Star Power

As more feature-film stars flock to the small screen, Elizabeth Guider gets the scoop from producers, broadcasters and agents on the keys to managing talent today.

As never before, the television firmament is ablaze with stars, turning the small screen, especially in the United States, into the coolest, smartest destination for viewers seeking new content. Liev Schreiber, Halle Berry, Wesley Snipes, Frank Langella, Jennifer Lopez, Kirsten Dunst, Viola Davis, Nicole Kidman, Colin Farrell, Cuba Gooding, Jr., Bradley Cooper, Dwayne Johnson and many more A-listers, especially refugees from the film biz, are flocking to TV in unprecedented numbers. The com­­petition for their services has never been fiercer.

If a TV role doesn’t command quite the same huge paycheck as a top role in a summer movie blockbuster, actors’ quotes are still boosting TV budgets—be they for series on broadcast nets, cable outlets or online players like Netflix and Amazon.

“Yes, the prices for talent are going up,” says Robert DeBitetto, the president of brand strategy, business development and A+E Studios at A+E Networks.

“The drumbeat for these stars is ever louder,” adds Gary Levine, Showtime Networks’ executive VP of original programming. “And that means they’re becoming well compensated.”

With so many media outlets vying for casts that can pique and hopefully sustain audience interest—even digital upstarts like Snapchat and GoPro are getting into the act—the talent pool has been stretched thin. “If we pitched actors to five or six buyers 15 years ago, now 60 or so buyers are on our radar,” one talent agent reckons.

“I’d say there’s never been a better time to be a creator of content behind the camera or an A-lister in front of the camera,” DeBitetto suggests. The cable chief has reason to know: the program outlets belonging to parent A+E Networks nabbed Kevin Costner for the miniseries Hatfields & McCoys, Vera Farmiga for Bates Motel and Bill Paxton and Ray Liotta for Texas Rising.

RAISING THE STAKES
While it’s hard to quantify the effect that stars have on the success of a show, they definitely bring, in DeBitetto’s words, “premium-ness” to the undertaking. “Farmiga in Bates Motel, for example, helped transform a quiet, odd piece into a ‘wow’ project; once attached to McCoys, Costner became shorthand for the high-profile impression that show made in social media.”

The key to success, DeBitetto stresses, is that you have to have “the right star in the right role.”

“Simply put, there’s better material to sink one’s teeth into right now in the TV space,” says Debbee Klein, the co-head of the literary department at Paradigm talent agency. “When I look around, there’s almost nobody today who’s not in TV.”

Mike Jelline, the co-head of TV talent and a partner at another top agency, UTA, adds, “Years ago it took some arm-twisting to get certain clients to pay attention to the quickly increasing number of high-caliber opportunities that were becoming available in television. But that was then, back in the early 2000s.”

From his perspective, the most important change at the agency level in the last decade was how agents were obliged to become bilingual, as it were, well-versed in both the film and TV businesses. That way, they could help actors move more easily and seamlessly from one discipline to the other.

“In short, the invisible yet very real line in the sand that existed between the movie and TV businesses began to blur,” Jelline says.

The old adage that movies appealed to adults and TV catered to kids has been, in effect, turned upside down. Agents played a crucial role in that shift in perception.

“For the last five years, we have been working very hard to get high-end talent into television in a way that lets these actors stretch their creative muscles and retain the ability to cross over between film and television,” says Peter Micelli, the co-head of television packaging at Creative Artists Agency (CAA). “One of the things we have revolutionized here at CAA is the straight-to-series business. This is a way to get top talent into this space. We’ve found ways to restructure deals for our clients by encouraging networks to go straight to series on certain projects, so that talent doesn’t have to twiddle their thumbs for months waiting to know if there’s a greenlight, and by championing shorter episode runs for certain material,” the CAA agent adds. Thus, Matthew McConaughey, Viola Davis and Clive Owen (all three CAA clients) could take on TV projects—True Detective, How to Get Away with Murder and The Knick, respectively—and still have time to do movies while on hiatus.

“We’re not comfortable with just the status quo because the landscape keeps evolving,” Micelli observes. “The global marketplace of television is expanding, and we recognize that the value of our clients around the world is significant.”

Michael Katcher, the head of TV talent at CAA, adds, “In fact, we spend our time thinking about how our clients are going to succeed in this changing landscape—and how to create opportunities that will put them in the best position to have a career that can sustain.”

BIG-SCREEN IDOLS
So how did it happen that, in addition to the aforementioned stars flocking to the small screen, Nicole Kidman and Reese Witherspoon—both with Best Actress Oscars on their mantels—became attached to a David E. Kelley drama at HBO called Big Little Lies, and John Travolta—a cinema icon across decades—came to tackle the role of defense lawyer Robert Shapiro in FX’s upcoming American Crime Story about the O. J. Simpson case?

The first concrete sign of the alignment of stars to come, Paradigm’s Klein suggests, was the buzz surrounding Sarah Jessica Parker in Sex and the City and James Gandolfini in The Sopranos, both on HBO. “People began to notice that the best material, the most creative voices, the juiciest roles, were in television,” Klein says.

More recently, Klein notes, shows like CBS’s The Good Wife, which is a ratings success, a critical darling and a multiple award winner, has become a template for actors to measure themselves by. Per several sources, “Get me onto something like that Julianna Margulies show,” is an oft-heard request from actors hoping to make the leap from the big to small screen.

“Why hold out for an Oscar when an Emmy nomination at least might come one’s way?” is how Klein puts it. (The latest indie film regular to accomplish that feat is Adrien Brody, for his performance in the limited series Houdini.)

Jelline, Klein and others point to several factors that contributed to the change in the entertainment zeitgeist. First and foremost was the contraction of the U.S. film industry whereby, as another agent described it, “middle-range movies and character pieces dropped out,” leaving behind mainly tentpoles and micro-budgeted indie pics, and many actors with time on their hands and thinner wallets in their pockets.

Second, technology and deregulation spurred the launch of additional content-hungry cable outlets and, subsequently, online platforms like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. These new programmers quickly discovered that nothing attracts eyeballs and ink as much as good, and increasingly edgy, original content—just the kind of fare that ambitious actors naturally gravitate toward.

Third, in and around the time of the long and debilitating writers strike in 2007–08, a plethora of scribes, producers and directors who had worked in the movie biz migrated to television. Out of sheer necessity, countless actors followed the lead of these creatives, many of whom they had worked with on the big screen.

Presently, World Screen estimates that at least three-dozen A-listers are currently prepping for or shooting key roles on the small screen—for broadcast, cable and online outlets. Wesley Snipes will topline in The Player at NBC, Bradley Cooper will take on a recurring role in Limitless for CBS, Paul Giamatti and Damian Lewis will spar in Showtime’s Billions, Jennifer Lopez will be top of the bill in Shades of Blue for NBC, Antonio Banderas is set for Starz’s Havana Quartet, Anne Hathaway will feature in The Ambassador’s Wife and Billy Bob Thornton will anchor Trial for Amazon, to name only a handful.

UTA’s Jelline says he is currently juggling nearly a dozen key actor deals for upcoming projects, a summer deal volume that would have been unthinkable a few years ago in the old system. The biggest challenge he and his colleagues face is making sure they’re endorsing the right project for the right client, especially if they’re skittish about getting involved in the first place.

“A television project is like a gigantic chemistry experiment: so many different elements have to come together for it to work,”  Jelline says.

AGENCY CLOUT
As for what has changed at the agencies, several agents point out that the TV divisions have, not surprisingly, bulked up in recent years to handle the tilt of talent (and money) toward television. After all, it was largely agencies and managers who helped facilitate the shift in thinking among their clients.

“Major actors don’t typically spend their days watching TV; it’s our job to bring them around to it,” Paradigm’s Klein says. Among the benefits for clients, she points out, is the ability to have a second revenue stream, to offset the sporadic nature of film projects. They also gain the ability to earn a backend payday if a series has rerun potential and, in some cases, set up their own shingle, hire a development guy and exercise control over their future projects. Laurence Fishburne, for example, is now both an exec producer and a star of the comedy Black-ish on ABC, where his company, Cinema Gypsy, has a first-look deal; similarly, Halle Berry, who stars in CBS’s summer mini Extant, is developing projects for  CBS through her 606 Films banner.

This is not to say that the money in TV is instantly commensurate with what a star might earn from a Marvel action movie, a global franchise like the Twilight trilogy or a sleeper hit like The Fault in Our Stars.

“No one is immediately going to emulate Mark Harmon or Mariska Hargitay,” quips one agent who declined to be identified, per company protocol. (Harmon both stars in and exec produces the long-running global hit NCIS and Hargitay stars in the long-running Law & Order: SVU. The two are undoubtedly among the best-paid actors on the small screen.)

“Expectations have to be managed. Not every freshman series catches on; in fact, the failure rate is close to 80 percent in TV,” the off-the-record agent observes.

Various sources at the broadcast networks and at the cable programmers suggest that stars nowadays come to the table knowing those odds. By and large, stars command more money at the broadcast level, especially if the series gets to the “syndie-capable” 65 episodes, a bit less on pay cable and high-end basic services like USA, FX and AMC, and exclusively upfront dollars (with no backend) when they topline an online show.

“Yes, the studios have parameters and thresholds for casting allotments, but don’t be misled: a salary of $150,000 to $200,000 an episode is meaningful. Top actors can do very well in television,” says CAA’s Katcher.

TALENT PAYDAY
Eric Schrier, the president of original programming at FX Networks and FX Productions, points out that stars greatly benefit “in success”—he and several other sources point to the sizable paydays for stars of cable hits like, say, Bryan Cranston of Breaking Bad and Jon Hamm of Mad Men.

“What we try to do at FX,” Schrier continues, “is allow the creatives, including the top stars, to participate in the upside of a show.” He points out that two of the cabler’s comedies, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Archer, have secured syndication deals.

It’s not that different in broadcast TV. “We have to make deals that are respectful of the stars and that allow them to participate in success, but that make sense for the series in question and the health of the network,” explains Jennifer Salke, NBC’s president of entertainment. “As a general rule, these stars come to the deal educated.”

Asked if a preponderance of the budget earmarked for cast members was now funneled to A-listers, Salke demurred. “Of course, the people around the star can be insistent—it’s their job to get what they can for their client, the trappings, the trailer and so on—but from my perspective it’s the necessary push-pull of the business. I don’t believe the numbers are out of sync. Certainly not [at NBC].”

Salke, likes other executives, stresses that most of the stars are “more collaborative than not.” They absorb or adapt to the tone of the set they’re on. “It’s scrappier, what we do, as compared to the film biz. There’s not a lot of tolerance or room for drama day in, day out in TV. Divas? Not in my experience.”

The biggest request of film stars on TV sets, per a manager who wished not to single out a specific client, is “not bringing their own hairdresser or demanding sushi every day but rather making sure security is beefed up to the level they’re accustomed to on motion-picture shoots.”

DeBitetto at A+E Networks seconds Salke’s thoughts on how it works on set when A-listers are involved. “Actually, having been involved on nonfiction sets here at A+E Networks, I can safely say that by comparison being on a drama series shoot is a joy. Most A-list players bring a high level of professionalism to their work, so everybody feels they’re part of something special. Plus, customs and practices are so long established in the TV biz that everyone is focused on the specific job they have to do. Hangers-on à la Entourage are few and far between.”

That programmers are elated to have top talents when they can secure them at a reasonable cost is not in dispute. For one thing, stars bring instant awareness and help with sampling. Moreover, many have been trained in marketing and promotion during their film careers and hence do not balk at similar demands in the TV biz. One cable source, who did not wish to be identified, suggests that it’s “routine” for producers now to check out actors’ social media accounts to see how many followers they have. If a sizable number, all the better, as those core fans can function as the advance guard in getting the word out about an upcoming project.

Still, as most executives insist, “A-listers do not come to television strictly or principally for the money, but rather to stretch themselves with material that is challenging to them.”

UNDER THE INFLUENCE
So, just how essential are A-listers to getting series up and running? They’re not the crucial element, but they’re definitely a key factor in swaying network executives who might be on the fence about a project. Most all execs claim in various iterations that it’s “the fresh voice of the writer” or “the bona fides of a top producer” that initially persuade them to back a project. But, there’s apparently a “however” in most of these responses.

“Most pitches don’t have talent attached,” NBC’s Salke maintains. “It’s the writer’s vision that’s paramount—if you don’t have that, you have nothing.” However, she went on to clarify, “when we see a list of stars that a producer or agent brings to us and we like the names, well, we’re more inclined to pay attention.” To wit: The Blacklist (NBC’s biggest drama hit) was “a concept we fell for before James Spader was attached, though once he came aboard, he brought a whole new dimension to the endeavor.”

Other execs point out that even with top stars attached, stumbles do occur. NBC’s recent comedy The Michael J. Fox Show was canceled after one season; ditto for the Robin Williams topliner The Crazy Ones at CBS. The same fate recently befell Billy Crystal in The Comedians for FX.

Even failure, however, can sometimes be fungible in television, especially in the cable world, where a canceled show can be spun as “an interesting experiment” and the actor’s own participation therein “a cool undertaking.” Thus, for most actors, the advantages of doing tele­vision are considerable and far outweigh the drawbacks.

Showtime’s Levine points out that working three or four months a year on a TV project—a time commitment typical of cable—allows the actor to use that job as a “home base,” but is a short enough stint to allow him or her to flex their muscles in movies, the theater, in the digital space or wherever.

Over at FX, Schrier points out that Keri Russell, the female star of The Americans, has managed to fit in five movies during her time off from the period spy drama.

As for Levine, he was brought aboard Showtime some 14 years ago with the mandate to help the paybox up its game. He began with an upgrade of scripts and producer talent and gradually moved into tapping higher-caliber actors. “The effort started with Dexter, Weeds and Californication, and then Homeland exploded. Now we have The Affair, Shameless and Billions, to name only a few shows with high-profile leads.”

Regarding what stars can bring to the party, Levine sums it up in two words: personality and smarts.

“Most of the leads we’ve worked with are collaborative. They set the tone on the set, having by and large checked their ego at the door.” (Here he rattled off stars like Michael C. Hall, Laura Linney, Liev Schreiber and Claire Danes.) Given the nature of the material all three of the premium channels—HBO, Starz and Showtime—specialize in, stars can bring an added bonus.

“When these artists take on complex, challenging characters, they tend to become proprietors of those roles,” Levine adds. “In many cases, they form symbiotic relationships with the writers on the series. After all, on recurring shows actors and writers are practically living together for several months each year. On our shows, unlike on the typical film shoot, there’s an open avenue between the actors and the writers. Alchemy takes place, with writer and actor enriching each other, and by extension the series as a whole.”

Still, almost everyone World Screen spoke with circled back to the same mantra: without a good story underpinning a project, not even the shiniest star can salvage a sinking series.

“We don’t build the clock backwards, as it were,” FX’s Schrier says. “In mid-July we turned down a project with a major star because the material was just not there.”

It would be foolish to bet, however, against the cyclical nature of television or underestimate how fickle audiences are or how quickly media habits change. If the U.S. advertising market were to slump or subscriptions to this or that service to plateau, program budgets would eventually take a hit. Stars whose quotes were judged too steep would, in short, be eclipsed by lesser-known stars or, per Holly­wood’s invariably hopeful jargon, “up-and-comers.”

To be fair, not every A-lister has warmed up to TV or found the appropriate vehicle to take the plunge. Julia Roberts, Robert Downey, Jr. and Meryl Streep are among the names at the top of several TV producer wish lists.

Since almost everyone interviewed for this piece believes that the trend toward higher-profile talent in TV shows no sign of abating, expect some of these last holdouts to be coming soon to a small screen near you.

As Showtime’s Levine puts it, “What was our dream list of actors a dozen years ago has now become our down-to-earth list,” as so many stars have found their way to television over the last decade.

For a while, at least, more will surely come.