Paramount Dumps - Tom Cruise

[DjfunkmasterG]

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/

[Dommm]

finally someone has realised that he a bit strange

[bassman]

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...

[general tbag]

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.

[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.

[MinionZombie]

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. :rockbrow:

[general tbag]

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.

[Rottedfreak]

Then what 'negative effect' are Paramount babbling about? did they expect a 1 billion Titanic earnings?

[general tbag]

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.

[bassman]

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.

[Adrenochrome]

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?)


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!

[general tbag]

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.

[Eyebiter]

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.

[dmbfanintn]

:evil: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :evil:

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!

[kortick]

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

[MinionZombie]

$87 frickin' million???!!! For pint size? WTF, are they freakin' crazy. It was a decent performance, but it wasn't worth 87 mil, geez!

I'll put my head up and say that yep, I enjoyed Spielberg's WOTW as well. I liked the modern day retelling of it, scenes like the crowds swarming maniac style on the only working car were terrifying, good special effects too. It suffered a the hands of a somewhat dodgy script, it's certainly not a great film, but it's a solid blockbuster, I liked it.

Tom Cruise though, what a strange little man...

Damn straight, Hollywood need to tighten them thar purse strings and stop blowing so much money on actors, jebus, I thought 30 mil for Arnie in T3 was a buttload, but damn, 87 mil ... no wonder Hollywood is dying on it's box office arse. I wonder where they learnt how to manage money, from the Labour party?! :eek:

[zombie04]

After seeing Scary Movie 4, I really think Michael Madsen would've been better in the actual role in War of the Worlds instead of Tim Robbins. That guy just needs to stop making anything for a buck.

[Danny]

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.

thats not really that good movie wise, cus not only does it have to make back the budget but all the things that happens over budget, csu anyone in hollywood who said they stayed underbudget is ether cheap or a liar.
with all the poster campaigns and tv spots ect. they had more to pay than the budget and they never say how mutch over budget they whent.

case in point spiderman 2 though a sucess it didnt make back all the money they spent yet you still saw posters saying nothign but "6 million in the first week!" or some such stuff.


as for cruise ive never liked his acting becuase lets face it, he cant, and if you get stuck in the spot light you gonna go all "james brown" after a while it happens to all of em.:lol:


jebus, I thought 30 mil for Arnie in T3 was a buttload, but damn, 87 mil ... no wonder Hollywood is dying on it's box office arse. I wonder where they learnt how to manage money, from the Labour party?! :eek:

*some random quiz show host* bing- that is correct 10 points to mr M. zombie:D

[DjfunkmasterG]

$87 frickin' million???!!! For pint size? WTF, are they freakin' crazy. It was a decent performance, but it wasn't worth 87 mil, geez!

I'll put my head up and say that yep, I enjoyed Spielberg's WOTW as well. I liked the modern day retelling of it, scenes like the crowds swarming maniac style on the only working car were terrifying, good special effects too. It suffered a the hands of a somewhat dodgy script, it's certainly not a great film, but it's a solid blockbuster, I liked it.

Tom Cruise though, what a strange little man...

Damn straight, Hollywood need to tighten them thar purse strings and stop blowing so much money on actors, jebus, I thought 30 mil for Arnie in T3 was a buttload, but damn, 87 mil ... no wonder Hollywood is dying on it's box office arse. I wonder where they learnt how to manage money, from the Labour party?! :eek:

Well his salary was Something like $25 million plus a percentage of the Domestic... the figure doesn't include DVD sales of which he gets 50% of every DVD sold. The dude had the most lucrative deal in Hollywood and ****ed it up

[general tbag]

it was 20 percent take on everything, well over a 100 million on war of the worlds alone.

[Andy]

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.

i thought you guys were talking about the studios :rockbrow:

[MinionZombie]

Although, you have to admit, Cruise did a good job in Born On The 4th Of July, that's some powerful sh*t ... he hasn't done anything that risky in quite some damn time, so he's just played it safe and signed lots of people's sh*t.

And I'll take "Entertainment" for 20 points...

[Neil]

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...

Shame, the last one was an pretty good flick!

[bassman]

Shame, the last one was an pretty good flick!

Oh yeah, I agree. I didn't mean that was a good thing. I actually like all three of them.

[Neil]

Well, again, knowing someone who has worked with Cruise, so having heard a bit about what he's actually like 'personally', I don't really have anything bad to say about him.

If his worse issue is he gets excited and jumps up and down on a couch, then we're pretty much all fruit cakes...

To be honest I get a bit fed up with the attitude of once something/someone is big/successful/famous it's simply the "done thing" to try and bring them down...

[bassman]

Well, again, knowing someone who has worked with Cruise, so having heard a bit about what he's actually like 'personally', I don't really have anything bad to say about him.

If his worse issue is he gets excited and jumps up and down on a couch, then we're pretty much all fruit cakes...

To be honest I get a bit fed up with the attitude of once something/someone is big/successful/famous it's simply the "done thing" to try and bring them down...

Yeah, I know what you mean. Some people say things like, "I'll never go see another movie that he stars in again!" It doesn't make any sense. As if his personal life has anything to do with his acting abilities...

I think it just makes some people feel better about themselves to make fun of someone famous because they know someone else will be on their side. I mean, I would understand if someone doesn't like one's body of work.....but to dismiss an actor because of their "personal life"(and let's be honest....nobody knows JACK about stars' personal lives except themselves) is just ridiculous.




i thought you guys were talking about the studios

No, GeneralTbag quoted Rottedfreak saying that "War of the Worlds" wasn't what it could have been(as in film quality) because of time difficulties. Then GeneralTbag responded with a statement about how much money the film made and that meant it wasn't a failure. That was my point, thank you.

[MaximusIncredulous]

he made a 100 million from war of the worlds i doubt he isnt to worried.

I wonder how much the Scientologists take of that.

[DjfunkmasterG]

A few celebs practice that BS, but I doubt they really give up their fortunes to the place. I mean no one is that friggin' stupid.

[Dommm]

you will be suprised how many people are stupid enuff to give up there money to this dark society. take a look saround on the web, there are numbers of people who have fallen into depression and suicide after joing said society. Though this does not intrinisicaly prove anything....

[Neil]

you will be suprised how many people are stupid enuff to give up there money to this dark society.

Can you believe some people are even stupid enough to just sit in little bitching circles and rattle off each other to feel better :rolleyes:

[DjfunkmasterG]

you will be suprised how many people are stupid enuff to give up there money to this dark society. take a look saround on the web, there are numbers of people who have fallen into depression and suicide after joing said society. Though this does not intrinisicaly prove anything....


There's a sucker born everyday. If they were stupid enough to give up their money and become depressed... F*ck them for being so easy to manipulate.

[Dommm]

Can you believe some people are even stupid enough to just sit in little bitching circles and rattle off each other to feel better :rolleyes:

I saw that at my last AA meeting :|

Also read the book dianetics mmm... brainwash fodder.

[MinionZombie]

Of course, sometimes you can only go so far on a celeb from what you've seen of them in the media, and while Pint Size is probably a nice chap, scientology is flat out dodgy and he's more than likely got at least a little chunk of arrogance under his bonnet about being who he is. But he's probably not a bad guy ... but sometimes he can be damn weird, and average folk don't like that generally. It's like being rich, if you use your money wisely and do charity then you're golden. If you hoarde it all and just act like a Paris Hilton then you're not liked.

It's like with Ben Affleck, just a normal guy as well. I think the dude's pretty sound, especially from what you read about him via Kevin Smith's chats and writings. I posted something about The Fleck taking a disabled kid he knew (and their family) to hang out on the sets of his films and gives them a taste of the high life, you know, do something special for the kid, going where the average punter can never go. It was Smith who leaked that info, because Fleck didn't tout it around.

Then again, some celebs are complete assholes because they just are, they'd even be assholes if they weren't famous and rich - just like with normal people. That whole "I refuse to watch any of their sh*t again!" 'thing' always makes me laugh, geez...

[general tbag]

Talks between Paramount and Cruise over renewal of their 14-year contract broke down a week and a half ago, insiders said. According to some accounts, the studio refused to renew a deal that paid Cruise's company $10 million a year to cover overhead.

Paramount is said to have offered Cruise about $2 million, but he wouldn't bite. His camp has said the breaking point wasn't about money but about Paramount's "behavior."
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/446235p-375656c.html

crazzzzzzzzzzzzzy