This is topic Paramount Dumps Cruise in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004779

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 08-22-2006, 08:15 PM:
 
MSNBC Home » Entertainment » Movies

Paramount cuts ties with Tom Cruise
Chairman says the star’s behavior was unacceptable to the company

Junko Kimura / Getty Images file
Paramount Pictures ends its 14-year relationship with Tom Cruise.

Updated: 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
NEW YORK - Paramount Pictures has severed its 14-year-old ties to Tom Cruise’s production company because of his off-screen behavior, the chairman of the studio’s parent company said Wednesday in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.

The report signaled the end of one of the most lucrative production deals commanded by any A-list Hollywood star and followed other signs that Cruise’s public stature had been damaged by his conduct during the past year.

Cruise’s representatives and officials from Viacom and Paramount did not have any immediate comment on the report.

Days after his latest film, “Mission: Impossible III,” opened to lower-than-expected domestic ticket sales in May, an opinion poll showed his star power in the eyes of the public had dimmed considerably.

And last month, the Los Angeles Times reported that Paramount Chairman Brad Grey had informed representatives for Cruise and his production partner, Paula Wagner, that the studio planned to slash the amount it spends on their company, Cruise/Wagner Productions.

Months ago, Grey was one of several movie industry executives who publicly rallied to Cruise’s defense to insist that his status and popularity were undiminished.They were reacting to a USA Today/Gallup poll in which half of those surveyed registered an “unfavorable” opinion of the actor. Many cited his off-screen behavior during the past year, including his outspoken defense of his religion, Scientology, and his blunt criticism of psychiatry and actress Brooke Shield’s treatment for postpartum depression.

Cruise also became the butt of jokes for his manic, couch-hopping appearance on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” last May to declare his love for actress Katie Holmes, who recently gave birth to Cruise’s first biological child, a daughter they named Suri.

“As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal,” Redstone was quoted as saying in the Wall Street Journal report e-mailed to reporters. “His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount.”

Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14472455/

[ 08-22-2006, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Will Kutler ]
 

---

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 08-22-2006, 08:32 PM:
 
Only a matter of time until it happened. I'm sure some other studio will be quick to lend a hand to good ol' C/W productiions.
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 08-22-2006, 08:39 PM:
 
Does this mean that Comedy Central can now air the Scientology episode of South Park again?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-22-2006, 09:06 PM:
 
It was aired again a couple of weeks ago...
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-22-2006, 09:17 PM:
 
Who cares about scientology, I want to see mohammed on family guy.
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 08-22-2006, 10:01 PM:
 
Once again.. the Hippinator strikes again..
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-22-2006, 10:18 PM:
 
Will, read the rules and edit in that link.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-23-2006, 07:01 AM:
 
Well if Cruise finds himself getting ditched just because of the controversy over his involvement with a relatively small-scale bunch of wack jobs, I guess that means Mel Gibson has really screwed the pooch...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-23-2006, 12:22 PM:
 
Nah, Mel Gibson still has an "in" until he makes another mainstream movie. If he makes one and it flops, then he's screwed. You're only as good as your last hit (unless you're Woody Allen, I guess.)
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 08-23-2006, 12:24 PM:
 
Really dumb decision on Sumner Redstone's part, in my opinion. Too bad there are so few 'movie people' making movie-making decisions these days. Probably accounts for there being so many terrible films recently.

Seems to me there are only three male sure-draws these days .. Cruise, Johnny Depp and Mel Gibson. All three are 'colorful' personalities .. but, they make $$.

I'm sure Cruise/Wagner Pdns. will find a better home with a more progressive company than Viacom. Shouldn't be difficult to do.

Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-23-2006, 07:52 PM:
 
The one thing in Mel Gibson's defense is he's a zealot for a form of religion at least a couple thousand years old. There's a lot of cathedrals, classic art and various institutions which support the legitimacy of Christianity. Still, that anti-semiticism thing can really bite old Mel in the honches something fierce. Nevertheless, he's still a "nutjob" for a well established religion.

That brings me to the scientology thing.

Scientology strikes me as a sort of "pay as you go bible" -just to find out what happens as part of a freakin' made up bad science fiction story put together by someone whose ego was not in check at all.

The equivalent would be getting the Book of Genesis from the Old Testament for "free." That's just to get you into the club so to speak, at least after you've spent a week's worth of pay on some "auditing" crap. Let's go with that analogy a little further.

Want the next book, the book of Exodus? Hmm. We'll take 6 months pay for that. We'll take a year's salary for the Book of Leviticus.

Oh. I'm sorry? You want some of those New Testament chapters? Matthew? Mark? Luke? John? Well, you'll need to hook up with a good Hollywood studio for a $20 million per picture deal to find out that information. Or at least pull off a good Enron-style swindle to bilk some other people out of their cash. Revelation of Christ to John you say? Oof. You're gonna need some Halliburton money to find out about that one!

Please note, any militant scientologists who might be reading my post that I make of my own free will unaffiliated with any other organization and do so freely based on my United States Constitution supported right of free speech please know this: your lawyers can feel free to fuck off and screw with someone elsewhere. I'll say what I want and you really have no legal recourse to do anything about it. Don't like it? Tough shit. Find another battle elsewhere.

That last flippant remark by yours truly can be some indicator why Paramount has chosen to distance itself from Cruise and start airing that wonderfully funny South Park episode again. Most Americans know Scientology is a "religion" based on a made up science fiction story only a few decades old. They know about the Gistapo-like tactics aimed against families of disconnected Scientologist cult victims -as well as the numerous death threats leveled against psychologists. The group is way the hell out there and way out of touch.

In the end, I really feel bad for Tom Cruise. He is a good actor. I thought he even deserved an Oscar statue of Born on the Fourth of July; he was at least worthy of the nomination. But shit! He's got to wake up and realize he's gone off the deep end with this militant Scientology thing and get back a little closer to a more grounded approach.

Y'know, I have friends that are into all sorts of arguably crazy stuff. One of my best friends is deeply involved in Asatru, an old Viking religion that predates Christianity by thousands of years. Although she believes Christianity derives many of its themes from Asatru (and that Christians are deceiving themselves in what she feels is a later, made up religion) she doesn't go so far as to get in other people's faces saying they need to believe as she does.

That latter disconnect, not allowing others to have their own beliefs, is why we have so many damned wars.

 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-23-2006, 08:23 PM:
 
Cruise is much better off without Redstone. He will have more control over what he makes and does... probalby will also make much higher $$ per show too. Bit really who cares... Cruise will always be around no matter what.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-23-2006, 10:07 PM:
 
I think Tom Cruise is annoying. I've thought that for awhile.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-24-2006, 01:42 AM:
 
I agree Joe. The last film Cruise made that was really good was "A Few Good Men"...and largely due to the other cast members. Everything else, including that LAME POS "War of the Worlds" and most ALL other of his films were crap!

I say good riddance! It's WAY past time for the spaceship to take him and drop him in the volcano.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-24-2006, 01:51 AM:
 
The one I liked him in was cocktail... great flick
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-24-2006, 04:07 AM:
 
I haven't seen all of his movies, but I have seen all of the ones for the last 15 years and not one did I dislike. I will allow the rest of you to have an opinion, but just know that you are all wrong. Particularly Phil, War of the Worlds was great. I can't wait until Tom Cruise does a movie with Will Ferrell.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-24-2006, 04:10 AM:
 
You claim to like all of these crappy movies, yet you didn't love Snakes on a Plane???
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-24-2006, 08:13 AM:
 
This is about money & power, not religion. Louis
 

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 08-24-2006, 08:46 AM:
 

quote: Chris Hipp

---

I can't wait until Tom Cruise does a movie with Will Ferrell.

---

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

This is about money & power, not religion.

---

And that's what its all about now. A lot of projects from A-List talent has been cutback or put into turnaround because of cost. The day that those A-List talent demands may be almost over. This trend has been coming for a long time and Paramount dumped Cruise is the first big showing of the cost issue. For many of you see Tom Cruise as a big money maker at your theatres the seats mostly full. Well Paramount/Viacom has many stockholders also to answer too. For why the company is spending millions of dollars more on these projects. For those who just have read what the media has reported should also know that the behind the gates of the studio is a whole different world. I've worked behind those very gates on that lot. And both men (Sumner and Tom) are very smart people in business. I've shown movies to both men for screenings.

Look at MI:3, stands to make $400 million at the box office, Tom's cut in profits is around $80 million. After the rest of the profit and bill paying is done. Paramount's cut is not going tobe that big.

Today Cruise and company said that wanted out because Paramount's deal was too low $2 millions a year plus a special fund. The old deal was $10 million dollars which covered his production companies overhead on the lot plus getting projects. So today they reported they will set-up a new independent operation to make movies with a new fund of $100 million dollars of someone elses money.
Good Luck to the both of them.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-24-2006, 12:53 PM:
 
I think I would like to become a hugely famous actor just so I could rock the world by saying, "You know what? I have decided that I'm only going to ask $2 million per film. I don't need the money - my house is big enough, I have enough cars and I think all the other people helping make the movie deserve a raise. So I'll just take $2 mil, on the condition that nobody else on the movie makes any more than that either. Oh and by the way, the theatrical rental for this movie will be 40% for the entire run. The theatres deserve some more money too. The studio can make up the loss from what they're saving on me."

Probably wouldn't work, but I can dream I guess.
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-24-2006, 01:25 PM:
 
Brad, I didn't hate snakes, I just dont think it was the greatest movie ever and let's face it, without the hype neither would anyone else. It is the kind of movie I would want to watch one night bored at home, not pay $8 to go see, as if I would ever pay to see a movie.
 

---

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 08-27-2006, 08:55 PM:
 
Actually, I think Tom was an Actor in Collateral, as opposed to a movie star.
 

---

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 08-29-2006, 02:29 AM:
 
Cruise production biz finds new backers

By GARY GENTILE, AP Business WriterMon Aug 28, 8:14 PM ET

Tom Cruise's production company, which broke ties with Paramount Pictures last week in an unusually public dispute, has signed a two-year financing deal with an investment partnership headed by Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder.

The deal between Cruise/Wagner Productions and First & Goal LLC covers overhead and development, which will allow Cruise and producing partner Paula Wagner to run their company and make deals to produce films, some conceivably starring Cruise.

Financial terms were not disclosed for the pact, which has an option to renew for a longer term.

Cruise/Wagner still must find someone to finance production of those films and a company to distribute them.

Previously, Paramount had the first right to finance and distribute Cruise/Wagner films. In exchange, Paramount paid the producers as much as $10 million per year for salaries, expenses and discretionary spending. Paramount had offered a much lower amount to renew the deal, closer to $2 million annually, before talks broke off.

First & Goal was set up specifically to invest in Cruise/Wagner. Snyder also heads an investment partnership that controls amusement park operator Six Flags Inc., among other companies. Former ESPN executive Mark Shapiro, who heads Six Flags, will oversee the investment in Cruise/Wagner, the companies said Monday.

"This gives us the opportunity to work with all the studios and broadens our base," Wagner said Monday.

Long-simmering tensions between Cruise/Wagner and Paramount Pictures erupted last week with a public spanking of Cruise by Sumner Redstone, chairman of Paramount parent Viacom Inc.

Redstone broke ties with Cruise through an interview in the Wall Street Journal, saying the actor's public behavior, including jumping up and down on Oprah Winfrey's couch, and his aggressive defense of Scientology, alienated moviegoers and cost Paramount money at the box office.

Redstone claimed Cruise's antics cost Paramount between $100 million and $150 million in ticket sales for the actor's latest film, "Mission: Impossible III."

Wagner slammed Redstone last week, calling his comments "surprising" and unbusinesslike. She said last week it was their decision not to renew their 14-year partnership with Paramount, choosing instead to follow a long-standing desire to make smaller, character-driven films on their own.

On Monday, Shapiro brushed off any discussion of Cruise's behavior or Redstone's comments, preferring to focus on Cruise's proven box-office appeal.

"We're entrepreneurs and we like exploring new opportunities that present an excellent chance for success and innovation," Shapiro said.

Shapiro and Wagner emphasized that Cruise's last two films for Paramount, "War of the Worlds," and "Mission: Impossible III," grossed about $1 billion worldwide combined.

"We believe that Cruise and Wagner are a terrific investment," Shapiro said. "The track record speaks for itself."

The deal was brokered by talent agency CAA, which represents Cruise. Discussions with First & Goal began earlier this month, the companies said.

Last week, Wagner said her company had secured financing from two hedge funds to produce films. She declined to comment on those arrangements Monday.

Monday's deal does continues to allow Cruise to star in films produced or distributed by any studio, the same terms he had under his deal with Paramount.

AP Article on Yahoo!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-29-2006, 12:48 PM:
 
I had a dream last night and Tom Cruise was in it without my permission. He wanted me to fix his Xbox, so I played his electric guitar instead. The end. Damn bastard. I wish I was Paramount so I could dump him, too!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-29-2006, 03:11 PM:
 
Jeez, for once Redifer and I agree on something.
 

---

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 08-29-2006, 03:28 PM:
 
Big deal... Now the theme parks in questionable status of receiving a Cruise-themed ride are owned by six flags, not paramount.

Or maybe they already got bought by six flags out & it's no real big change.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-29-2006, 04:22 PM:
 
Six Flags isn't doing great financially. They are looking to close a whole mess o' parks.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 11-02-2006, 03:41 PM:
 
Tom Cruise and his partner Paula Wagner are set to restart the formerly defuncted United Artists division of MGM. Paula will be the new CEO of the company.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-02-2006, 08:40 PM:
 
Aw shit. UA they say? I can just see it now. Tom Cruise as James Bond 007 in The Scientologist Who Converted Me.

(disclaimer to money grubbing attorney's hired at the behest of angry rich Scientologist actors, I posted this message out of my 1st amendment constitutional right of free speech...so be invited to eat my shorts.)
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-02-2006, 08:43 PM:
 
Someone please ban Bobby for discussing religion and politics in the same post.
 

---

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 11-02-2006, 11:09 PM:
 
Finally, we have a connection between Charlie Chaplin & the star of Mission Impossible movies!

What? Orion wasn't high enough profile?
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-03-2006, 04:23 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Tom Cruise as James Bond 007 in The Scientologist Who Converted Me.

---