Panic at Paramount as MI3 "Crashes"

S

steindj

Well-known member
Why the sudden concern? On Monday night, "M: I3" may have become a self-fulfilling prophesy. It made $3.5 million, off 72 percent from Sunday. That number must have had the Paramount prognosticators running around like earthquake experts.

I think people might be sick of seeing Tom Cruise (the reruns of the Oprah couch jump, all over the morning TV talk shows, the debates over what his new baby's name really means--who gives a s**t?!-- ad nauseum).

Story here.
 
It also made 70 million overseas, bringing it's box office total to $121 million. While Tom Cruise's rep has taken a hit in the US he's still a huge star overseas. I doubt Paramount has much to worry about.
 
They need to stop paying these actors so much money. I do have to say that even thou Cruise is crazy, he's one smart guy. Taking points instead of pay or in addition to pay is really the way to go. That's how they should pay actors on films. But make they're pay capped out at the very highest $4M, even that's a lot.
 
I like the idea of a salary cap. I don't think a high paid actor/actress can draw people to a bad film.
 
I'm not an actor so I have no reason to be baised towards them getting their huge pay days. I actually wish the director was the draw!!! But people go to the movies to see the known actors do their thing. The top actors make such big money cause in the end the studio makes it's money back plus more. People go and see the latest Tom Cruise movie or the latest Tom Hanks movie. Fewer will go see a movie with an unknown in the lead even if it is a solid movie. Stars get paid what they do because of the free market system where those who bring in the money get a big share. And I rarely hear anyone complain about how much studio execs get in comparison to the actors.
 
Drew599 said:
They need to stop paying these actors so much money. I do have to say that even thou Cruise is crazy, he's one smart guy. Taking points instead of pay or in addition to pay is really the way to go. That's how they should pay actors on films. But make they're pay capped out at the very highest $4M, even that's a lot.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Nobody shows up to see at movie because it's a Paramount movie. They show up for Tom Cruise. So why shouldn't Tom Cruise get the money? Only seems fair.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
I like the idea of a salary cap. I don't think a high paid actor/actress can draw people to a bad film.
Click to expand...

I disagree. How many bad movies have you seen because they looked marginally interesting and had a star attached. I bet Aeon Flux made it's money back because of Charlize Theron even though that movie sucked ass. Had it been a no name it would have made a lot less and I probably wouldn't have seen it. In hindsight I knew it would be bad but got dragged by my friend who told me that it would be alright. He lied.
 
If actors can insure a big profit that's one thing, I think a number of actors get the payday without drawing the audience in. The whole point of paying them twenty million is for studios to make their money back. But if you have three big name stars making 15-20 million each on a film it takes money away from where the money is really needed, story development, effects, directing. The actor is an important component of filmmaking, but I think they're grossly over paid for their work. I guess I have a different criteria for seeing films. I don't see a film because of an actor, I see it if it looks good. I put more stock in the directors, DP's, editors, and screenwriters attached to a film.

FYI, the budget for Aeon Flux was $62 million. It made $25 million domestically, and $25 million overseas for a total of about 50 million. I'm not sure what was spent on advertising, but the studio lost at least $12 million on Flux. I like Charlize Theron, I think she's a great actress, but Aeon Flux looked like a piece of shi* just from looking at the trailer. I don't know what she made, but it wasn't worth it. I think actors are tempted to do bad films because of the money, a salary cap might encourage them to choose better films. Just a thought.
 
desperatecomfort said:
I disagree. Nobody shows up to see at movie because it's a Paramount movie. They show up for Tom Cruise. So why shouldn't Tom Cruise get the money? Only seems fair.
Click to expand...

Tom Cruise gets the money because he's a producer and has a proven track record. It's a gamble. He knows he can draw a good audience domestically and internationally.

Colin Farrell has been around a fraction of the time as Cruise but he gets big paydays and he can't even insure a big audience draw. Colin Farrell was in The New World, which I hear is supposed to be excellent. The budget was $30 million, but the film made $12 mil domestic and $16 mil worldwide. Even on good films actors can't guarantee a big draw.
 
Alex DePew said:
How many bad movies have you seen because they looked marginally interesting and had a star attached.
Click to expand...

Zero. I hate "stars," and I hate "blockbusters" even more. I guess I've just become a bitter, bitter man.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Tom Cruise gets the money because he's a producer and has a proven track record. It's a gamble. He knows he can draw a good audience domestically and internationally.

Colin Farrell has been around a fraction of the time as Cruise but he gets big paydays and he can't even insure a big audience draw. Colin Farrell was in The New World, which I hear is supposed to be excellent. The budget was $30 million, but the film made $12 mil domestic and $16 mil worldwide. Even on good films actors can't guarantee a big draw.
Click to expand...

Well, the producing thing is something stars have moved into more and more over the years, to get bigger paydays. I'm not sure what your point is. People still don't go to the movie because it says: "Produced by Tom Cruise." They will go see a piece of **** like "Hostel" because it's got T's name tacked to it, but Tom Cruise is not hot and sexy for his producing.

The New World??? No one actually goes to Malleck movies. Come on, give me a better example than that. :)

But in response, I have only two words for you: Adam Sandler.

It's always a gamble. But studios will take the gamble on a star. Because, even though it's a gamble, the one thing that has always been true in hollywood, from the beginning, is that stars CAN sell a movie. If Farrell wasn't in the new world, it would never have been made at all. I don't think it's ever been true that a studio exec could sell a movie. Maybe Bob Evans, but...

Finally, the fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter how new or old a star is. Farrell can NEGOTIATE whatever his agent can get for him. And that is as it should be. Would you prefer some studio exec get a third yacht?

By the way, I would rather things were different and there was more emphasis on quality in Hollywood, etc. All I'm saying is, if anyone does get that money, it should be the people responsible for the draw.
 
Last edited:
desperatecomfort said:
Well, the producing thing is something stars have moved into more and more over the years, to get bigger paydays. I'm not sure what your point is. People still don't go to the movie because it says: "Produced by Tom Cruise." They will go see a piece of shi* like "Hostel" because it's got T's name tacked to it, but Tom Cruise is not hot and sexy for his producing.

The New World??? No one actually goes to Malleck movies. Come on, give me a better example than that. :)

But in response, I have only two words for you: Adam Sandler.

It's always a gamble. But studios will take the gamble on a star. Because, even though it's a gamble, the one thing that has always been true in hollywood, from the beginning, is that stars CAN sell a movie. If Farrell wasn't in the new world, it would never have been made at all. I don't think it's ever been true that a studio exec could sell a movie. Maybe Bob Evans, but...

Finally, the fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter how new or old a star is. Farrell can NEGOTIATE whatever his agent can get for him. And that is as it should be. Would you prefer some studio exec get a third yacht?

By the way, I would rather things were different and there was more emphasis on quality in Hollywood, etc. All I'm saying is, if anyone does get that money, it should be the people responsible for the draw.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you have said, but I think its sad that it has come to this. It takes a lot of talented people to capture a good performance of even a famous actor and translate it to something the audience will pay money to see. Most of the actors spends less than 10% of the time it takes to produce a movie but get by far the largest percentage of the profit.

Mission Impossible was a brand long before anyone knew who TC was, there are probably any number of actors who could have played that role in this type of film and been just as successful. The studios are stroking the actors while at the same time whipping the people who make the magic happen to work longer hours for less pay.

Maybe if everyone was paid from a percentage of the money taken in we would have better movies...
 
sure, a salary cap could be one step towards hollywood reform, but I dont see how it could ever me implemented. Really, SAG determines how much actors get paid, and they're there to fight to get the most they can.
 
its a fine line..

How many people do you know that have to lose 50 pounds in certain time frame just to do their job? Or do personality research for months before a film starts... endure 18 hour days of filming.. etc..

Also, how much does the agent take from that payout? That is never really publicized...

I can't say that I really think actors deserve $20 million, but the really good, the A-listers do get paid that much for a reason. Not to mention the fact that they are in themselves a marketing asset..

Although, I think when 1/2 the budget of a $100 million film is going to your two leads, something is wrong.

I couldn't say for sure... I would love to make that much doing what I love.. of course as far as I know.. Peter Jackson is the only director to make $20 million.. (which he subsequently put back into kong..oy).
 
Last edited:
Hollywood today and for the last 30 years has been run by the actors and that's a huge problem. Even more so now because a good portion of them are producers on the projects they work on. People only get so razed to see a movie with Pitt or Cruise in it because everyone makes such a big freakin deal out of it. If the industry would just start saying no to these budget suckers and going with a smaller actors I really think Hollywood and the entire entertainment industry would benefit. There are plenty of people that can play any of those parts in films today. Plus then if those big named actors realized this they might not be so greedy and would then ask for less.

Also on a side comment. Execs get paid un-godly amounts of money for what they do. That's another area that needs to have the money sucked out of it and put back into productions. I'm not saying they shouldn't make any money just not $30M for saying "these dailes look good, keep it up." I see what these guys and gals do and some of them really do work really hard but for the most part its just plain retarded. They should get a small fee and have most of their profits coming off the backend. That isn't the way it is now. They get paid a ton of money at the beginning and then another truck load of money at the end. I mean come-on, how much money do you need. I guess if your saving up for your own small country or senator then I can see a reason for all that money.
 
steindj said:
Why the sudden concern? On Monday night, "M: I3" may have become a self-fulfilling prophesy. It made $3.5 million, off 72 percent from Sunday. That number must have had the Paramount prognosticators running around like earthquake experts.

I think people might be sick of seeing Tom Cruise (the reruns of the Oprah couch jump, all over the morning TV talk shows, the debates over what his new baby's name really means--who gives a s**t?!-- ad nauseum).

Story here.
Click to expand...

3.5 mil is great for a Monday. Paramount is not worried at all. the picture will hit 100mil domestically no problem.

remember this is the third MI
 
its just dumb how negative the press is about its "low" opening. It made about as much as i figured it would (something like 48 million?). Apparently it was estimated to make almost 70??? Hell...thats what ROTK made in its first weekend. I think all these box office estimations have been drastically skewed by movies like ep. III and spider man that open to 130-150 million. I mean m:i:3 is a spy movie after all.....what the hell is it supposed to make. The press is overly negative.
 
Guys, the studio game is a far cry from the indie market. Realize that when an actor is getting "20 million" 10% goes to the agent, 15% goes to a manager (typically) 40% goes to taxes, and then a good chunk goes into various other deal memoed expenses, employees, etc (like publicists for example). It really is the salary for a company, rather than just one person.

The only reason the studios payed this amount in the first place, is because they crunched numbers and knew their odds of making a profit were still solid. Sometimes even one big blockbuster that may just break even is important to keep the studio name and advertising machine out there, when in fact, they make a lot of their money on foreign presales, ancillery markets, smaller movies that "ride along" with the larger ones, DVD sales, etc.

All that being said. This was the economic model of 10 years ago. Times are changing, studios are shrinking and consolidating. The indie market is becoming much stronger competion thanks to all the new forms of distribution, and the new accesibility of all this great movie technology that we geek over on these boards.

And most of all, the studios are in a panic because names (not just Tom Cruise) don't seem to be the big draw they used to be. Something is changing in the movie consumer. Less and less people go to any movie because of a name. Perhaps it's because we see more online previews or are more into story and character than actor right now, taste-wise. Who knows, but it is shaking up things, the model is changing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top