Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Thread: Paramount Dumps - Tom Cruise

  1. #1
    pissing in your Kool-Aid DjfunkmasterG's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Deadlands, USA
    Age
    52
    Posts
    7,663
    United States

    Paramount Dumps - Tom Cruise

    Paramount Dumps Cruise
    Tom Cruise has been unceremoniously dumped by his Paramount studio partners for his sofa-jumping antics on TV. Revered Paramount boss Sumner Redstone has ended his company's 14-year relationship with Cruise/Wagner Productions because he no longer wants to be associated with the movie star. Redstone tells newspaper The Wall Street Journal he believes Cruise's bizarre antics on TV shows like Oprah and Today had a negative effect on the box office take of Paramount's 2005 summer blockbuster War Of The Worlds. He snipes, "As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal... His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."

    http://imdb.com/news/wenn/2006-08-23/
    ALWAYS BET ON DEAD!
    Official member of the "ZOMBIE MAN" Fan Club Est. 2007 *FOUNDING MEMBER*

  2. #2
    Dying Dommm's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NW London, UK
    Age
    44
    Posts
    439
    United Kingdom
    finally someone has realised that he a bit strange

  3. #3
    through another dimension bassman's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    15,229
    United States
    Oh well....he's one of the biggest stars in the World right now. He'll just pack up and go somewhere else with ease....

    I guess this means no more "Mission: Impossible" flicks...

  4. #4
    Dead general tbag's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    tbagville
    Posts
    545
    Canada
    he made a 100 million from war of the worlds i doubt he isnt to worried.

    if anything all the negative stuff hurt mi3 , compared to the first 2 movies sales wise it tanked.

  5. #5
    Twitching
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    43
    Posts
    806
    Undisclosed
    The reason War of the Worlds failed is because Paramount insisted it be ready for 2005 rather then the 2007 release Spielberg wanted. he wanted to make a epic victorians versus the Martians which would be faithful the HG Wells book. That and the fact that some people resent Tom Cruise.

  6. #6
    Team Rick MinionZombie's Avatar
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    The Mandatorium
    Posts
    24,219
    UK
    lol, hardly surprising really. All his bizarre antics are the sort of things fans don't want to see in their favourite celebs. It would also be a matter of Tom Cruise overload, a flooded market if you will. The same thing happened with Jude Law (although the two actors are obviously quite some distance apart in terms of success, but it's the same theory).

    I was one of the legions of people who were fed up with Tom Cruise, the guy's just gone barmy. You'd have thought such a shrewd businessman would have more smarts not to go leaping around like a moron on furniture.

  7. #7
    Dead general tbag's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    tbagville
    Posts
    545
    Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Rottedfreak
    The reason War of the Worlds failed is because Paramount insisted it be ready for 2005 rather then the 2007 release Spielberg wanted. he wanted to make a epic victorians versus the Martians which would be faithful the HG Wells book. That and the fact that some people resent Tom Cruise.

    As of November 22, 2005, (the last day it was at the box office) it has earned $234.3 million domestically and $357.1 million overseas, making the total $591.4 million. It is the 4th highest grossing movie of 2005.

    Budget $132 million


    how can you call that a failure.
    Last edited by general tbag; 23-Aug-2006 at 12:36 PM.

  8. #8
    Twitching
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    43
    Posts
    806
    Undisclosed
    Then what 'negative effect' are Paramount babbling about? did they expect a 1 billion Titanic earnings?

  9. #9
    Dead general tbag's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    tbagville
    Posts
    545
    Canada
    i dont blame them really , with the scrutiny with his odd behavior and than his mystery kid, and throw in the cult. hes damaged goods.

  10. #10
    through another dimension bassman's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    15,229
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by general tbag
    As of November 22, 2005, (the last day it was at the box office) it has earned $234.3 million domestically and $357.1 million overseas, making the total $591.4 million. It is the 4th highest grossing movie of 2005.

    Budget $132 million


    how can you call that a failure.

    Dude, why is it that you always seem to think that how much money a film makes determines whether or not it's a good film? Money doesn't determine whether or not a film is in fact a good or bad film. Money only matters to the studios. There have been plenty of great films that didn't do well at the box office, as well as bad films that did well....

    I'm pretty sure Rottedfreak was saying that the quality of the film wasn't what most expected because Spielberg was rushed through production. He wasn't talking about the money, but how good the film was, itself.

  11. #11
    Walking Dead Adrenochrome's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,090
    United States
    Crap.....now we'll have to see clips of him CRYING LIKE A WHINEY BABY on Oprah; Instead of jumping on the couch, he'll be face down in the floor, kicking and screaming, "But, I wanna be Number 1!!! I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I WANNA!!!!"
    I wonder how his new kid, Slurpee (or whatever her name is) will be used as a media tool now? To help him sign on somewhere else? Or as a Supermarket Mag Tag to win over America's hearts for daddy?
    Maybe he'll leave the Flick industry for good and become a Scientology Priest (do they call their "head Honchos'" Priests?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rottedfreak
    he wanted to make a epic victorians versus the Martians which would be faithful the HG Wells book. That and the fact that some people resent Tom Cruise.
    THAT would have made a MUCH better movie. I hate to admit this, but, Peter Jackson was right in keeping King Kong set back in the day instead of modernizing it.

    Oh my.....I just half-a$$ defended Peter Jackson!!! What ever could be wrong with me????

    Damn you Tom Cruise!
    Last edited by Adrenochrome; 23-Aug-2006 at 01:33 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  12. #12
    Dead general tbag's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    tbagville
    Posts
    545
    Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by bassman311
    Dude, why is it that you always seem to think that how much money a film makes determines whether or not it's a good film? Money doesn't determine whether or not a film is in fact a good or bad film. Money only matters to the studios. There have been plenty of great films that didn't do well at the box office, as well as bad films that did well....


    ill admit it i loved the movie, i can see more action added but spielberg, and cruise pulled it off pretty good in my books. even if it lost money , i still say it was a good film. it one of the few films i actually went to the theatre to see that year, even passing up episode 3.for tom cruise flicks it was one of the better ones.

    the fx channel version of w.o.t.w with thomas howell was a massacre in my books.

  13. #13
    Rising Eyebiter's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    1,393
    United States
    Studios are currently reviewing expensive talent and scaling back high budget films right now. This is an opportunity to take some power back from the actors. After all Tom Cruise got paid 87 million to be in War of the Worlds. Bet the studio accountants freaked when they saw that.

    From what I've read there will be a few 100 million dollar summer blockbuster films made in the future. Instead the focus will be on less expenisive pictures for the next few years.

  14. #14
    Dead dmbfanintn's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    565
    Undisclosed


    In the infamous words of CJ "Phuck the Phucker!"

    I hate Tom Cruise.

    I would like to see him lose all of his money, be forced to live on a $30,000 a year income, become manically depressed and be forced to take anti-depresants, and then have a basketball surgically implanted into his rectum and be forced to pass it without pain medication or the opportunity to make any noise!

    THAT, would be so sweet to watch!

    Go worship L. Ron and get the hell out of my living room you phucking nut-job!
    "I Like Your Christ, I Do Not Like Your Christians,
    Your Christians Are So Unlike Your Christ."
    ~Mohandas K. Ghandi

  15. #15
    Rising kortick's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lampshade Leather Bar
    Posts
    1,059
    United States
    his spin doctors have already leaked he will get
    back into good graces by getting married

    it will be a big affair
    all of hollywood and the world will rejoice
    and once again people will love him

    his ego needs deflating
    once he realises the world doesnt care
    about his views on anything
    just how he performs in a film
    (just like any other actor)
    he may become acceptable

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •