-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Paramount cuts Tom Cruise loose


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
28 replies to this topic

#1 of 29 Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted August 22 2006 - 03:02 PM

Here's a link to the story.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#2 of 29 Christ Reynolds

Christ Reynolds

    Producer

  • 3,597 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 2002

Posted August 22 2006 - 03:06 PM

i was just reading that. he'll probably think they are being anti-scientologist, or something else. if he just shut up and did his job, i'd be able to look at his work more clearly. i've enjoyed him in quite a few movies.

CJ
And then when I feel so stuffed I can't eat anymore, I just use the restroom! And then I CAN eat more!

#3 of 29 Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer

  • 11,523 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted August 22 2006 - 03:07 PM

Are you taking notes, Disney? I think Mel Gibson's behavior has been even worse.
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#4 of 29 Thi Them

Thi Them

    Producer

  • 3,650 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 20 1999

Posted August 22 2006 - 03:24 PM

I'm sure his behavior wasn't just the issue. I read earlier that Paramount just didn't want to continue paying him so much money.

~T

#5 of 29 Cory S.

Cory S.

    Supporting Actor

  • 983 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2004

Posted August 22 2006 - 03:32 PM

It's more about Cruise not taking a lesser deal from Paramount than his "recent behavior", which if you sit down and really think about was well over a year ago.

He said squat during his promotional tour for Mission III. All the "behavior" issues came during the promotion of War of the Worlds.
"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves.  But, not the one it needs right now.  So, we'll hunt.  Because he can take.  Because, he's not a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector.  A DARK KNIGHT."

#6 of 29 Tim Glover

Tim Glover

    Lead Actor

  • 7,654 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 1999
  • Real Name:Tim Glover

Posted August 22 2006 - 03:56 PM

Just saw that on Yahoo as well. He's still a great actor. Just needs to chill a bit. Posted Image

#7 of 29 Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,574 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted August 22 2006 - 06:04 PM

I don't like the guy much, but what a farce. Cutting him loose because of his behavior? In Hollywood? Where stupidity and poor behaviour from the glitteratti appears to be de rigeur? Right! Getting rid of him is all about money. They obviously felt they were not getting a big enough ROI from him, so it was goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#8 of 29 Dave Lipscomb

Dave Lipscomb

    Extra

  • 19 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 29 2004

Posted August 22 2006 - 06:07 PM

The line about "cutting him loose" is bull. Nobody cuts an actor bringing in over a billion in one year. The Cruise/Wagner combo has been seeking external financing for over a year now, and cut off talks with Paramount for about a week.

This is Paramount's damage control, nothing more.
The industry is only enjoyable on the outside looking in...

#9 of 29 John_Lee

John_Lee

    Supporting Actor

  • 966 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 31 2000

Posted August 23 2006 - 12:06 AM

http://www.variety.c...1117948794.html

Coincidence?

#10 of 29 Mary M S

Mary M S

    Screenwriter

  • 1,546 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2002

Posted August 23 2006 - 01:09 AM

When a star has had success you often see ‘creative control’ becoming a larger issue at time to renegotiate a contract.
I don’t believe the last MI did well domestically for Paramount and much of the press for the last year and more has indicated Holmes & Cruise are getting exceptionally hard to handle on the junket.

Cruise appears to be listening more to his ‘inner voice’ and I don’t think Paramount thinks they can continue to try and translate it for public box office consumption.

Future projects that C&W envisioned allowing (?) under a new Paramount deal, may have been the kicker.

I think Paramount is worried Cruise’s Star is on the eclipse if current trends continue and is getting out while the going is good.
You've been dreaming. Dreaming of Sea Captain who haunted this house.

#11 of 29 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,690 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted August 23 2006 - 01:47 AM

He wants more money than Paramount wants to give him and so he'll just go to another studio that will give him what he wants.

#12 of 29 Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted August 23 2006 - 02:27 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR
He wants more money than Paramount wants to give him and so he'll just go to another studio that will give him what he wants.
The story being put out by Cruise/Wagner Productions is that their future funding will come from outside the studios -- namely, from hedge funds. If that turns out to be the case, any deal with a studio will probably be limited to distribution for a fee, much like Lucasfilm or Ikon.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#13 of 29 Kevin Grey

Kevin Grey

    Screenwriter

  • 2,598 posts
  • Join Date: May 20 2003

Posted August 23 2006 - 03:48 AM

Quote:
I don't like the guy much, but what a farce. Cutting him loose because of his behavior? In Hollywood? Where stupidity and poor behaviour from the glitteratti appears to be de rigeur? Right! Getting rid of him is all about money. They obviously felt they were not getting a big enough ROI from him, so it was goodbye and thanks for all the fish.

But the two are related here- Paramount thinks his behavior has lowered the ROI on him (ie they are directly blaming the lower than expected grosses on MI:3 on his public antics).

#14 of 29 Cory S.

Cory S.

    Supporting Actor

  • 983 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2004

Posted August 23 2006 - 04:46 AM

Kevin,

That maybe true about Mission III but during the height of his "behavior" issues, War of the Worlds was Cruise's biggest film ever....and it's not like Mission III didn't make alot of money worldwide either.

It's going to be a pretty big DVD this year as well. So, it's not like Paramount hasn't made any money of the Cruise image during this two-year "image problem."

Again, it comes back to Cruise not wanting to take a lesser deal instead of his "recent behavior." That's what the press release should've said.
"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves.  But, not the one it needs right now.  So, we'll hunt.  Because he can take.  Because, he's not a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector.  A DARK KNIGHT."

#15 of 29 MarkMel

MarkMel

    Screenwriter

  • 1,503 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 19 2003

Posted August 23 2006 - 05:18 AM

Maybe he wants to be out on his own to make battlefield earth II? Posted Image
"and no one seems to understand the glory of guitar, when out of tune, the off timing, the singers who can't sing, - the beauty of flaw!"

"I apologize if there is anyone in this room I have not offended" - Brahms

My Band - Charlie Don't Surf! https://www.facebook...arlieDontSurfCT

 


#16 of 29 Kevin Grey

Kevin Grey

    Screenwriter

  • 2,598 posts
  • Join Date: May 20 2003

Posted August 23 2006 - 06:17 AM

Quote:
That maybe true about Mission III but during the height of his "behavior" issues, War of the Worlds was Cruise's biggest film ever....and it's not like Mission III didn't make alot of money worldwide either.

Yeah, but there was some question on whether he may have impacted WotW's gross too. Certainly, before the summer began, the idea that a Cruise/Spielberg alien invasion blockbuster could be a potential $300 million grosser was very possible.

And whether MI:3 is profitable or not, it is still perceived as underperforming. Maybe there are other reasons for that, but some obviously feel that Cruise may have damaged his core fanbase.

#17 of 29 Cory S.

Cory S.

    Supporting Actor

  • 983 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2004

Posted August 23 2006 - 06:27 AM

Kevin,

I would've agreed with this "behavior" issue hurting the gross if War of the Worlds hadn't clean upwards of 600 million worldwide, without DVD sales factored in.

And if his behavior was an issue during the summer of 2005, why did Paramount greenlight Mission III? Simple answer is that War of the Worlds made some serious dough for the studio. Again, it was Cruise's biggest film ever.

Mission III will get in the black very, very soon if it hasn't already. Yeah, it did underperform only because of the budget. Mission III, like most of Cruise's films, was another hit internationally.
"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves.  But, not the one it needs right now.  So, we'll hunt.  Because he can take.  Because, he's not a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector.  A DARK KNIGHT."

#18 of 29 Kevin Grey

Kevin Grey

    Screenwriter

  • 2,598 posts
  • Join Date: May 20 2003

Posted August 23 2006 - 06:55 AM

Quote:
And if his behavior was an issue during the summer of 2005, why did Paramount greenlight Mission III? Simple answer is that War of the Worlds made some serious dough for the studio. Again, it was Cruise's biggest film ever.

Mission III will get in the black very, very soon if it hasn't already. Yeah, it did underperform only because of the budget. Mission III, like most of Cruise's films, was another hit internationally.

I think there was still some question if Cruise hurt WotW's potential gross at the end but it wasn't conclusive since there obviously could have been other factors (a bit more grim than many might have expected, weak ending, etc) so he got the benefit of the doubt. MI:3, on the other hand, was being reviewed very well prior to release and the consensus seemed to be that it was audience friendly and the best of the series. But it ended up grossing the least of all of them. So I think at that point Paramount thinks "hmmm, maybe he isn't the draw that he once was" and, from the sound of things, couldn't renegotiate the deal at a better rate.

David Poland has a great writeup about this today but the bottom line seems to be that the backend deals these days are getting so exhorbitant that studios risk might be in the red on these movies even if they get $500 million worldwide and that the risk is becoming too much to bear.

#19 of 29 ToddP

ToddP

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 172 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2003

Posted August 23 2006 - 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
The story being put out by Cruise/Wagner Productions is that their future funding will come from outside the studios -- namely, from hedge funds. If that turns out to be the case, any deal with a studio will probably be limited to distribution for a fee, much like Lucasfilm or Ikon.

M.


You're going to start seeing more and more of this kind of thing. Hollywood is moving toward securitizing future receiveables on blocks of films in a big way. It's actually very smart on their part, and will allow MUCH less money to come out of pocket for production purposes.

#20 of 29 Allen Hirsch

Allen Hirsch

    Supporting Actor

  • 532 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 29 1999

Posted August 24 2006 - 05:50 AM

There have been two stories about this in the Wall Street Journal this week. Cruise/Wagner claim that they have $100M lined up from two hedge funds who will give them more creative control than Paramount did. (So far, Cruise's team hasn't disclosed who those hedge funds are, and no one has taken the PR lead to claim they're financing Cruise's next pictures, according to the WSJ - which leads me to believe that's not yet a "done deal".)

There was also a story that overtures were made that instead of giving Cruise/Wagner $10M/year for their overhead (which was what the old deal called for), Paramount wanted to cut that back to something like $2.5M/year in the new deal.

Today's WSJ story had a funny lead about Merrill Lynch's hedge fund group having a private meeting where they showed Cruise's over the top performance on Oprah, jumping all over the couch. After the clip, the head guy says, "how do we hedge THAT risk?"
My DVD Collection
My CD Collection


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow