Paramount and Cruise Part Ways

krestofre said:
For YOU it doesn't make a difference (and personally I agree with you, Callaghan), but I think Isaac is talking about the general public, and I think the majority do not seperate the man from the work.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. It may not affect your perception of him, but a lot of people can't separate Cruise the actor from Cruise the man. I think it was totally unprofessional for Cruise to push his scientology while marketing a film.

If you're Steven Spielberg, or anyone else and you've spent 150 million making a film and your star distracts from the films success because he can't stop talking about psychology, scientology, and Brooke Shields and doesn't do his job you'd be pissed. Paramount was pissed off.

"It's nothing to do with his acting ability, he's a terrific actor," Redstone said. "But we don't think that someone who effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue should be on the lot."
Click to expand...
 
It's all about the money.....Paramount was spending too much for too little return. MI3 was rumored to have cost $300 million. I worked on it here in L.A. The personal stuff may have been part of it.
As far as the studios go, yeah they are still in business. Universal makes most of it's money on the tour and City Walk. On any given day you could shoot a cannon off on the back lot and not hit anything but the buildings.
I remember when I started out here in '84, there was so much production on every lot that it was amazing. Now things are being done nearly everywhere but Hollywood.
I looked through the stunt contact yesterday and nearly everything is independently produced. The studios do distribution mostly and partner up with people like Clint Eastwood.
Paramount was putting out all of the money and taking all of the risk.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Gotta disagree, bro...
Click to expand...

I don't think thats a point to agree or disagree with, as it's more about how an individual viewer interacts with the characters on screen.

For SOME viewers, every performance is a fresh start, an independent work that exists free from any prior history.

For SOME viewers, every performance is a continuation of everything that came before, and is part of an integrated set of expectations based on past work of the director and cast.

I think I tend to be more of the latter, although I'm always looking for movies and roles that break that expectation and forge new ground for the actors or the director.

There are a few actors who have the range to create new characters for new roles. Dustin Hoffman, would be a classic example.

There are others for who every new film is a lot like the last, for whom a combination of typecasting and/or poor role selection and/or lack of range as an actor keep them reprising the same role in film after film after film.

So for many (and perhaps most) people, Cruise's off screen (yet still conspicuously public and therefore actually still onscreen) nuttiness raises the bar for his future on screen performances. In order to overcome the prejudices the public has developed recently, his performance would nearly have to be superhuman to win any praise at all... the type of performance resulting from a rare synergy that most actors experience only once or twice in a career.

I do believe that, although he is (was?) a great star, he has severely shot himself in the arse by not managing his personal business privately.
 
rlm7189 said:
As for Cruise...I agree with Hudson on this...the media is making a mockery out of him.

It seems to me that for the longest time, Cruise had THE best PR people in the business....

He was rarely in the media except for the occasional interview which kept us curious and wanting more.

Well, about the time he fired his PR people, for some reason, and hired his sister he has been everywhere and has been portrayed as a loon.
Click to expand...

You hinted at it yourself... but veered off at the end to blame the monolithic faceless "media" for the portrayal. But the sad fact is, he has been protraying HIMSELF as a loon. "The media" hasn't bugged his house, hasn't filmed or his private life (um, at least not in THIS particular case)... he has willingly, and hungrily, grabbed all the media attention he could get.
 
I blame Scientology.

They seem to dictate every facet of his personal life and look where it's gotten him.

God damn cult brainwashed Maverick.
 
The Machinist said:
I blame Scientology.

They seem to dictate every facet of his personal life and look where it's gotten him.

God damn cult brainwashed Maverick.
Click to expand...

I'm glad somebody just came out and said it.:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Gotta disagree on Tom Cruise being a lousy actor.

War of the Worlds worked for me. It was intense and I loved the asshole he played in it.

But I did read an article recently that said that they were already having issues about paying him loads of money. Didn't read the article at the front of this thread.

Oh well.
 
I tend to enjoy his movies but it seems to be harder for him to disappear into his character so that I forget I'm watching Tom Cruise. This isn't a problem exclusive to him, it seems many top stars have this problem. Their persona overwhelms the character they're portraying. Then again, it could be an indictment of their acting ability...who knows, I certainly don't.
 
Blaine said:
I tend to enjoy his movies but it seems to be harder for him to disappear into his character so that I forget I'm watching Tom Cruise. This isn't a problem exclusive to him, it seems many top stars have this problem. Their persona overwhelms the character they're portraying. Then again, it could be an indictment of their acting ability...who knows, I certainly don't.
Click to expand...

It's the whole point of movie stars. They have always melded with their characters, rather than disappear into them. That's part of what makes a movie star a movie star, and not simply an actor.
 
500lb Productions said:
"The media" hasn't bugged his house, hasn't filmed or his private life (um, at least not in THIS particular case)... .
Click to expand...

Of course the media hasn't been bugging his house. Not that they wouldn't if they could. ;o) I know the two word phrase "the media" is thrown around all time as you say, "monolithic faceless" targets to blame for the woes of society. But, its becaue they ARE to blame for how we perceive celebrities. One person, no matter how famous or well-liked, or influencial is not bigger than the faceless animal; media can make you or break you. I am just suggesting to not underestimate the mighty dollar and the desire to get a 'good story'. Ratings Ratings Ratings. It sells. Tom Cruise being a nut-job sells a lot more air time and a lot more papers than Tom Cruise adopting another baby.

I am not saying Tom Cruise is or isn't a loon-bat. But I am saying that I'll bet that 99.99999% of us don't know him personally therefore cannot honestly and with accuracy make a claim to know his state of mind. And, we sure as heck shouldn't make our opinions by what the media serves us; hot or cold.


500lb Productions said:
he has willingly, and hungrily, grabbed all the media attention he could get
Click to expand...

Of course he has grabbed media attention. Its what stars do; they sell themselves. But I am sure that he doesnt want THIS kind of attention; that he's a bonafide crazy. I'll bet anything, while he may enjoy his face in the paper he probably doesnt appreciate the "crazy" comments.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Actually, his public persona is distracting from my enjoyment of him onscreen. Old cruise was a good actor, and he did good films. New cruise is still a good actor, but he acts like jackass offscreen. It's like saying that Mel Gibsons recent screwup won't affect people's enjoyment of him. It will, because even if he's great in a film in the back of your head you're still thinking about that stuff.

Russell Crowe is a great actor but his public persona as a whackjob has damaged his box office performance. People have trouble separating the two because a number of actors share the same persona on and off screen. Cruise is cocky and self assured on screen, and for years he's worn the cocky and self assured mask off screen. Will Smith is the same way, and Tom Hanks is an all around nice guy offscreen and that plus his tremendous talent translates into big box office in his films.

WOTW did pretty well, but I think it could've done better if Cruise had acted like a professional when marketing it.
Click to expand...

thats true, but i dont think that should come into play here, where people are educated about the movies. I would think only a typical saturday movie goer would think that. but maybe im giving too much credit to people on these boards?
 
Celebrity cannot exist without media. It's part of the star process. No one put a gun to Tom's head and told him to jump on a couch, rip Brooke Shields a new one, or confront the science of psychology. Tom did that on his own. He has a choice in how he's perceived, no one forced him to act out.

There are a lot of actors of Tom's caliber who don't get the same ****, then again they don't act crazy or court celebrity in the same way.
 
Cynic821 said:
thats true, but i dont think that should come into play here, where people are educated about the movies. I would think only a typical saturday movie goer would think that. but maybe im giving too much credit to people on these boards?
Click to expand...

Who's educated about the movies? I think we, the people on these boards, are a very small part of the equation. We watch films, we discuss them intelligently, but we make up a tiny part of the box office. When you have White Chicks doing better than a good indie, that should tell you something about the movie watching public. Given the choice between polished crap and a challenging film, what do you think they'll choose?
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Who's educated about the movies? I think we, the people on these boards, are a very small part of the equation. We watch films, we discuss them intelligently, but we make up a tiny part of the box office. When you have White Chicks doing better than a good indie, that should tell you something about the movie watching public. Given the choice between polished crap and a challenging film, what do you think they'll choose?
Click to expand...

Very well said. The general public is a lot different than the people here on these boards, and like Isaac said, we make up just a small part of the box office equation.
 
rlm7189 said:
Well, about the time he fired his PR people, for some reason, and hired his sister he has been everywhere and has been portrayed as a loon...

...So whats the deal? Has he always been a loon and his previous genius PR people have hidden it? Maybe his sister botched it? Maybe his previous PR people spent the past couple of years showin' 'em whose boss?
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his sister is a scientologist as well.

(I distinctly remember reading somewhere that his sister was constantly at Katie Holme's side, trying to help trach her the ways of the cult and to set an example.)

Maybe that explains the tailspin afterall. I don't think it would be too far out to suggest his PR people were hiding his, shall we say, behavior afterall. One thing is for sure, he needs them NOW.

The problem is, scientologists are expected to surround themselves with others of their cult and to distance themselves from those that are over speculative. Methinks his sister is here to stay.

As for his acting abilities, he is talented.

He performed brilliantly in Vanilla Sky, Eyes Wide Shut, Jerry Maguire, Born on the Fourth of July, and Magnolia.

He's really evolved from his Tony Scott days, and I'd say for the better.

BUT, this sh!t really is distracting. I wish I could brush it off like all the others do, but I can't. This whole ordeal may be irreperable. :(
 
I have been on two primetime network shows where the talent required constant, professional PR wrangling to keep them from imploding their careers with alcohol and drug abuse, sexual mis-adventure and public displays that would send common folk straight to jail.

Cruise has been in a PR tailspin since he released PMK from her duties. The antics that followed have done little to bolster his career. Whether viewers can separate the train-wreck Cruise from the blockbuster-box-office Cruise is a subjective question at best.

Cruise and Gibson each have [or had] lucrative multi-picture deals around town and business is business. If personalities are too big a liability for the associated studios, then they have little choice but to sever their ties in favor of the increasingly important stockholder relationships.

Regardless of how Cruise performed in his latest feature, his personal actions off-screen do color the public perception of him to a measurable extent.

e
 
has anyone tried to read up on scientology? They say their not a religon. but I remember cruise saying they were. Can anyone clarify? I do know scientology was made by some crappy science fiction writer.
 
And the studios don't employ actors and make movies for the industry illuminati... they do it for the Box Office.

And when the general public sees a movie coming out, thinks "eh? Tom Cruise? Let's go watch White Chicks instead"...

It ends up having very little to do with how well he did or did not do in that film.

Hey, maybe he's ready to dump the studio and go do his own thing. Can you say: Waterworld? Or will it be Last Temptation? Hmmmm.
 
I think a lot of big name stars are lucky they have a strong international presence. Arnold is still huge overseas. It doesn't seem so bad if you bomb domestically and make 400 million overseas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top