Hasbro says 'Sayonara' to CAA
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:57 pmHasbro has done something a bit strange. With a major motion picture about to appear in three weeks, Hasbro has said ‘sayonara’ to Creative Artists Agency, which is the agency that brought together and helped broker the deal for the Transformers Movie with Paramount, DreamWorks, Hasbro, and Spielberg.
Creative Artists Agency (CAA) is one of the most powerful talent and literary agencies in American show business. Previously headquartered in a I.M. Pei-designed building in Beverly Hills, the agency represents a vast array of actors, writers, directors, and athletes, as well as a variety of companies and their products.
So what does this all mean? It means that something is not going right between Hasbro, Paramount, DreamWorks, CAA, and possibly the movie. This is a bold move for Hasbro to do several weeks before the movie’s debut.
For the powers at the Creative Artists Agency, Hollywood’s pre-eminent talent representative, the coming blockbuster “Transformers” has already brought a lesson in the cold-hearted ways of corporate entertainment.
The outsize robot adventure movie was born when the talent agency connected Hasbro — a client, and owner of the Transformers toy line — with DreamWorks, Paramount and another longtime associate, Steven Spielberg, among others. As the project grew, at least 10 Creative Artists clients picked up credits, including the writers, several stars and both Mr. Spielberg and Brian Goldner, Hasbro’s chief operating officer, who are executive producers.
But a scant month before the picture’s release on July 4, Hasbro decided to jettison Creative Artists and jump to the rival William Morris, which represents the director of “Transformers,” Michael Bay.
So it goes in the new Hollywood. Loyalty stops at the bottom line, and even the most powerful of agencies is finding it can be tougher to meet the needs of a corporate customer than to baby-sit for a temperamental star.
Wayne Charness, Hasbro’s senior vice president for corporate communications, credited Creative Artists for its “invaluable assistance” in hooking it up with DreamWorks and Paramount. “For that, we’ll certainly be eternally grateful.”
But, in explaining the corporate kiss-off, Mr. Charness added, “William Morris, from an entertainment point of view, is best able to deliver something for us now.”
For Creative Artists, the loss of Hasbro is hardly a show-stopper. But the embarrassment comes just as it is trying to prove that it can mirror, if not exactly match, the intricacy and reach of the media conglomerates and consumer and technology companies that have come to define the entertainment world.
You can read more about this break up here and
Creative Artists Agency (CAA) is one of the most powerful talent and literary agencies in American show business. Previously headquartered in a I.M. Pei-designed building in Beverly Hills, the agency represents a vast array of actors, writers, directors, and athletes, as well as a variety of companies and their products.
So what does this all mean? It means that something is not going right between Hasbro, Paramount, DreamWorks, CAA, and possibly the movie. This is a bold move for Hasbro to do several weeks before the movie’s debut.
For the powers at the Creative Artists Agency, Hollywood’s pre-eminent talent representative, the coming blockbuster “Transformers” has already brought a lesson in the cold-hearted ways of corporate entertainment.
The outsize robot adventure movie was born when the talent agency connected Hasbro — a client, and owner of the Transformers toy line — with DreamWorks, Paramount and another longtime associate, Steven Spielberg, among others. As the project grew, at least 10 Creative Artists clients picked up credits, including the writers, several stars and both Mr. Spielberg and Brian Goldner, Hasbro’s chief operating officer, who are executive producers.
But a scant month before the picture’s release on July 4, Hasbro decided to jettison Creative Artists and jump to the rival William Morris, which represents the director of “Transformers,” Michael Bay.
So it goes in the new Hollywood. Loyalty stops at the bottom line, and even the most powerful of agencies is finding it can be tougher to meet the needs of a corporate customer than to baby-sit for a temperamental star.
Wayne Charness, Hasbro’s senior vice president for corporate communications, credited Creative Artists for its “invaluable assistance” in hooking it up with DreamWorks and Paramount. “For that, we’ll certainly be eternally grateful.”
But, in explaining the corporate kiss-off, Mr. Charness added, “William Morris, from an entertainment point of view, is best able to deliver something for us now.”
For Creative Artists, the loss of Hasbro is hardly a show-stopper. But the embarrassment comes just as it is trying to prove that it can mirror, if not exactly match, the intricacy and reach of the media conglomerates and consumer and technology companies that have come to define the entertainment world.
You can read more about this break up here and
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:00 pmShouldn't affecty the originall, theaters should be getting the film already. I hope...
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:00 pmVery strange move indeed...
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:02 pmWasn't this posted last week? I remember reading it on Variety.
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:23 pmMaybe it has something to do with letting Paramount do all the design work for the transformers movie. We all know Hasbro cannot match the detail and intracity of the movie designs in transformable figures. (they do alright in the unleashed line though)
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:28 pmHm. I wonder what this means? Can't be good, but then again, it might not be all that bad, either.
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:52 pmProbably that Hasbro already knows Paramount / Dreamworks has signed on for three movies, so they have no more need of a corporate liason anymore. However, they want to stay connected to Bay so they went with his company.
I doubt it has anything to do with the designs as both Bay and Goldner not only approved them, but were enthusiastic about them as well. I wouldn't believe it has to do with the movie designs unless Hasbro unexpectedly canned Brian Goldner.
I doubt it has anything to do with the designs as both Bay and Goldner not only approved them, but were enthusiastic about them as well. I wouldn't believe it has to do with the movie designs unless Hasbro unexpectedly canned Brian Goldner.
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:34 pmWow, I never knew Hasbro had a deal with the Canadian Automobile Association!
...oh wait. I just read the article. Nevermind.
...oh wait. I just read the article. Nevermind.
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:55 pm"Hasbro decided to jettison Creative Artists and jump to the rival William Morris, which represents the director of “Transformers,” Michael Bay."
Everything is still good there
Everything is still good there
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:58 pmI don't see this as a bad thing. CAA outlived their usefulness. Them's the breaks. It's Hollywood, baby.
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:21 pmUH... say what now? I hope this has something to do over the craptacular movie designs.
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:43 pmArcadius-Prime wrote:UH... say what now? I hope this has something to do over the craptacular movie designs.
There were bad designs? I haven't seen one yet.
(Beauty is in the eye of the beholder)
But, no, this isn't over the kickass designs. They're just not necessary anymore. You don't need a liaison for a company you've already signed for a whole trilogy.
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:07 amShadowman wrote:Arcadius-Prime wrote:UH... say what now? I hope this has something to do over the craptacular movie designs.
There were bad designs? I haven't seen one yet.
(Beauty is in the eye of the beholder)
But, no, this isn't over the kickass designs. They're just not necessary anymore. You don't need a liaison for a company you've already signed for a whole trilogy.
I guess you must have missed the pics of Megatron and Monkeyscream 
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:29 amWow, their press release was a little bitter and snarky, not very professional.
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:37 amits all for the money hasbro thought they could save some by doing this
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:53 amArcadius-Prime wrote:Shadowman wrote:Arcadius-Prime wrote:UH... say what now? I hope this has something to do over the craptacular movie designs.
There were bad designs? I haven't seen one yet.
(Beauty is in the eye of the beholder)
But, no, this isn't over the kickass designs. They're just not necessary anymore. You don't need a liaison for a company you've already signed for a whole trilogy.
Nope, I saw when they came out. Megatron and Starscream look awesome.
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:23 pmArcadius-Prime wrote:Shadowman wrote:Arcadius-Prime wrote:UH... say what now? I hope this has something to do over the craptacular movie designs.
There were bad designs? I haven't seen one yet.
(Beauty is in the eye of the beholder)
But, no, this isn't over the kickass designs. They're just not necessary anymore. You don't need a liaison for a company you've already signed for a whole trilogy.
I dodnt know that there was a monkeyscream in the movie.
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:28 pmRobinson wrote:Arcadius-Prime wrote:Shadowman wrote:Arcadius-Prime wrote:UH... say what now? I hope this has something to do over the craptacular movie designs.
There were bad designs? I haven't seen one yet.
(Beauty is in the eye of the beholder)
But, no, this isn't over the kickass designs. They're just not necessary anymore. You don't need a liaison for a company you've already signed for a whole trilogy.
I dodnt know that there was a monkeyscream in the movie.
Yeah, who's Monkeyscream? Starscream isn't a monkey, he's a badass looking robot.
Must be a secret design for the sequel, where they introduce Maximals.
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:27 pmShadowman wrote:Robinson wrote:Arcadius-Prime wrote:Shadowman wrote:Arcadius-Prime wrote:UH... say what now? I hope this has something to do over the craptacular movie designs.
There were bad designs? I haven't seen one yet.
(Beauty is in the eye of the beholder)
But, no, this isn't over the kickass designs. They're just not necessary anymore. You don't need a liaison for a company you've already signed for a whole trilogy.
I dodnt know that there was a monkeyscream in the movie.
Yeah, who's Monkeyscream? Starscream isn't a monkey, he's a badass looking robot.
Must be a secret design for the sequel, where they introduce Maximals.
So he's a good guy then?
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:32 pmRobinson wrote:Shadowman wrote:Robinson wrote:Arcadius-Prime wrote:Shadowman wrote:Arcadius-Prime wrote:UH... say what now? I hope this has something to do over the craptacular movie designs.
There were bad designs? I haven't seen one yet.
(Beauty is in the eye of the beholder)
But, no, this isn't over the kickass designs. They're just not necessary anymore. You don't need a liaison for a company you've already signed for a whole trilogy.
I dodnt know that there was a monkeyscream in the movie.
Yeah, who's Monkeyscream? Starscream isn't a monkey, he's a badass looking robot.
Must be a secret design for the sequel, where they introduce Maximals.
So he's a good guy then?
Perhaps it's a nickname for Optimal Optimus? He turned into a jet, so maybe that's where the "Scream" part comes in.
The monkey part would be for his beast mode, which is a gorilla.
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:47 pmShadowman wrote:Robinson wrote:Shadowman wrote:Robinson wrote:Arcadius-Prime wrote:Shadowman wrote:Arcadius-Prime wrote:UH... say what now? I hope this has something to do over the craptacular movie designs.
There were bad designs? I haven't seen one yet.
(Beauty is in the eye of the beholder)
But, no, this isn't over the kickass designs. They're just not necessary anymore. You don't need a liaison for a company you've already signed for a whole trilogy.
I dodnt know that there was a monkeyscream in the movie.
Yeah, who's Monkeyscream? Starscream isn't a monkey, he's a badass looking robot.
Must be a secret design for the sequel, where they introduce Maximals.
So he's a good guy then?
Perhaps it's a nickname for Optimal Optimus? He turned into a jet, so maybe that's where the "Scream" part comes in.
The monkey part would be for his beast mode, which is a gorilla.
Ohhhh O.k. I can see it now.
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:54 pmThis is a little confusing, and I can't help but wonder if it has anything to do with the character designs.
I remember a while back an article about Hasbro asking that future move characters take a more traditional apearance, and that could be part of it.
Then again, Bay spearheaded most of these design concepts, so why would they side there?
Or, just maybe, they got a better offer from this new company.
I don't know, but I'm very intrested to find out how this will boad for future TFs.
I remember a while back an article about Hasbro asking that future move characters take a more traditional apearance, and that could be part of it.
Then again, Bay spearheaded most of these design concepts, so why would they side there?
Or, just maybe, they got a better offer from this new company.
I don't know, but I'm very intrested to find out how this will boad for future TFs.
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:20 pmHmm...if I had to wager, I would say that the full reasoning behind the switch won't be revealed until after the movie has been released. Any negative news now--despite giving us what might be the full story behind the switch--would potentially damage revenue for all parties involved.
Which brings me to a speculation that may seem more cynical than it probably is: as Michael Bay is the director, to switch to the company that represents him might give the bigwigs at Hasbro greater sway over the future of the movies. As the deal has already been brokered with Dreamworks / Paramount, the need to maintain steady relations likely diminished to the point where the company no longer needed the same representation; that isn't to say that there won't be further dialogue, but that it isn't the primary concern. However, as Bay has been given certain creative control over the franchise, it would likely be in Hasbro's best interests to maintain a closer professional connection with him, through the same agency that the director uses.
I'm not saying that it is because of a row over the designs, or that Hasbro has any more respect for the fans than Bay does; the purpose of Hasbro, remember, is to turn a profit from children's toys, so I doubt any of us can look to Hasbro as protecting our interests as much as we could Bay himself. However, if the path that Bay wanted to take with the movie--for whatever reason--does not sit well with the company that holds the rights to the intellectual property (likenesses, etc.) being used, then Hasbro would be in a better position to address and resolve the issue.
Which brings me to a speculation that may seem more cynical than it probably is: as Michael Bay is the director, to switch to the company that represents him might give the bigwigs at Hasbro greater sway over the future of the movies. As the deal has already been brokered with Dreamworks / Paramount, the need to maintain steady relations likely diminished to the point where the company no longer needed the same representation; that isn't to say that there won't be further dialogue, but that it isn't the primary concern. However, as Bay has been given certain creative control over the franchise, it would likely be in Hasbro's best interests to maintain a closer professional connection with him, through the same agency that the director uses.
I'm not saying that it is because of a row over the designs, or that Hasbro has any more respect for the fans than Bay does; the purpose of Hasbro, remember, is to turn a profit from children's toys, so I doubt any of us can look to Hasbro as protecting our interests as much as we could Bay himself. However, if the path that Bay wanted to take with the movie--for whatever reason--does not sit well with the company that holds the rights to the intellectual property (likenesses, etc.) being used, then Hasbro would be in a better position to address and resolve the issue.
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:06 amKranix-76 wrote:I'm not saying that it is because of a row over the designs, or that Hasbro has any more respect for the fans than Bay does; the purpose of Hasbro, remember, is to turn a profit from children's toys, so I doubt any of us can look to Hasbro as protecting our interests as much as we could Bay himself. However, if the path that Bay wanted to take with the movie--for whatever reason--does not sit well with the company that holds the rights to the intellectual property (likenesses, etc.) being used, then Hasbro would be in a better position to address and resolve the issue.
More power to them then! I'd say that if Haz has to flex some corporate beef to get better and more faithful character designs in the sequels, as one of their fans and hence customers I'd say they were protecting my interests, albeit indirectly.