Paramount drops Tom Cruise

[mellowdrama]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Paramount drops Cruise over 'conduct'[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Staff and agencies
Wednesday August 23, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT] After a lucrative 14-year partnership, Paramount Pictures has decided not to renew its contract with Tom Cruise, citing the War of the Worlds star's off-screen antics as a concern. "His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount," explained Sumner Redstone, chairman of Viacom Inc, which owns the studio.But Redstone's announcement drew immediate fire from Paula Wagner, Cruise's long-term producing partner. "It is graceless. It is undignified. It's not businesslike," she told the LA Times. "I ask, what is his real agenda? What is he trying to do? Is this how you treat artists? If I were another actor or filmmaker, would I work at a studio that takes one of their greatest assets and publicly does this?"

While Cruise's money-making potential is not in doubt, his public pronouncements have attracted increasingly negative publicity over the past year. He was widely ridiculed for his couch-hopping exploits on the Oprah Winfrey show and has faced criticism for his views on Scientology.

Wagner admitted that she found the Paramount split "surprising". She claimed that negotiations with the studio had collapsed a week and a half ago, but insisted that she and Cruise had been considering independent financing for their company "for a long time".

Wagner claimed that Cruise has made more money for Paramount than any other actor has made for any other studio in history. His last seven films have each grossed more than $100 million in the US alone, she argued. "With War of the Worlds and Mission: Impossible 3, Cruise helped earn nearly $1 billion for Paramount this year alone," she argued.

Despite Redstone's remarks about Cruise's behaviour, sources suggest that the studio baulked at renewing a production deal that reportedly cost as much as $10 million a year. Paramount are believed to have offered Cruise and Wagner $2 million a year plus a $500,000 discretionary fund, but the negotiations broke down when Cruise allegedly refused to accept the pay cut.

"Paramount made an offer that wasn't per se unacceptable, but money wasn't really the issue," said Rick Nicita, Cruise's agent. "What this says about Paramount is self-evident. It was graceless and it was shocking and offensive."

Paramount's decision is likely to cause a shock in Hollywood, where it may be read as a sign that studios are taking a tougher line with their expensive and sometimes high-maintenance stars.

Most recently, ABC cancelled a production deal with Mel Gibson's company for a mini-series about the Holocaust after his anti-semitic outburst and actor Lindsay Lohan received a written warning from Morgan Creek Productions for failing to appear on set of her latest film Georgia Rule.

The cost to Cruise's career has yet to be fully calculated.

Even though I'm not a Cruise fan, Viacom/Paramount's going about this in an awfully tacky, public way. You wonder who threatened who first. Studios sure seem to be going Louis B. Mayer on everyone's ***es lately.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Now *this* is great news!!!

 

[cutxpaste]

wow

 

[cosmogrl5]

There you go, Tom. You were fired for being a lunatic...and you can't even medicate yourself!!!

 

[LoveMyBoots]

I read an article a couple of weeks ago saying that they were offering Cruise-Wagner Productions less money, but never thought much of it... now this is making front-page news

The past deal was just unrealistic. It's crazy how much Tom Cruise himself makes from his take of the gross. Just because he is also producer isn't an excuse. For example, his recent paychecks....

Salary
War of the Worlds (2005) (20% profit participation)
The Last Samurai (2003) $25,000,000 + % of profits
Minority Report (2002) $25,000,000+
Vanilla Sky (2001) $20,000,000 + 30% of Profits
Mission: Impossible II (2000) $75,000,000 (gross participation)
Eyes Wide Shut (1999) $20,000,000
Jerry Maguire (1996) $20,000,000 against 15%
Mission: Impossible (1996) $70,000,000 (gross participation)
Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994) $15,000,000
Far and Away (1992) $13,000,000
Rain Man (1988) $3,000,000+% of gross
Top Gun (1986) $2,000,000
Risky Business (1983) $75,000

 

[Trista]

I think it's about time that they took a harder line on high-maintenance stars.

 

[cutxpaste]

I told my mom this and she went, "Ooh, cool"

 

[PoppyAzura]

I read an article a couple of weeks ago saying that they were offering Cruise-Wagner Productions less money, but never thought much of it... now this is making front-page news

The past deal was just unrealistic. It's crazy how much Tom Cruise himself makes from his take of the gross. Just because he is also producer isn't an excuse. For example, his recent paychecks....

^ True but you did not include the gross of the films (which would give the numbers more perspective).

Tom, for all his crazy talk, is one of the most consistent stars in terms of drawing viewers. MI3 is the third in a series, and the last one was 4-6 years prior.

All of this talk about him being "fired" is bull. The papers have been full of the talk about Paramount re-doing their deal for months now. It's all about money. Tom costs to much- he had to go.

I wonder what this means for other stars that have great back end deals/high salary such as Julia Roberts and Nicole Kidman. Do studios really have to pay them such high salaries when their movies do not break even?

David Poland has a great analysis: http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2006/08/the_biggest_los.html#comments

 

[jssy4eva]

Well, that sucks for him, but I highly doubt that he's gonna be cutting coupons anytime soon The guy is loaded, so i'm sure that he will be just fine.

 

[tangerine]

I think Paramount must know something that hasn't broken to the general public yet.

 

[mellowdrama]

David Poland has a great analysis: http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2006/08/the_biggest_los.html#comments

Karma for that link. That article goes far in explaining much of the business back story (which I've no practical interest in keeping up with, I just want glamorous catfights and gossip to brighten my dreary world). It's not as mysterious and personal snit-fitty, I guess, if you're a Daily Variety-type analyzer.

 

[Juliet]

I think Paramount must know something that hasn't broken to the general public yet.

That is what first came to my mind too..

 

[Spike413]

Bout frickin time his insanity came back to bite him in the ***. I think that considering his last two films, though apparently successful by financial standards according to Cruise's camp, were essentially flops as far as the viewing public were concerned, Paramount had every right to make a pay cut rather than just hand him another $10 million a year deal. When was the last time Tom did critically and financially acclaimed work?

And that quote from Wagner "Is this how you treat artists"

Gimme a break honey, he's no thespian, he's a movie star.....note the difference.

 

[Diorling]

I think Paramount must know something that hasn't broken to the general public yet.

It's Suri. It's either the fact that she doesn't exist or that she's an alien...Pick one...

Anyways, it's about time! Tom Cruise isn't the name it used to be IMO, now he's just really crazy and he's definately getting grouped with the Gibsons and Costners.

Why is Mel doing all these high-shock pieces now? The Passion of the Christ, the Holocaust and this thing about those people in the middle of Mexico who dont speak english...

 

[Zen]

Actors get paid way too much to make really bad films. Example: "Snakes On the Plane". What a waste of my boyfriends money!


You see, as long as these actors get paid millions, they could care less about the rest.

 

[Fashion Puss]

Well, that sucks for him, but I highly doubt that he's gonna be cutting coupons anytime soon The guy is loaded, so i'm sure that he will be just fine.

Correction: the Church of Scientology is loaded. Its a requirement from all its members that they have to pay a percentage of their salary (I heard its 25%). Old Elrond was no idiot when it came to taking other peoples money.

 

[xtine888]

I don't think it is a smart idea on Paramount's part, since yeah, he may be batsh**t crazy, but his movies mostly do very well at the box office. Didn't "War of the Worlds" make an obsene amount of money last year?

 

[Fabulyss]

Actors get paid way too much to make really bad films. Example: "Snakes On the Plane". What a waste of my boyfriends money!

Whoever actually paid to see Snakes on a Plane deserves to get $10 stolen from them!!

 

[silk skin paws]

Whoever actually paid to see Snakes on a Plane deserves to get $10 stolen from them!!

 

[LoveMyBoots]

^ True but you did not include the gross of the films (which would give the numbers more perspective).

It has already been established that his films do well in the box office. That's a huge "no brainer." And if 25 MILLION DOLLARS isn't a lot a money already, then....