Tom Cruise gets the boot! [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

Ontir

08-23-2006, 08:32 AM

Siting Cruise's weird behaviour, and saying that it's cost Paramount more than $150 million in revenue between War of the Worlds and M:i:III, Sumner Redstone has publicly lashed out at the decreasingly profitable star, severing Paramount Pictures' 14 year relationship with he and his production company Wanger/Cruise. This is seen by many as the beginning of belt tightening across the industry, and could have major rammifications for other "mini-major" stars who cost a lot, but yeild little.

One viewer e-mailed KTLA's Morning News show to say that he made a conscious decision NOT to see the latest Mission Impossible film, because of Cruise's behaviour, as well as his relationship with Katie Holmes, which he said made him un-easy.

Jared

08-23-2006, 08:41 AM

And thus, Tom Cruise's days of being the biggest movie star on Earth were officially over.

It's not like the guy will never get work again, but damn, clearly the studios aren't willing to pay him the mega-salery he'd been getting anymore. Paramount reportedly had considered renewing their deal with Cruise/Wagner, but only if Cruise took less money.

I think Cruise has done more in the last two years (or whenever he started seeing Holmes) to hurt his own popularity than any big star I can think of, that didn't involve drugs, alchohol, or a sex scandal. He's managed to turn himself and his religion into common punch-lines.

Somewhere, Val Kilmer is laughing...

karaokefanboy

08-23-2006, 08:41 AM

ON ABC 7's 11 o'clock news last night in L.A., cute little reporter Elsa Ramon suggested that Cruise and his people were already considering an out with Paramount so they could pursue other interests, cinematically, I assume. Yeah, right. I wouldn't have believed that an actor's behavior would affect a film's success in the box office, but I guess it's true. Imagine how the OTHER actors in M:I:III and War of the Worlds feel? Cruise may get top billing, but the films are as much a vehicle for them as it is for him. If I were Ving Rhames or Dakota Fanning, I'd be be pissed. (And who knows which could really throw a bigger tantrum!) At this rate, Cruise will be reduced to a tabloid darling, with little credible work to offer in the latter half of his career.

Oh, well.

DDM

08-23-2006, 09:21 AM

DDM

08-23-2006, 09:23 AM

Jared

08-23-2006, 09:34 AM

Bear in mind, he is a talented actor, he could still probably get roles in stuff like Magnolia or Vanilla Sky, as long as he stops weirding everyone out on-set with Scientology recruitment.

Leslie Lee III

08-23-2006, 09:45 AM

MI 3 made $390 million, but it's a failure?

Paramount is having financial difficulties, they try to low-ball during contract renegotiations and people think it's because some dude jumped on a couch?

Are we on the same planet?

It's all about the $$$$. Cruise could, I don't know, slaughter an entire ethnic group in an African nation and while it wouldn't generate nearly as talk for you all as him spouting non-Christian religious views, he'd still get a deal with Paramount if it was on their financial terms.

Black Atom

08-23-2006, 09:49 AM

Xero Kaiser

08-23-2006, 09:52 AM

Mission Impossible film, because of Cruise's behaviour, as well as his relationship with Katie Holmes, which he said made him un-easy.

What's all this about?

Jared

08-23-2006, 09:59 AM

Considering the number of celebs out there that have abused alcohol, abused drugs, driven drunk, urinated on underaged girls,
driven a car with their baby on their lap, fled the scene of an automobile accident, beaten someone with a telephone, solicited prostitutes, solicited transvestite prostitutes, and cheated on their spouse, Tom seems pretty harmless by comparison. Yet he seems to be suffering lots more damage to his career.

Well his career was based so heavily on his likability and coolness. By hurting that, he hurts his box office. Audiences don't really care if Jack Nicholson is an asshole. Hell, they probably expect it.

And Britney "Drivin' Country" Spears's career is pretty much on the toilet right now too. Right now she's more famous for being white trash, than for being a pop star.

blackdragon6

08-23-2006, 10:14 AM

One viewer e-mailed KTLA's Morning News show to say that he made a conscious decision NOT to see the latest Mission Impossible film, because of Cruise's behaviour, as well as his relationship with Katie Holmes, which he said made him un-easy.
sounds like someone needs a life.

The Punished

08-23-2006, 11:34 AM

The film was still successful. There has to be something more. Yeah, he has taken alot of heat for his loose tonguesmith over the last year or so. But he still makes really good movies.

I admit his actions made me laugh but I still went and saw his movie. I thought it was a very good action film. I enjoyed it immensely. If the studio is in financial distress already this action is not going to do them very good in the future either.

KenK

08-23-2006, 11:40 AM

Tom Cruise used to have a good publicist to keep him under control; however, his firing of his long-term publicity team & hiring his sister (who is equally a Scientologist nutcase) to be his publicist is not a coincidence.

I thought the publicist he fired WAS his sister.

marshal99

08-23-2006, 11:45 AM

Dump Cruise and get his younger lookalike Sean Faris in. :D

http://xcyberzine.t35.com/PCM/SFarisPCM005.jpg

Cayman

08-23-2006, 11:47 AM

Seems kind of disloyal to do to a guy who made them so much money over the years.

And why would Dakota Fanning complain? She should be saying "I was 10 and I was second-billed in a movie that made $234 million dollars. Score!"

Cay

Tish-the-Scorpion

08-23-2006, 11:53 AM

reminds me of the r-kelly,michael jackson,kobe bryant situation....sort of.you see the press followed these cases cause it was like watching a plane crash and burn.

R.kelly,people thought it was over for him then he realesed his album wich debuted at the top ten.afterwards he had all but dissapeared from the negative lime light.

kobe bryant,the case fell apart and he more or less seems to be getting endorsments again.thus the negative spotlight sort of faded away.

michael jackson-they thought this was it for him,but nope he was aquited

people might say michael isn't popular anymore because of the alegations.but the truth of the matter is its more than likely because he's not relevant anymore.unlike r-kelly who in my openion has hard evidence against him.but unlike michael, kelly is still relevant and continues to write and produce for other artists,hell he revived the isley brothers career.if michael was still relevant i guarantee you he would still sell records regardless of the alegations

the point i'm making is that people under estimates core fans.they'll support people till the end of time.and tom cruise is no different.people are expecting him to kill over and die.atleast the media wants him to so they can have fresh prey for their tabloids.but if he has another huge block buster everyone is gonna be kissing his ass again.

Taltos

08-23-2006, 11:58 AM

although im glad tom cruise got fired, that guy wierds me out, i dont agree with the move. Even if his recent antics bring in less $$$ than they did before, tom cruise still brings in the cash. Its not like hes going to lose them money.

Lowering his pay was the way to go, but i see how tom cruise, as a man in the public eye, could not accept it.

KenK

08-23-2006, 12:15 PM

Well, nothing was keeping me from seeing Mission Impossible III, 'cause I had a lot of faith in JJ Abrams, in addition to Cruise. Say what you want about his personal beliefs, but when it's time to work, he works.

Hopefully he'll realize that he can't force his beliefs on people, and furthermore shouldn't be flauting his personal relationships and family in the media, because when he wants privacy, there's gonna be someone over him to say, "you wanted us all up in your business in the first place". It was all well and good last year 'cause in its infancy, the whole thing with Katie Holmes was rather cute. He was with Penelope Cruz for a while, then single, so you were just happy the dude found someone. And unlike all the other asinine name amalgamations that were created for other couples, I found TomKat to be creative, ironically enough because it's an actual word! It was clever 'cause of pre-existing circumstances. It wasn't this Bennifer, Brangelina crap we had had to endure in the past, and still endure today (Vaughniston?!?!? I love how only the white celeb couples get their names amalgamated!!:rolleyes: ). War of the Worlds was kicking butt at the box office so the studio heads were happy. But then that heifer had to go and get pregnant. And Cruise, already on the verge of becoming nuttier than gay born, was done. The man put himself out there every chance he could! The man even promoted himself on BET!! Doin' the Young Joc dance, no less!

Leslie Lee III

08-23-2006, 12:20 PM

I agree with the point I think Tish is trying to make, Tom Cruise should have just (allegedly) raped somebody and he'd probably be fine.

Ontir

08-23-2006, 12:24 PM

Cruise has subsequently replaced his sister with a real PR firm, but that was after the truly odd Rolling Stone interview, and as proven by his Oprah and Today Show appearances, they don't have the same sort of control over him.

Later in the broadcast, it was mentioned that a hedge fund had been in the works for awhile, and that Wagner/Cruise was planning to create its own studio, but hoping to work a distribution deal with Paramount, which might've been part of Redstone's motive.

In terms of fan reaction, when stories about Scientology booths being required on a set, or that a list of possible future "Mrs. Cruise"es was set up, and that the current fiancee is the one chosen after the first choice (Jessica Alba) was dropped because her personal beliefs were too strong, and she coudln't be converted (reportedly a problem between Cruise and the still Catholic, Kidman, in terms of raising the children), a rather creepy picture emerges. Scientology is a cult, pure and simple. Religion ALWAYS plays a hand in America, and when creepy cultism heads its ugly rear, people tend to react from very basic places of belief, which often manifests itself as recoiling in disgust. That translates, in this case, as a lack of ticket sales.

It also doesn't help, that his last film, M:i: III was almost exactly the same as the first one C'mon Tom, it's time to find another plot, you've done the rogue IMF Agent - TO DEATH! It also doesn't help that these 3 films have very little to do with the actual premise of Mission Impossible. Hopefully, that property belongs to Paramount, and Cruise can't take it with him!

mybotisgone

08-23-2006, 01:26 PM

Tom's a nut. That's all I have to sayabout that. He proofed it on Oprah. About MI3 if the studios call it a failure it's a failure no matter how much it made.:( I thing the right for Mission Impossible will go back to the people that made the original show. If you ask me I think studios would be back after this crap. After Paramount Pictures worked so heard on that lawsuit with Tom Cruise to take the Mission Impossible copyrights.

If you asked me I never liked the Mission Impossible movies. The first one was bum the second one was crap and that third one was seemed to be notting more then a wast of time.

SnowTrooper

08-23-2006, 01:51 PM

Tom Cruise got what he deserved. If he acts crazy on TV and fires his own sister then he got what he had coming. It wont really matter though because hes Tom Cruise and could get a role if he lost both his legs in a plane crash. I just hope that it might have given him a small reality check and bruise his ego a little bit.

DDM

08-23-2006, 01:58 PM

Hail Xenu!:eek:

Sabrinaset

08-23-2006, 02:01 PM

I hope Tom doesn't need to see a psychiatrist to deal with his issues. I'd really hate for him to have to go on anti-depressants or anything.

SUPERECWFAN1

08-23-2006, 02:24 PM

Tom has 2 film projects lined up that will likely make Paramount have egg on their faces. Its not like Cruise can't rebound and land at another studio. Odds are with his name and the fact he's been in so many $ 100 million pictures he'll get his chance to redeem himself.

Redstone is also trying to blame Howard Stern for the CBS Radio division faltering. His lawsuit of Stern is comical and he blames him for leaving and annoucing it to the press and how he was going to Siruis. ;)

Ontir

08-23-2006, 02:30 PM

I'm sure he'll be OK, I mean he's got a $#!+load of money and a hedge-fund with which to start his new studio. He's also got a bunch of Scientologist friends who I'm sure can be called upon for support. The biggest part of this shake-up, is that if Paramount is willing to dump Cruise, then many other actors (like Harrison Ford) and hyphenates need to be really concerned. The question of the day, from studio to producer seems to be "What have you done for me lately?!?"

Cruise's next 3 projects (as of now) are two re-makes, the Eye, and I Married a Witch, and a period bio-pic the Few, but we'll see what, if any affect, today's events have on them.

blackdragon6

08-23-2006, 02:40 PM

R.kelly,people thought it was over for him then he realesed his album wich debuted at the top ten.afterwards he had all but dissapeared from the negative lime light.
.
Actually it was the top 5 if not top 3.Its one of my favorite albums by him too:D

SUPERECWFAN1

08-23-2006, 02:47 PM

Cruise's next 3 projects (as of now) are two re-makes, the Eye, and I Married a Witch, and a period bio-pic the Few, but we'll see what, if any affect, today's events have on them.

The " Eye " is gonna be his 1st horror film from what I've read online. The Few reunites him with Micheal Mann and is a good WW II bio-pic. Odds are if the films are good and they click with fans , people will watch. Ben Affleck is in a real rut and needs Hollywoodland to click worse than what Cruise is in.

Leslie Lee III

08-23-2006, 02:47 PM

It's not like all his movies are with Paramount anyway. Collateral, The Last Samurai, Magnolia weren't with them. This isn't like a musical artist getting dropped from a label and having to find a new one before they put out another album. It was a picture deal that didn't get renewed because they couldn't come to terms.

Ontir

08-23-2006, 03:32 PM

Which is often a great deal like getting dropped by a record label, and having to find a new one. Magnolia wasn't a "Cruise" picture, and it represents the last time he attempted anything new and interesting. Similarly, Colateral was one of his "Cruise/Director" projects, like "War of the Worlds," and "Minority Report" which were co-financed by two studios. It'll be interesting to see what this hedge-fund deal turns out to be. If he does it right, and manages to spin his negative press, he could create the next "United Artists," but done wrong, it could be the next "Dreamworks SKG," which 7 years ago, was a studio, TV production, animation (which still exists separately), and a record label, but is now essentially a production shingle.

It's interesting that Paramount is dumping Cruise, sighting losses on "War of the Worlds," while bringing Spielberg/Amblin/Dreamworks onto the lot. Especially after it's been reported that Spielberg won't work with Cruise again, after the Scientology booths on "WotW."

Leslie Lee III

08-23-2006, 03:38 PM

Valmore

08-23-2006, 03:42 PM

Tom Cruise may be a nut, but his films still routinely make anywhere from $100 million to $200 million domestically, more worldwide. This is kind of a silly move. Wait until his movies actually start tanking before cutting ties with him.

Ontir

08-23-2006, 03:55 PM

My point was he doesn't need Paramount to still have an extremely successful career in film and make movies. Your counterpoint is, what? That these movies won't be "ALL TOM CRUISE, ALL THE TIME" so they don't count? I mean, I'm fairly sure his Paramount films had director's too.

The difference is, the other films are projects that he put together. Yes, they had directors, but those directors worked for him, just ask Joe Carnahan, the original writer/director of M:i:III! With Magnolia, he was hired to come in, and play a specific part. He wasn't involved in development, he didn't have a say in the crew (on his own films, he generally works with the same people he's been working with for the last 20 years), and wasn't a part of the editing of the film.

The process is a bit different when collaborating with someone like Mann, who really brings people in, and practically workshops the material. I don't know Spielberg's process as well, but I've heard that the two films they did together were a hybrid of Spielberg and Cruise styles, which seemed to work well the first time, and chafed the second.

Yes, he's in a good position to launch his new endeavour, like so many before him, who fell flat on their face. This is essentially a make or break point.

Cayman

08-23-2006, 03:56 PM

Too bad there's no way to tell how much less the box office would've been for War Of The Worlds if it had starred, say, Eric Bana or Adrien Brody.

Cay

Leslie Lee III

08-23-2006, 04:27 PM

The difference is, the other films are projects that he put together.

But what difference does that make to my point? He doesn't need to produce, baby, give birth to any film ever again to still be the most successfull personin Hollywood.

Yes, he's in a good position to launch his new endeavour, like so many before him, who fell flat on their face.

Yeah, that applies to every endeavor ever, but it's meaningless outside of context and in this context (with Cruise's last movie pulling in $390mill) there's no good reason to even suggest he's going to "break" or even come 500 miles of it. All this doom and gloom shit is wishful thinking.

Ontir

08-23-2006, 04:28 PM

Or if it might've been a star-maker turn and out-grossed the existing film.

Cayman

08-23-2006, 04:32 PM

At the end of the day, even if he's turned off some fans, Cruise is still the biggest movie star in Hollywood and probably can reasonably enjoy another decade of that status.

Cay

Ontir

08-23-2006, 04:32 PM

But what difference does that make to my point? He doesn't need to produce, baby, give birth to any film ever again to still be the most successfull personin Hollywood.

Yeah, that applies to every endeavor ever, but it's meaningless outside of context and in this context (with Cruise's last movie pulling in $390mill) there's no good reason to even suggest he's going to "break" or even come 500 miles of it. All this doom and gloom shit is wishful thinking.

Well, in terms of film success, that's still Samuel L Jackson, not Tom Cruise, and Jackson is on fantastic terms with Paramount, at least prior to Snakes on a Plane, anyway.

Tom Cruise doesn't have any intention of packing it in, he's going to make more movies, as many as he can, for as long as he can, but losing a deal like his, in such a bad way, at 44 DOES have an impact. His greatest success has been with one studio behind him. With his profitability waning, and now out on his own, it's a much different game. I'm not saying he CAN'T make it, just that it's a tough road, and he's got a lot to do to prove himself anew. His new films aren't funded by a studio with deep pockets who likes him, but by a hedge-fund with investors who won't want to lose too much cash.

Cayman

08-23-2006, 04:46 PM

Sam Jackson? How do you figure?

Cay

cactusmaac

08-23-2006, 04:49 PM

He didn't get bad PR for stating he was a Scientologist. He got that for criticising Brooke Shield's decision to take anti-depressants which seemed kind of dickish.

Gary Joyce

08-23-2006, 04:53 PM

Sam Jackson? How do you figure?

Cay

I think he figured out by Sam Jackson being by the most profitable actor as all his films combined take in the biggest gross of any actor.Maybe the case but i still feel Cruise is the most well known Movie Star in the world.

Cayman

08-23-2006, 05:00 PM

I think he figured out by Sam Jackson being by the most profitable actor as all his films combined take in the biggest gross of any actor.Maybe the case but i still feel Cruise is the most well known Movie Star in the world.

Well, that probably works out because he was an actor in 3 Star Wars movies and Jurassic Park. But he wasn't the lead in any of those.

Cay

Valmore

08-23-2006, 05:13 PM

Tom Cruise, simply put, is the most bankable leading man in movies right now and has been for quite a few years. Can we name a STARRING actor who consistently pulls in triple-digits and higher for almost every single film he's in? He's the new Harrison Ford, who used to be bankable on a consistent basis (and to an extent still is). The negative publicity should subside, and it's not like it really hurt that much - MI:3 still made a bunch of money.

This was a ridiculous move by Paramount - sure, Cruise may make a hefty salary and get royalties, but Paramount was still making money from his films in the end. Who else is going to pull that cash in consistently?

cactusmaac

08-23-2006, 05:16 PM

If they were making money, they wouldn't have even considered pissing him off.

Ontir

08-23-2006, 05:21 PM

Now he's the new Harrison Ford in that his films aren't raking in the dough they once did!

Valmore

08-23-2006, 05:22 PM

If they were making money, they wouldn't have even considered pissing him off.

I'm pretty certain they weren't losing money off of his films. The story I've been hearing and reading seem to indicate they weren't getting enough of the profit for their liking - that his contract was paying him too much up front and royalties on the back end, plus production credit. They wanted a contract with better terms for their profits.

cactusmaac

08-23-2006, 05:46 PM

It's not a question of simply whether they can make money. It's a question of whther they think those same resources can be used more profitably on different kinds of projects.

Cayman

08-23-2006, 08:17 PM

Just last year he made his highest-grossing film ever. I'm sure he'll recover. Unlike Ford, Cruise is still robust.

Cay

Legato

08-23-2006, 08:47 PM

Cruise is planning on doing another Mission Impossible film and still recieving calls on a few more movie offers so, to the Cruise haters out thare, his Hollywood career is still standing.

Ontir

08-24-2006, 12:15 AM

It's also a question of spending a great deal of money on someone who frequently uses his mouth to alienate fans. There are a great many people who won't see his films now, because of all the Scientology stuff. Religion always is a big deal in this country, and he's a part of something that most of the world doesn't consider a real religion, and many of them think it's a really screwed up cult!

Why blow all that money in one shot, when you can divide it up into a group of films, with people who will be far more grateful, and not blow the opening, by going off on Brooke Shields, via Matt Lauer?

Buzz Dixon

08-24-2006, 06:39 AM

A couple of three thoughts...

Hollywood is beginning to realize that the gottahavvahit mentality is no longer as profitable as it once was, that "the long tail" applies even to movies and TV shows, and front loading a film with expensive stars and promotion is no guarantee of success.

Summer Redstone et al may have more information on Cruise than is public, and see possible problems in the future that they can avoid by severing ties now.

Summer Redstone may also be acting like an autocratic 84 year old who is out of touch with the contemporary scene.

mybotisgone

08-24-2006, 09:22 AM

I have to ask this but with Tom Cruise's brain on deep fry With a side order of religious extremus and Paramount Pictures giving him the boot. What the hell will happen to Mission Impossible copyright? Paramount only got the copyright because "Nut Job" Tom Cruise wanted them and with Paramount help they put lawsuits on everyone that would have gotin the Mission Impossible copyright and won it. I don't think Paramount would want it now. So for now there stuck with the Mission Impossible copyright.

Greg Hatcher

08-24-2006, 10:14 AM

Paramount's always owned MI.

mybotisgone

08-24-2006, 10:47 AM

Well I do remember a a lawsuit around the first movie. And saying it as all his now.

Leslie Lee III

08-24-2006, 11:47 AM

I look forward to the direct to video continuation of the Mission: Impossible series.

I'm not saying he CAN'T make it, just that it's a tough road, and he's got a lot to do to prove himself anew.

You haven't given any reasons to suggest this. It will be easier for him to continue on than it will be for any other actor or actress out there. Sam Jackson just had an actual flop while Cruise outperformed some pretty big movies like Superman Returns and Batman Begins. His last two movies grossed a billion dollars together. Again, all of this sounds like wishful thinking on your part with nothing but generalizations to back it up.

Ontir

08-24-2006, 11:55 AM

What I've said, is that his financing is coming from a hedge fund. These are a great many people, who are looking for a big return on their investments. Separated from Paramount, he doesn't - at the moment - have a distribution arm who can get his films into cinemas. Sure, being TOM CRUISE will help, but with the way films are programmed to cinemas, it's not as easy as it might sound. The days of the big chains, who play the tent-pole films, picking up a summer, popcorn extravaganza as a one-off, are over. They've already bid on many of the packages for next summer, most of them sight un-seen.

Now, if he and Wagner are REALLY building a studio WITH distribution, meaning there are going to be films beyond those starring Cruise, then it might be easier stiil, because then, they're putting packages out, which can compete with other distributors, but capitalizing on him being "the Brand." Like I said, it's not impossible, but it's difficult and there have been others who've tried to do similar things, like Spielberg, Katzenberg, and Geffen with Dreamworks, and found the dream has eluded them.

Cayman

08-24-2006, 12:16 PM

Very few of Cruise's films fail to break at least $100 million. I don't think he'll have much trouble finding work. Plus, a lot of the controversy will fade over time.

Cay

Valmore

08-24-2006, 12:20 PM

Very few of Cruise's films fail to break at least $100 million. I don't think he'll have much trouble finding work. Plus, a lot of the controversy will fade over time.

Exactly - even with the rounds of "bad" publicity this past year or so, his films still made oodles of money domestically and world-wide. There's no reason to think it won't continue until his movies actually start tanking.

Ontir

08-24-2006, 12:26 PM

The difference is, he doesn't have Paramount behind him. They paid him to make films with them. He was being given a great deal, in terms of overhead and support that he'll now have to pony up, on his own. Add to that, the loss of Paramount's distribution, and getting the film on to Multiplex screens gets harder still. There's more to it, than "If you build it, they will come..." Going indie, means he's going to rely more on festivals, Cannes especially, to get good reviews, and a pick-up from a distributor, to get the film onto the same screens he's been on for the last few years.

Cayman

08-24-2006, 01:14 PM

He'll just work for other studios like other actors do. He's still more of a sure thing than Brad Pitt, who is probably his closest competitor.

Cay

Ontir

08-24-2006, 01:30 PM

Except that's not what he's talking about doing. There's a hedge fund set up to finance his films, and Wagner is talking about launching a studio. They're going indie, from everything that was said yesterday, which is where my previous posts come from.

Jared

08-24-2006, 02:09 PM

Tom Cruise, simply put, is the most bankable leading man in movies right now and has been for quite a few years. Can we name a STARRING actor who consistently pulls in triple-digits and higher for almost every single film he's in? He's the new Harrison Ford, who used to be bankable on a consistent basis (and to an extent still is). The negative publicity should subside, and it's not like it really hurt that much - MI:3 still made a bunch of money.

Prfior to his own fiasco, we could have also said Mel Gibson.

Didn't the head of Viacom make a statement about Cruise's behavior being a factor in this? Maybe they've found him becoming more difficult to work with.

Ontir

08-24-2006, 02:38 PM

Going on a tirade with Matt Lauer, going berserk on Oprah, talking more frequently, and louder about Scientology, and reports that Spielberg was so pissed off about the booths on the War of the Worlds set, that he won't work with him again, says a great deal about what working with Cruise is like. I'm still wondering if the arrival of Spielberg on the Paramount lot is also connected to Redstone's position?

cactusmaac

08-24-2006, 03:22 PM

Jared

08-24-2006, 06:12 PM

While the Oprah thing is easier to make fun of, I think his comments about Brooke Shields and psychological illness in general are what really made him look like a jerk. Unless he's got some medical credentials, or there's an upper level scientology power that lets him become pregnant, he's got no business telling women the proper way to handle post-partem depression.

I saw a report on TV that says Redstone claims to have recieved congragulatory calls from Brian Grazer and David Geffen. And if it's true that Speilburg is on board the anti-Cruise ship, then Paramount should definatly come out the winner in this. If not, it could be rough, because the president of Hollywood's most powerful talent agency blasted the way Redstone handled this.

DDM

08-24-2006, 06:43 PM

While the Oprah thing is easier to make fun of, I think his comments about Brooke Shields and psychological illness in general are what really made him look one of those upper level Scientology powers enables him to become like an jerkoff to alot of people. Unless he's got some medical credentials, or there's an upper level scientology power that lets him become pregnant, he's got no business telling women the proper way to handle post-partem depression.

I saw a report on TV that says Redstone claims to have recieved congragulatory calls from Brian Grazer and David Geffen. And if it's true that Speilburg is on board the anti-Cruise ship, then Paramount should definatly come out the winner in this. If not, it could be rough, because the president of Hollywood's most powerful talent agency blasted the way Redstone handled this.

According to Fox News Roger Friedman, Spielberg was just as surprised Paramount dumped Cruise when it made the news.

Buzz Dixon

08-25-2006, 12:09 AM

The Hollywood Reporter is saying it's a dispute over DVD sales that's at the root of this, which goes back to "the long tail." DVD sales comes after a studio has produced and promoted a film. The tipping point is slowly but surely moving to home viewing of films via DVD or video on demand; the unions and above the line talent want more of that pie than they've gotten in the past and the studios don't want to give it up.

Ontir

08-25-2006, 02:16 AM

"According to Fox News," is akin to "I read it in the Enquirer," except that when it comes to the Enquirer, they get things right once in awhile.

The DVD Stuff seems pretty sound.

Tish-the-Scorpion

08-25-2006, 11:47 AM

There are a great many people who won't see his films now, because of all the Scientology stuff. Religion always is a big deal in this country, and he's a part of something that most of the world doesn't consider a real religion, and many of them think it's a really screwed up cult!

the truth of the matter everybody shove their religious belif down your throat.scientologists,christians,muslims,jews or what ever(but thats neither here nor there).the only diffrence is that cruise is a huge star.now if mel gibson survive his controversy than it'll show you where the minds of america is.truth of the matter is that people in the entertainment world has little respect for religion of any kind.often people who are religious are seen as nut jobs in the entertainment media.remember when bobby and whitney went to israel?,when cassius clay became muhamed ali,or when sammy davis said he was jewish?

i'm thinking its more ignorance than anything,sure tom should keep his beliefs to himself but obviously the media baits him too.

Aggie

08-25-2006, 01:05 PM

While the Oprah thing is easier to make fun of, I think his comments about Brooke Shields and psychological illness in general are what really made him look like a jerk. Unless he's got some medical credentials, or there's an upper level scientology power that lets him become pregnant, he's got no business telling women the proper way to handle post-partem depression.

i totally agree...he forgot that he's a freakin' movie star and not the damn surgeon general or your basic certified medical professional...i've never liked him because i've always seen him the asshole he is and could careless if never makes another movie.

fly on the wall

08-25-2006, 01:47 PM

With Tom Cruise's $20 million salary, I think his ego took a huge hit due to his recent film failures; however, he does not connect the dots with his weird behavior of trying to convert people to his Scientology cult & his fake love for his current Katie Holmes obsession to prove he is not gay.

Going independent is also going to affect Tom Cruise's salary. This means no more $20 million paychecks. I don't think Cruise will be able to take it.

I have made a conscious decision not to see anymore Tom Cruise movies thanks to his outlandish behavior.

It's odd the behavior that can end a career these days and the behavior that doesn't effect careers.

Tom Cruise wasn't so immoral as he was a jerk. A braying jackass. There's plenty of drunk, drugged-out, serial adulterors in Hollywood that don't harm their careers.

But to be honest it was hard for me to see "War of the Worlds" with Cruise in it. I love the story so I went anyway.

When you really get down to it Cruise is kind of old, too. I'm sure that played into the decision.

Black Atom

08-25-2006, 02:01 PM

Ontir

08-25-2006, 02:05 PM

[T]he truth of the matter everybody shove[s] their religious beli[e]f down your throat. [S]cientologists, [C]hristians,
[M]uslims, [J]ews or whatever (but thats neither here nor there). [T]he only diffrence is that [C]ruise is a huge star. [N]ow if [M]el [G]ibson survive[s] his controversy than it'll show you where the minds of [A]merica is. [T]ruth of the matter is that people in the entertainment world has little respect for religion of any kind. [O]ften people who are religious are seen as nut jobs in the entertainment media. [R]emember when [B]obby and [W]hitney went to [I]srael?, when [C]assius [C]lay became [Mo]ha[m]med [A]li, or when [S]ammy [D]avis said he was [J]ewish?

[I]'m thinking its more ignorance than anything, sure [T]om should keep his beliefs to himself but obviously the media baits him too.

The fact of the matter is, that his beliefs, while known, were his own, until he went off on Brooke Shields, via Matt Lauer. His behaviour had been rather strange for awhile, beginning with the Rolling Stone interview prior, and continued to the couch-stomping incident on Oprah. Regardless of intensity or flavour, the majority of Americans consider themselves Christian, Jews and Muslims are an established religion. The former, the place from which Christianity springs, and a religion that post-WW II Christians feel a much greater affinity. Muslims, probably more because of Mohammed Ali, have a certain degree of acceptence, even post-9/11, but the super-secretive nature of Scientology, the lawsuits against people who spill the secrets, and the Celebrity Centres, along with things like the people of Martha's Vineyard banning together with a promise to each other, not to sell anymore land to "the heathens" in the 80's (when Travolta, Kirsty Alley, & other Scientologists were buying homes there), removes the group from a normal, respectable place in public perception, and places it firmly in the cult/scam camp.

Sammy Davis, Jr.'s conversion to Judaism is the least sensational thing on the list.

Going to Isreal had little to do with the public's perception of Whitney & Bobby! They were believed to be whacked-out, crack-whores, well before that. At most, it was further confirmation.

Mel Gibson is doing his best to make ammends, manning the phones, apologizing to Entertainment power-houses, but thus far, it's reportedly falling on deaf ears.

Cruise is at an interesting juncture in his career. His films aren't making money the way they used to, and a great deal of that has to do with his mouth. Regardless of the spin on the event, he's separated from the studio that's been his happy home for a long, long time. That studio, is also the one that traditionally has had the deepest pockets, which sets a new tone across the industry. Instead of moving to another studio, he's going to start his own, which could be a great thing, if he continues to foster films like Cold Mountain, and Narc, but if he relies on other Scientologists, and uses his new position, studio, and product as a means of proseletising, he may well find a public that no longer wants anything to do with him.

Aggie

08-25-2006, 08:51 PM

The fact of the matter is, that his beliefs, while known, were his own, until he went off on Brooke Shields, via Matt Lauer. His behaviour had been rather strange for awhile, beginning with the Rolling Stone interview prior, and continued to the couch-stomping incident on Oprah. Regardless of intensity or flavour, the majority of Americans consider themselves Christian, Jews and Muslims are an established religion. The former, the place from which Christianity springs, and a religion that post-WW II Christians feel a much greater affinity. Muslims, probably more because of Mohammed Ali, have a certain degree of acceptence, even post-9/11, but the super-secretive nature of Scientology, the lawsuits against people who spill the secrets, and the Celebrity Centres, along with things like the people of Martha's Vineyard banning together with a promise to each other, not to sell anymore land to "the heathens" in the 80's (when Travolta, Kirsty Alley, & other Scientologists were buying homes there), removes the group from a normal, respectable place in public perception, and places it firmly in the cult/scam camp.

Sammy Davis, Jr.'s conversion to Judaism is the least sensational thing on the list.

Going to Isreal had little to do with the public's perception of Whitney & Bobby! They were believed to be whacked-out, crack-whores, well before that. At most, it was further confirmation.

Mel Gibson is doing his best to make ammends, manning the phones, apologizing to Entertainment power-houses, but thus far, it's reportedly falling on deaf ears.

Cruise is at an interesting juncture in his career. His films aren't making money the way they used to, and a great deal of that has to do with his mouth. Regardless of the spin on the event, he's separated from the studio that's been his happy home for a long, long time. That studio, is also the one that traditionally has had the deepest pockets, which sets a new tone across the industry. Instead of moving to another studio, he's going to start his own, which could be a great thing, if he continues to foster films like Cold Mountain, and Narc, but if he relies on other Scientologists, and uses his new position, studio, and product as a means of proseletising, he may well find a public that no longer wants anything to do with him.

two words dude,

battlefield...earth...

Ontir

08-26-2006, 02:40 AM

EXACTLY!

If he goes for that sort of thing, he'll bury himself - FAST!

Aggie

08-26-2006, 11:06 AM

EXACTLY!

If he goes for that sort of thing, he'll bury himself - FAST!

for all of his nutty behavior...i don't think he's stupid...if he's smart, he lay low for a little while and let all this pass...but since he's an ego maniac...he'll probably need to feel like he has something to prove...but as i said before...i could really care less.

Sabrinaset

08-26-2006, 11:24 AM

It's odd the behavior that can end a career these days and the behavior that doesn't effect careers.

Tom Cruise wasn't so immoral as he was a jerk. A braying jackass. There's plenty of drunk, drugged-out, serial adulterors in Hollywood that don't harm their careers.

But to be honest it was hard for me to see "War of the Worlds" with Cruise in it. I love the story so I went anyway.

When you really get down to it Cruise is kind of old, too. I'm sure that played into the decision.

It's a cumulative thing, I think. We'll forgive a few things, but when it goes on, and on, and on...

I'm thinking that when some of these stars insult the wrong people, that's when the press turns on them. Tom did that, not only by insulting Brooke Shields, who as near as I can see hasn't really done anything wierd, but also insulting psychologists, when most of Hollywierd uses them anyways.

Look. These guys are trained parrots. They say what a writer tells them to say, stand where a director tells them to stand, wear what a wardrobe director tells them to wear, and go where their PR people tell them to go. They're not really capable of critical thinking. They've never needed to either, they have their handlers do the thinking for them. Any "ideas" these guys have are more likely the result of overhearing something on a party in the Hamptons between doing lines of coke. Luckily for us, these guys are easily duped by anything that seems fresh, so if you walk up to them with a matchstick and a Liefield comic, then you can easily get a few million outta them by having them join The Church of the Flaming Liefield.

Leslie Lee III

08-26-2006, 11:27 AM

They're not really capable of critical thinking.

Certainly not compared to people who post on comic book message boards.

Sabrinaset

08-26-2006, 11:33 AM

Tish-the-Scorpion

08-26-2006, 12:17 PM

Look. These guys are trained parrots. They say what a writer tells them to say, stand where a director tells them to stand, wear what a wardrobe director tells them to wear, and go where their PR people tell them to go. They're not really capable of critical thinking. They've never needed to either, they have their handlers do the thinking for them. Any "ideas" these guys have are more likely the result of overhearing something on a party in the Hamptons between doing lines of coke. Luckily for us, these guys are easily duped by anything that seems fresh, so if you walk up to them with a matchstick and a Liefield comic, then you can easily get a few million outta them by having them join The Church of the Flaming Liefield.still generalizing i see....

Sabrinaset

08-26-2006, 12:28 PM

Compare and contrast: This...

still generalizing i see....

with this:

the truth of the matter everybody shove their religious belif down your throat.scientologists,christians,muslims,jews or what ever...

Really. How is "everybody" shoving their religious "belifs" down your throat NOT a generalization? Why be so concerned about what others do when you did that yourself? And how is this advancing your argument?

The first two paragraphs were the argument, the last paragraph more of a joke at Hollywierds expence...because, let's face it, with their bizarre behavior, they deserve to be mocked.

Ontir

08-26-2006, 12:31 PM

I can name a hundred people on CBR who have more brains than most of Hollywierd.... and that's because I know a hundred people here somewhat well. I'm sure there's more I don't know of. Geez, I bet the average IQ of a CBR member is higher than the average IQ of a Hollywood celebrity.

Don't confuse people IN Hollywood, with "Suits" who are a mutant sub-species of humanity, generally incapable of sensing or comprehending any nuance, or sub-text.

Tish-the-Scorpion

08-26-2006, 12:47 PM

Really. How is "everybody" shoving their religious "belifs" down your throat NOT a generalization?

.because i say so....that and because i'm BOSSY!!

Sabrinaset

08-26-2006, 12:47 PM

Don't confuse people IN Hollywood, with "Suits" who are a mutant sub-species of humanity, generally incapable of sensing or comprehending any nuance, or sub-text.

By suits, do you mean the agents, lawyers, or...? I was more thinking of the actors. You're probably right, though, however you define the term.

I'm sure there's a few smart ones out there who keep their noses clean, but for every one of them, you have dozens...maybe hundreds... who make fools out of themselves. You'd think these guys would learn that the fewer paying fans and customers who despise your behavior, the more money you're more likely to make.

Is it possible to calculate how much money Tom Cruise lost in *potental* revenue because of his antics? Probably not, but I'm sure it must have been quite a bit. Hopefully, a cautionary tale for everyone else in Hollywierd.

Leslie Lee III

08-26-2006, 12:53 PM

Is it possible to calculate how much money Tom Cruise lost in *potental* revenue because of his antics? Probably not, but I'm sure it must have been quite a bit.

You can't calculate it, but you're sure it's a lot? Doesn't make sense. There's nothing but biased guessing to be done. His last two movies have been successful, moreso than many similar films films featuring other actors. It'd be just as easy to claim that all the publicity helped make more money since you couldn't help but hear about Tom Cruise.

Sabrinaset

08-26-2006, 01:10 PM

You can't calculate it, but you're sure it's a lot? Doesn't make sense. There's nothing but biased guessing to be done. His last two movies have been successful, moreso than many similar films films featuring other actors. It'd be just as easy to claim that all the publicity helped make more money since you couldn't help but hear about Tom Cruise.

Well, I guess I can look here (http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=114&sid=889974)...

...Sumner Redstone, chairman of Paramount parent Viacom Inc., said Cruise's recent behavior, such as jumping on Oprah Winfrey's couch and aggressively advocating Scientology, was "creative suicide." Redstone said such displays cost the studio up to $150 million in lost ticket sales for Cruise's last film, "Mission: Impossible III."

Redstone may have been basing some of his reaction on the fact that negative public perception of Cruise has soared in the past six months in the closely watched Q Scores, which rate celebrity popularity. They indicate that negative perception of Cruise jumped nearly 100 percent since mid-2005, while positive perception fell about 40 percent.

...or here... (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/08/movies/08impo.html?ei=5088&en=8711e2a4672699b5&ex=1304740800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1156618889-bMyCUt7T2WISx9DrMC5/cw)

Opening in 4,054 theaters, "Mission: Impossible III" had estimated ticket sales of $48 million for the weekend, according to Exhibitor Relations, almost $10 million less than the second "Mission: Impossible" movie in 2000, which opened in 385 fewer theaters and at lower ticket prices. Based on market research, the film had been expected to reach about $65 million at the box office.

Many in Hollywood had been watching expectantly to see if the negative publicity surrounding Mr. Cruise would have an effect at the box office, and this weekend — as "Mission: Impossible III" kicked off the film industry's peak summer moviegoing period — it appeared as if it had...

"I can't fault the marketing campaign; I can't fault the trailers," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations, which tracks the box office, adding that the film, directed by J. J. Abrams, received strong reviews. "The only X factor here is the Tom Cruise factor."

...for some ideas. I said as much, there's no way to calculate a speculation in this case...but I'm pretty sure a lot of people were turned off by his antics. Probably enough to not wanna see him. Now, 150 million? Might be highballing it, but I'm sure it was a big number.

Leslie Lee III

08-26-2006, 01:39 PM

Well, I guess I can look...for some ideas. I said as much, there's no way to calculate a speculation in this case...but I'm pretty sure a lot of people were turned off by his antics. Probably enough to not wanna see him. Now, 150 million? Might be highballing it, but I'm sure it was a big number.

Again, you're just guessing and quoting biased guessing to support your guess. We don't know, we can't know, we can't be sure of anything. If people's reactions were that easy to be sure of Paramount wouldn't have to be cutting costs in the first place.

Valmore

08-26-2006, 01:48 PM

For all we know, people being tired of Mission Impossible movies cost the film $150 million in ticket sales.

Sabrinaset

08-26-2006, 01:56 PM

Again, you're just guessing and quoting biased guessing to support your guess. We don't know, we can't know, we can't be sure of anything.

Isn't that what I said here...

Is it possible to calculate how much money Tom Cruise lost in *potental* revenue because of his antics? Probably not...

and here...

I said as much, there's no way to calculate a speculation in this case...

...so why you're arguing over something I already stated is making no sense to me. I said it before...I'm GUESSING he lost a lot of money. I never stated it as a fact. And I'm basing that guess on what people who ought to know more than me about the subject are saying. In the absence of anyone saying anything else, I'm going with these opinions for now.

Although calling the New York Times reporting of it ... the second article, BTW... an example of "biased guessing" makes it worth it, I guess.

Leslie Lee III

08-26-2006, 02:19 PM

...so why you're arguing over something I already stated is making no sense to me.

You said you couldn't calculate it, but that you were sure of it. That makes no real sense and that's all I was saying.

Although calling the New York Times reporting of it ... the second article, BTW... an example of "biased guessing" makes it worth it, I guess.

The NYT thing you quoted doesn't say anything other than the movie didn't do as well as expected. If the ways in which they formulated those expectations were that reliable (and they really don't seem to be) then, of course, the film would have performed as well as expected so it doesn't really explain how you can be "sure" of your guess. Just look at the discussions on Superman Returns underperformance for more examples of this. People swear to god if the suit would have been 2 shades more red it would have made twice as much money because that's what they chose to focus on and assume everyone else did the same.

Now the biased guess of Redstone was laughable.

Jared

08-26-2006, 02:52 PM

For what it's worth, a female friend of mine immediatly balked at the idea of seeing MI: III, and it was because of Cruise. I'd wager there are alot of people who felt like that. And then there's all the press coverage and comedian jokes over the past year, and now the way the Paramount story has been jumped on by the press. It's not even as though he's a polarizing figure, it's like he's the star we all love to hate.
Some day soon not even Rosie O'Donnel might stand by him.

And what did Oprah say about the couch incident? I don't remember anything about her commenting on it. All the coverage I saw was on his bizarre behavior.

DDM

08-26-2006, 03:05 PM

And what did Oprah say about the couch incident? I don't remember anything about her commenting on it. All the coverage I saw was on his bizarre behavior.

Oprah later apologized for Tom Cruise's weird, outlandish, Pluto-ish behavior on another show following the bad press & the Internet reaction from her show.

Ontir

08-26-2006, 07:05 PM

The show I saw, was her anniversary show. I don't recall who it was, but someone asked her if she bought it, and she said, "No. I didn't buy it for a second." She talked about how she'd known him for a long time, and that she'd interviewed him [?] many times, but that she'd never met that guy before!

Ontir

08-26-2006, 07:12 PM

By suits, do you mean the agents, lawyers, or...? I was more thinking of the actors. You're probably right, though, however you define the term.

I'm sure there's a few smart ones out there who keep their noses clean, but for every one of them, you have dozens...maybe hundreds... who make fools out of themselves. You'd think these guys would learn that the fewer paying fans and customers who despise your behavior, the more money you're more likely to make.

Is it possible to calculate how much money Tom Cruise lost in *potental* revenue because of his antics? Probably not, but I'm sure it must have been quite a bit. Hopefully, a cautionary tale for everyone else in Hollywierd.

No lawyers generally know what's going on.

Agents hope they know what's going on, and are generally trying to figure out how to get the biggest piece for themselves at any cost.

"Suits" are the clueless people who work at the studios and networks - you see them all the time. They've got an MBA from somwhere, and they're probably related to at least one someone, but generally know nothing about anything remotely artistic, and can't follow any plot line that doesn't look exactly like another one that made a whole lot of money! If you go see pthe Tonight Show they swarm Jay at ever commercial, telling him what stuff to cross out of the rest of the show. If you're at a premiere, they often look like their in the middle of a colonoscopy, until they realise that whatever just transpired on-screen made other people react positively. Then they smile.

Wild Card

08-26-2006, 10:45 PM

This subject was on friday's "Jerry Doyle Show". JD thinks that the real reason for the "firing" was becuse Cruise badmouthed the Pharmaceutical Industry. Since the drug companies are a major advertiser, they use their pull with Viacom to give Cruise his pink slip.

Ontir

08-26-2006, 10:47 PM

"Jerry Doyle" as in Mr. Garibaldi ~ Jerry Doyle?!?

What channel is his show on?

I don't think it's the pharmaceutical industry alone, but they could've played a part, maybe a final straw position, in the whole thing.

Wild Card

08-26-2006, 11:25 PM

IamtheRock3

08-27-2006, 10:53 AM

DDM

08-27-2006, 11:32 AM

Tom was acting a little Crazy

But dont think they should be bad mouthing them like they are
He did make them a lot o cake over the years

And the fact they were the first one to talk smack about it, makes it worst

Yea the brooke shield thing played into it. But those who think That fact Public think scientolgy is goofy and creppy, plays and even bigger part, didnt play a huge part are kidding themselves.

the brook thing was just icing on the cake. Scientolgy was the cake.

Tom Cruise acted as if he is the only one who knows all the right answers for any subject matter. Cruise brought up Brooke Shields' depression then interjected his Scientology crap all over the media. Tom Cruise set himself up for the fall from grace. Don't you know? Tom is right about everything! He prays to Xenu so he can become master of the whole space/time continuum...

Davideaux

08-27-2006, 12:22 PM

Buzz Dixon

08-27-2006, 03:50 PM

Tom is right about everything! He prays to Xenu so he can become master of the whole space/time continuum...That's like saying Christians pray to Satan.:rolleyes:

Ontir

08-27-2006, 11:48 PM

I feel like Tom got screwed. It's awful of management to cook up a lame excuse to fire the guy. The amount of bank he made for them should have made them more loyal. I'll still support him, because I enjoy his work.

This is what's been reported:

- Cruise was preparing to leave Paramount, and start his own studio.

- The amount of money Paramount was paying him to stay on the lot was incredibly high, and as his profits decrease, the studio needed to make some adjustments. (Something similar is reported to have happened with Harrison Ford, recently, because he was costing Revolution, IIRC, $20+ million just to show up, and his films weren't making nearly enough to justify it.

- Cruise's antics have soured his once faithful audience.

- Cruise's proseletising for the cult of Scientology has soured his once faithful audience.

- Cruise's devotion to Scientology's anti-psychiatry/pharmaceuticals has brought the wrath of rich pharmaceutical advertisers to bear against Viacom's network and a half, CBS/CW, and many cable channels, leading to his ejection from the lot.

Frankly, I think it's a combination of all of them, and I think Paramount was in the right to do so.