“We have a name for what’s happening to her,” jokes a third agent, “‘Ashley Judd syndrome.’ It’s happening to Kate Hudson; it’s already happened to Jennifer Aniston." (Aniston's The Switch badly misfired in 2010, studios began to lose confidence that she could carry an entire film, and as a result, she has been seen largely in supporting roles, as with last year's Just Go With It and Horrible Bosses.)
I can't even take this seriously, and particularly this "agent" and his comments because there is absolutely nothing about them that are factual. The funniest part being that they are trying to say Hudson might soon find herself in this trouble they are alleging that Jennifer is in - as if Hudson has a more successful career! That's laughable. Other than a nepotism Oscar nomination years ago, Hudson hasn't had even half the successes Jennifer has or is having.
I'm a Jennifer fan, but I'll be the first to say that she has never solely carried a "blockbuster" film, but she has had modest successes as the sole lead, and several blockbusters results as the co-lead (and of course the occasional flop as all actors/actresses do). That said, there isn't anything that was said by that agent about her that is accurate in the industry. Those comments sound like media propaganda - the same kind that is always pushed on Jennifer. I don't know any other actor or actress that have their careers as scrutinized and their numbers as badly misreported as she does. Personally I think half the media wants to try to make her seem desperate and sad, and the other half is the jealous type that wants to kick someone or find fault when they are overall so successful. It's the only explanation I have for how she and her films are so quickly written off and wrongly reported on.
As for this alleged "agent's" comments:
1) Jennifer's The Switch didn't badly misfire at all, and certainly not to a point where people would be blaming her and questioning her leading lady status. The media made that claim, but those in the industry would have been aware that the film was very low-budget - only $19 million production budget - and it earned nearly have of that on its opening weekend. This was never a film that was going to open to huge $20+ million opening weekend numbers. It is quirky, off beat and not a big studio rom-com at all.
Additionally, this film was one of the remaining 6 owned by previous studio Mirimax and suffered from lack of proper and focused promotion because of this, and as many have pointed out - it is more Bateman's film. Despite all of this, it still went on to earn nearly 2.5 times its production budget at the box office, and is the type of film that is lucrative for DVD and TV sales. Do I think they would have hoped for and wanted a bigger box office take? Sure. But was this a misfire? Absolutely not.
2) Then this "agent" goes on to say because The Switch "misfired" studios lost confidence in Jennifer's ability to carry a film. Again, this cannot be someone in the industry talking. Nobody gets "demoted" like that based on one film. If that were the case, Witherspoon and Damon would be out of careers at this point. But even assuming for a moment that the film misfired (which it didn't), or that studios lost confidence in her on that basis (which they didn't), what could be the result of this? Since The Switch, every role she's been hired for is the lead female (including HB, though the role is supporting in nature).
3) The idea that Jennifer's only had "supporting roles" since The Switch is also patently wrong. The only role that can be classified as supporting is Horrible Bosses (yet she was still its lead female). She was the co-lead in JGWI and Wanderlust, and has been hired as the lead female (or a co-lead female) in her three upcoming projects: Miss You Already, Switch/UELP, and We're the Millers. To call her role as supporting in JGWI also just proves this "agent" a hack. She was the co-lead, appeared on all the promotional materials and did heavy promotion work for that project. Had a full part in the film equal to Sandler's, and was credited with a) bringing a predominantly female audience to Sandler's normally male dominated film goers, and b) bringing in the best international box office for any Sandler film. To see a Sandler film where the lead female is supporting, look to Jack and Jill - Sandler played both titled parts, and Katie Holmes's part was marginal and supporting in nature. Completely different from Jennifer's part in JGWI.
Plus, for Horrible Bosses, while her part was supporting, no one can argue that she wasn't the main promotional figure and selling point for the film. She did both the domestic and international premieres, interviews, junkets, magazines, etc. She was the only cast member (aside from the three less known leads) to do this. When she was hired it was said that the studio was hiring big name A-list talent for the boss and Jones roles to help stir interest and promote the project. She also was paid a huge salary for her part - more than any of the others.
Then look at We're the Millers, the latest role she is said to have signed for. The industry sites reporting on this, noted that the entire project hung on whether Jennifer would sign on or not - that if she didn't sign the project was going to be shelved, but if she did it was going into production and the aim would be to have it released next summer. That alone tells you how much power she wields - at least in the comedy genre.
My take on this article and it's alleged "agent" insider, is that they simply wanted to attract hits to it and the site and threw Jennifer's name in there in order to do it. Sites do this all the time. Forbes even has a running gag about throwing Jennifer's name into dull financial or tax articles because it's been proven to up hits to the site. There are plenty of other actresses that would have fit the example this "agent" was trying to make and that they could have used and would have been appropriate. Jennifer is not one of them.
