Tom Cruise gets Cut

[Man Who Sold The World 0]

From Yahoo.com:

 

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Paramount Pictures and actor Tom Cruise called an end to their 14-year production deal on Wednesday as the chairman of the studio's parent company took a parting shot at the movie star's off-screen behavior.

 

"As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal," Viacom Inc. Chairman Sumner Redstone told the Wall Street Journal in an interview posted online. "His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."

 

Paula Wagner, the actor's longtime partner in his movie company, Cruise/Wagner Productions, struck back at Redstone, calling his comments about the three-time Oscar nominee "offensive" and "undignified."

 

"Whatever remarks Mr. Redstone would make about Tom Cruise personally or as an actor have no bearing on what this business issue is," she told Reuters. "There must be another agenda that the studio has in mind to take one of their greatest assets and malign him this way."

 

Five films starring Cruise and co-produced by his company, including the "Mission: Impossible" series, have generated theatrical revenues totaling over $2 billion worldwide during the past decade. And Wagner said his films accounted for about 15 percent of the studio's overall box office gross over that period.

 

Moreover, Wagner insisted that she and Cruise chose to leave the Paramount lot and establish a new venture financed through a private, revolving equity fund of $100 million.

 

"We in fact made a decision not to continue our relationship with Paramount Pictures," she said.

 

Viacom and Paramount executives declined further comment on the situation.

 

The war of words between Redstone and Wagner marked a bitter end to one of the most lucrative production alliances between a major Hollywood studio and an A-list star.

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

 

How long before Cruise goes postal for real?

[Ginger Snaps 0]

He sort of already has gone crazy. He's with that wacky cult of his.

[Man Who Sold The World 0]

I find it ironic that Paramount just signed Matt Stone & Trey Parker to a two picture deal.

[JangoFett4Hire 0]

Why? They seem pretty stable.

[teke184 0]

Why? They seem pretty stable.

 

I think he means that Matt and Trey have a notorious sense of humor, such as showing up for an awards show wearing a copy of J-Lo's pink dress and getting into PR wars with Scientology.

 

 

 

I think the difference between them and Cruise is a matter of overhead...

 

South Park is low-cost yet profitable, one of the few reasons Comedy Central is thriving.

 

Cruise, OTOH, gets HUGE deals to make movies, such as $20 million and a chunk of the gross, which puts the studio at a severe disadvantage when it comes to making their money back.

 

 

 

Cruise going batshit crazy while getting $20 million and a gross off of MI:3 put Paramount's bottom line in danger and they didn't like it much.

[Ripper 0]

It brought in almost 400 million worldwide and thats not taking dvd sales into consideration.

 

Just a dumb ass move on Paramounts part honestly. And I am sure Cruise isn't going to go postal. He can rub all his money on his hurt ego and it will make it feel better.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

^ What good is making 400 million worldwide if you're not getting any of it?

 

Despite the 400 million worldwide gross... Paramount will be lucky to break even because of the money they have to pay Tom Cruise via his profit margin.

 

from the LA Times (and other papers)

The action sequel is likely to gross close to $400 million worldwide at the box office and is projected to earn an additional $200 million in DVD revenue. Still, Paramount expects only to break even after Cruise gets his share of the profit, which two informed sources estimate could be as high as $80 million.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

So wait...you're telling me (assuming Cruise was not in the equation) that the profit from the DVD and ticket sales had to be at least $520 million dollars for them to break even?

 

That doesn't seem to make sense.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Cruise's huge profit margin is in ADDITION to his salary to make the film. If you took him out of the equation in profit margin only, they'd be up 80 million I assume instead of breaking even.

 

Plus the fact that the studio doesn't get all the money from the box office. I think its around half? someone else can correct me here. Add to that a 150 million dollar budget.

[Guest InuYasha]

This decision has been a long time coming. Tom Cruise has just been getting crazier and nuttier over the past few years. The prank watergun/microphone incident is just the most obvious indication of it.

 

War of the Worlds changed from classic Sci-Fi to "How much can we put over Tom Cruise without making it tank?" Mission Impossible 2 was really bizarre, and the plot bounced around more than a pinball in a pinball machine. I didn't even bother to see MI:3, and appearently I wasn't the only one. The only movie Cruise made recently that didn't suck groats was The Last Samurai; and that's only because the story was so established, there wasn't much Cruise could do to screw it up.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Aren't salaries part of the budget?

 

And you said that with his profits, they might break even at $600 mil. So doesn't that mean they'd have to get $520 mil to break even if he's out of the equation? Sure, if they made $600 mil, they'd be up $80 mil, but it just seems weird to me that they'd plan for a movie to have to make (at least) $520 mil to start making a profit.

 

But maybe I just don't understand Hollywood.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

salary probably is part of the budget, but his percentage comes out of the gross revenues, and isn't covered in the budget.

 

They have to pay Cruise his large profit margin percentage ($80 mil from the article), then recoup the 150 million budget (salary is included i think), then recoup the marketing budget (dunno what that is, probably something like $80 million, but is just a guess based on big film marketing numbers). My rough ignorant math puts that to around $300 million needs to be brought into the studio to break even.

 

If they get half of the box office, that only gives them $200. I dunno how much of the DVD profits the studio gets though. Articles imply that Tom's percentages comes out of the revenues including the DVD sales but i didnt see it outright stated anywhere.

 

Anyways, the point is that many films that do disappointing box office (MI3 did 133 million in the US, and its worldwide number is FAR less than MI2), get bailed out by their DVD or foreign market sales. But Tom's huge profit margin percentages torpedo that here.

 

Some older articles said they were trying to renegotiate with Cruise and Co. for a lower contract, but apparently cruise and co weren't having it.

[cabbageboy 0]

InuYasha, you didn't think Collateral was a good movie?

 

This is a bit of a silly move. Yeah Cruise has had a lot of dubious press in the past year, but it's not like he's had some irrepairable damage done to his career. If he'd just stay out of the news for a while this stuff would die down and he'd be popular as ever. It's not like he got drunk and was pulled over and ranted about Jews.

 

Paramount could have simply called him in and said "Dude, chill out. It's bad for business."

[Guest InuYasha]

InuYasha, you didn't think Collateral was a good movie?

 

This is a bit of a silly move. Yeah Cruise has had a lot of dubious press in the past year, but it's not like he's had some irrepairable damage done to his career. If he'd just stay out of the news for a while this stuff would die down and he'd be popular as ever. It's not like he got drunk and was pulled over and ranted about Jews.

 

Paramount could have simply called him in and said "Dude, chill out. It's bad for business."

I think just about anybody else could have done that role in Collateral, and some others even better; Vin Deisel, for example. As for the the fallout between Cruise and Paramount: If it's come to this, don't you think they already tried to talk to him about his behavior? Tom Cruise has reached Super-Ego levels of arrogance. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he tried to keep on going on his own. However, without a major motion picture studio backing him, he's going to have to front a lot more money than usual.

[bob_barron 0]

I think just about anybody else could have done that role in Collateral, and some others even better; Vin Deisel, for example.

 

Stop posting Crono.

 

Seriously. Tom Cruise owned that movie

[The Niggardly King 0]

I think just about anybody else could have done that role in Collateral, and some others even better; Vin Deisel, for example.

 

Stop posting Crono.

 

Seriously. Tom Cruise owned that movie

 

Please, Vin Deisel would have made that club scene HAWT

[Ginger Snaps 0]

I like Vin Diesel. How is he a better actor than Cruise though.

[Guest InuYasha]

I like Vin Diesel. How is he a better actor than Cruise though.

Like I said, Cruise is too full of himself now. He thinks he makes all the movies, rather than the movies making him.

[Ripper 0]

Wh...what?

 

 

Anyway. Paramount banking on a movie doing half a billion dollars for them to turn their desirable profit is just retarded on their part. I know that Tom gets alot of money and blah blah blah, but hey, they signed the deal in the first place. Don't bitch now when you ONLY get 200 million in profit off a movie.

[Ravenbomb 0]

The prank watergun/microphone incident is just the most obvious indication of it.

 

What was this?

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

I think just about anybody else could have done that role in Collateral, and some others even better; Vin Deisel, for example.

 

Stop posting Crono.

 

Seriously. Tom Cruise owned that movie

 

I know you have a hard on for Cruise, but he really was awesome in Collateral. And Diesel is just a shithead.

 

As unprofessional as Redstone's remarks were, it's good to see Tommy get some form of comeuppance.

[Darthtiki 0]

According to a Reuters article today Cruise's back-end deal is 20+% of first dollar gross and then a healthy percentage of DVD reciepts, which I assume is around 20 or 30 percent. Also, a good amount of the money goes back into to operational costs of the studio (execs, maintenence of the lot, etc.), which aren't covered in the budget of the film.

[Renegade 0]

The prank watergun/microphone incident is just the most obvious indication of it.

I'd be more pissed off if that happened to me. He handled that pretty well considering somone got him in the eye.

[Guest netslob]

please, he's got to be used to men he doesn't know squirting him in the face.

[Positively Kanyon 0]

I think everyone's forgetting about the most important thing to come out of this... Does this mean that 'Trapped In The Closet' can be aired on television?

[Guest InuYasha]

The prank watergun/microphone incident is just the most obvious indication of it.

 

What was this?

http://www.guzer.com/videos/tom_cruise_water_squirt.php

 

Video included.

[Anakin Flair 0]

I think everyone's forgetting about the most important thing to come out of this... Does this mean that 'Trapped In The Closet' can be aired on television?

 

It already has aired again. There was a bit of press about it last month about it beign put back in the rotation.

[Darthtiki 0]

Cruise has cut a production deal with an investment group led by Six Flags and Redskins owner Daniel Snyder.

[teke184 0]

Cruise has cut a production deal with an investment group led by Six Flags and Redskins owner Daniel Snyder.

That makes TWO loud, obnoxious people I could live without both in one place...