How Many Producers Is Too Many?

Hollywood is finally feeling the fallout.

Over the past few years, the town’s biggest producers have been grumbling about interloper producers infiltrating their ranks: actors, agents, writers and directors being given producer credits to sweeten their salaries and strengthen their leverage with studios.

But now, Hollywood is starting to see the effects of handing out those credits so liberally. In the past few months, the fates of three films have been radically altered because of their producers:

* Bruce Willis, star of “Broadway Brawler,” a modestly budgeted “Jerry Maguire”-like boxing drama, reportedly became disgruntled on the set because of conflicts with the director, Lee Grant, and disagreements over close-ups. Because he also had a producer credit, he was able to in effect shut down filming, leaving Disney to cover the $17 million Cinergi had already invested.

* Joe Eszterhas, screenwriter of the Hollywood spoof “An Alan Smithee Film” for Disney, reportedly disagreed with the direction of Arthur Hiller, and because of his producer credit, was able to take away final cut from Hiller and finish the film himself. Hiller has said he will remove his name from the film.

* James Cameron, director of “Titanic,” was unable to complete the special effects for the $180-million film in time for its announced July 2 release date. Because he is also a producer of the film, he was in a position to decide, with Paramount’s and 20th Century Fox’s agreement, to delay its release by more than five months. The delay is expected to cost many more millions of dollars.

Needless to say, veteran producers are finding all of this a little hard to take. Yet many in Hollywood see these actions as simply the inevitable result of the growing trend of rewarding high-priced talent with producing credit as another perk of employment.

“These people are the new carpetbaggers in our world,” said one top producer. “Some of them are legit . . . but most, hardly.”

A producer was once considered the most powerful player in the movie business. He or she was responsible for making the film happen: hustling the script, talent, money, studio backing and worldwide distributors, then overseeing the production daily to make sure it comes in on time and budget. Since the producer is the one who made the picture happen, it has always been the producer who took home the most coveted prize--for best picture--on Oscar night.

But with the credit being given to stars, directors and writers, one Universal executive says, “[A producing] credit has become ‘the big joke.’ In Hollywood now, the definition of a producer has become anyone with a desk. . . . All of this really insults those people who are the real thing.”

Producers have been trying to find a way to arbitrate their credit with studios and halt the relentless string of producer-related credits. They note that the latest instances show what they’ve been complaining about all along. In fact, Arnold Kopelson, who won an Oscar for “Platoon” and is one of the town’s most prolific producers, has been one of the most vocal about the diluted credit. He has drafted a set of proposals that would give producers their power back at the arbitration table with studios.

Producers are still smarting over the recent change effected by the Writers Guild, resulting in a film’s writer getting a more prominent credit, listed just before the director’s--a spot that producers used to contractually receive. The writers’ proposal was approved by studios in 1995 without representation by the Producers Guild, Kopelson said.

“That is why we want a board set up that will arbitrate producer credits,” he said. “The Producers Guild has not had the bargaining status as have the other unions and it needs it. It is the next step in having the studios honor the determination of who is actually producing a movie, which is very hard work. A director or writer may think they are entitled to a producer credit, but when did you ever see a director or writer want to share credit with a producer?”

Kopelson was quick to note, “This is not addressed to those individuals who may be actors or writers or directors who otherwise have an ongoing production company” with projects on which they are actively involved as producers. Those include Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, Robert Redford, Barbra Streisand, Jodie Foster, Michael Douglas and Kevin Costner, to name a few. “My opposition is to those people who attempt to have shared credit as a means to extract additional compensation, or to otherwise give them more of a say in the production when they are not entitled to the same.” Kopelson declined to single out any examples.

One name that has been mentioned in recent Hollywood conversations is that of Alicia Silverstone, who, after one hit, 1995’s “Clueless,” became at age 18 Hollywood’s youngest producer. Producers around town were aghast when former Columbia Pictures’ chief Mark Canton gave Silverstone a two-year, $8-million production deal. The first picture, “Excess Baggage,” due in August, has reportedly been a troubled production, with reports of feuds between producer-star Silverstone and director Marco Brambila and some of her co-stars.

Some have privately grumbled about Demi Moore for having a producer credit on the Mike Myers film “Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.” Asked one: “Do you really think she was down on the set watching costs every day? That’s the point. ‘Producer’ doesn’t mean what it used to.” (Moore’s spokeswoman said that Suzanne Todd, Moore’s producing partner at Moving Pictures, which produced the film, was in fact a strong presence on the set of the film, which was shooting while Moore was making “G.I. Jane.”)

Even Julia Ormond, who had two back-to-back box-office disappointments, “Sabrina” and “Smilla’s Sense of Snow,” was recently given a production deal with Fox. Her company, Indican Prods., will reportedly produce, write and direct films for the studio’s art-house division.

“A lot of these actors have companies with people who run their day-to-day business that supervises these productions,” said entertainment lawyer David Colden, who has orchestrated such deals for some clients. “Some are legitimate. The problem is Hollywood has a tendency to want to pigeonhole people into a job in which they first began and that can be a mistake. What if they had [pigeonholed as actors] Mel Gibson or Robert Redford?”

All that said, there are many reasons a producer’s credit is attractive to non-producers.

“It’s true that a reason why people want to infringe upon the producer credit is they want to walk up on stage and pick up that little gold statue for best picture,” said “Con Air” producer Jerry Bruckheimer. “I think writers, as a rule, want the credit because it assures them their name doesn’t get bumped off for another brought aboard. Look at Robert Towne, one of the greatest script doctors of all time. Rarely did he get the credit he deserved but everyone in town knew he made so many films work.

“For actors it comes down to control. If they think they gave a great performance, they don’t want to see it on the cutting room floor.”

But maybe someone with a very limited interest in a film like a writer or an actor isn’t the best person to entrust with the well-being of a whole film, other producers say.

“A producer is like the manager of a sports team. Without them there is no team,” said James G. Robinson, chairman of Morgan Creek Prods., one of the key production companies based on the Warner Bros. lot. “A good producer never puts someone in a slot just to get the job filled and that’s not just cast, either. I’m talking below the line, camera crew, makeup, hair, etc. It’s all important. That’s why a lot of producers are disgusted with all of this--a good producer doesn’t have the chance to get sick or get mad or take a day off.”

And then there’s the rare instance where talent has been so dedicated a producer will feel guilty not sharing the credit, as happened on Mel Gibson’s best picture winner, “Braveheart.”

“A producer credit was not part of Mel’s deal in the beginning, but at the end of the day no one deserved it more,” said “Braveheart” producer Alan Ladd Jr. Ladd greenlit the script when he was chief of MGM/UA, and took the project to Paramount as a producer after being ousted. He approached Gibson for the lead and Gibson pushed Paramount to let him direct, his second turn at directing a big-budget studio movie.

“We shot six days a week, 24 weeks in a row and it was a grueling shoot in Scotland and Ireland,” Ladd said. “Mel never, ever read another script from the day he started to the day he finished that movie. Actors always do, looking for their next job. How do you say no to a guy like that?”

Another person some in Hollywood seem to have a hard time saying no to is Eszterhas. For his part, he downplays the controversy surrounding “Alan Smithee.”

“You know, I never considered myself a producer,” he said. “What has yet to be noted in the press is that Arthur [Hiller] was in the room when I did my cut. He didn’t agree with me and the irony is he wanted to stick closer to my original material. We disagreed vehemently but I didn’t take his editing room over--I respect him too much for that. The next day, after he took his name off, he called and asked me if I needed any help. That’s how it was.”

Hiller declined to comment, but some of his supporters said that he disputes aspects of Eszterhas’ account and say he was very hurt by Eszterhas’ behavior as a producer.

“Sure I want the power to control my own words on screen. And in this case, it worked out that way,” Eszterhas said. “But to be a producer in the future--God no!”