (make it "all over world" by now).
See below:
(Note: I didn’t bother using [sic] next to the several typos. The name of the Al Pacino movie, by the way, is 88 Minutes. The three-hour De Niro film is called The Good Shepherd. It could be that the "CAA Agent" got those film titles wrong; it could also be that all the typos found in the message were deliberately made; and it could be that the message itself is a total fake.)
Why did Bobby leave us?
They promised they could turn back time.
They promised they could get him 20m a picture.
They promised they could get a release for his Something happened, a Barry Levinson show biz pic that’s has no market, and Mark Cuban lost a fortune on.
They promised they could get him the $1m production fee on every picture he does, that he and his partner put their names on, and do nothing to earn.
They promised they could convince Hollywood that they should still pay that 1m vig on top of his acting fees.
They promised him they’d find a respectable release for the Pacino picture he did last summer [Righteous Kill], that basically stars two 65 year old guys as detectives — while the audience is under 35, and has no interest in seeing.
As I said, they promised him they could turn back time, and make him 50 again, and relevant, and hot, and interesting to today’s movie going audience.
And they probably promised that they’d find a way to erase the memory of all of America about the number of god-awful paycheck films he did during the past ten years.
DeNiro had a choice ten or so years ago. He could either go the Nicholson route — very selective, very particular, protect the brand — or go out sending himself up in tripe like Analyze this, which made money but turned him into that "old psycho guy."
And he could of concentrated on quality stuff, but instead wanted to keep funding his little empire in New York.
A year ago, Bobby came to us complaining that he was losing a fortune underwriting the film festival every year, and wanted us to find bigger corporate sponsors.
We tried, but the stumbling block was always the same thing: The corporations all thought that the Tribeca film festival was a not-for-profit organization, sponsored by the city. But when they got under the hood, they found out that it was all for the greater glory of Bobby and Jane and her husband, and the corporate stuff shied away from it. Bobby held us responsible for his own greed, his own avarice, and his own megalomania.
And it’s just like the studios now ask us: Why should we pay this guy - who doesn’t open a movie - the payoff to his production company, just so he can add his name as a producer.
Sure, there’s more; he thought we should have delivered an Oscar for his paint-drying slow 3 hour Good Shepard. But we couldn’t.
And finally, if really want to understand why now, why today, look at the review today in Variety for the Pacino "86 Minutes" stinker. It’s directed by Jon Avnet, (a career ending review), who just happens to be the director of Bobby’s next movie. (With Pacino.)
Bobby blames everybody but himself for the way he’s squandered his career, and refused lots of quality pictures because they wouldn’t give him producer credit.
Good luck in the Hotel Business, pal.
__