Cruise vs. Paramount: The fallout

15048__mission_lSo, get this: According to the Hollywood Reporter, a national decline in the sale of DVDs was one of the primary reasons Paramount Pictures decided not to renew its longstanding production deal with Tom Cruise. Specifically, the trade publication notes, Cruise was reportedly pulling down "20 percent of box office revenue as well as a piece of DVD sales," but since home-video revenue is no longer a guaranteed cash cow to recoup losses on big-screen disappointments (such as M:I:3), Paramount decided to hit the eject button, so to speak.

Now I may not be a studio exec with a seven-figure salary (although I’d take the plunge for low sixes — or maybe just a pony), but to me, there was an obvious way to save Paracruise (yes, I’ve just attempted to coin a moniker even clunkier than Brangelina): Why not pack the M:I:3 DVD with wacky extras from Cruise’s promotional appearances? Trust me, folks like my friend Litty — who’s threatened her husband with bodily harm if he ever erases Cruise’s ”couch jumpOprah appearance from their TiVo — would be eating it up. Heck, I’d consider shelling out $10 for a director’s cut of Legend if it included a first look at Suri.

Anyhow, in other news of Paracruise (see, you’re getting used to it already, I can tell):

-Adding insult to injury, Tuesday was also the day Paramount announced a two-picture deal with Cruise’s blood foes, South Park‘s Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

-The New York Times takes a look at Who’s Not Talking. No, that’s not a future Cruise project with fellow Scientologists Alley and Travolta, but rather, who’s literally not talking about the breakup.

-And if you’re worried about the spawn of Paracruise, here’s a story on who’s getting custody.

addCredit(“Mission: Impossible III: Stephen Vaughan”)

Comments (13 total) Add your comment
  • SJ

    Hooray! You guys finally figured out how to get the links to open in a new window! *beaming with pride*
    Paracruise *snort* LOVE it!

  • cj

    this was good little remedy for his “egocities”.we are not dumb we all know that he was not fired,we know the deal fell through coz he wanted the same deal he had before but couldn’t get coz of his behavior,which he could fix in a few months of THERAPY.will people watch his movies?DUH coz he gets the best scripts not coz they love him.and to the analysts war of the worlds was huge coz of speilberg too

  • ceej

    Hopefully this will signal a landslide of studios ‘reprimading’ celebs for their spoiled behavior.
    let the celebrity backlash begin!

  • Ceballos

    Two things:
    1.) I’m sorry, but do people actually believe Tom Cruise took time from producing and starring in (he’s in virtually every scene)a $150 million movie all over the world…to block a cartoon. I mean, he’s a little wacky, but the guy does have a life and other (and it seems) more important things to do. I just don’t see how people actually believe that happened.
    2.)I’m not sure I really undersand this article. Part of the reason he was let go was because he was “dragging down DVD sales”. Is that sales of all Paramount DVDs?? (don’t see how that’s possible) Is it dragging down the future sales of MI:3 on DVD?? And if that’s the reason, is letting him go somehow going to send the DVD soaring?? I don’t get it.
    It’s more than likely what cj’s talking about and Cruise not getting the same insanely sweet deal that he’s had for the better part of the last decade.

  • Ed

    I believe it all came down to money. Tom Cruise was let go because he was too expensive for Paramount. The old guy that let him go appears pretty crazy himself. He’s near the end of his career and life, why not go out by bad mouthing one of the biggest stars?
    As someone who grew up with Tom Cruise, I think he’s getting up there in age. All the stars of the 80’s have overstayed their welcome. Brad Pitt’s face is getting fatter as he ages (check out the jaw line) and Tom Cruise appears to get more hair after each new movie that comes out – hair plugs!
    But after all that, his behavior has been kind of wierd and all the talk about Scientology have really made him, in my mind, change in a negative way.
    Sorry Tom, but your time is ticking.

  • Sam

    Why mention Legend? Its released by Universal and has nothing to do with Cruise/Wagner production or Paramount. A better idea is releasing Vanilla Sky with Tom’s today show anti-psychology rant. Paramount could even throw on Cameron Diaz paparazzi attack and fight against another overpaid actress.

  • eva69

    Until I see a picture of Tom and Katie’s “beautiful baby”, I hold off judgement. Except to say she looks like she’s being held hostage(vacant eyes, lost look of HELP ME,PLEASE)I truly hope there is nothing wrong with their child, but come on, 3 months, no pictures, something’s up!!!!

  • Jim

    I met Tom Cruise several years ago–and I for one feel he is terribly over-rated. I don’t even go see his movies anymore because they too are over-rated. As far as I’m concerned he could drop off the map with Jessica Simpson (also over-rated), and the planet would be a better place.

  • Kim

    Leave Tom Cruise alone!!!

  • Louise

    It seems Cruise’s rant against psychiatric drugs has gotten more hostile reactions than Mel Gibson’s rant against Jews. What’s up with that? I’m not worried about Cruise – he’s still talented and popular, he’ll do fine. I’m worried about Hollywood.

  • Pam

    Tom Cruise is an actor not a psychologist or psychiatrist. His rantings are irresponsible drival. It’s one thing to express ones opinion about things, it is detrimental and dangerous to suggest he has greater knowledge (because he is famous and has read some books) so therefore can speak as to what he thinks is the best treatment for people with serious mental health issues. He is endangering lives and presenting additional obsticals that people who seek treatment don’t need. I’m a college educated person with a graduate degree and have read many books, but I would never presume to tell someone that I have the answer. From experience dealing with a life threatening illness, I know it takes balance, which includes body, mind, and spirit. I need my medication as well as prayers and holistic approaches in order to stay well and heal when I get sick. Tom Cruise and many others in the public eye need to humble themselves and think before they speak.

  • Fred Thompson

    Did Paramount dump Tom Cruise or did Tom Cruise dump Paramount?
    Well why don’t we look at the numbers and see if we can’t figure out who dumped whom.
    Tom Cruise has made studios several billion dollars over the course of his career, so let’s just go over the last few years and see what we can figure out from this:
    Tom’s Recent Movies:
    1999 – Eyes Wide Shut – $162 mil. for Warner Bros.
    1999- Magnolia – $48.5 mil. for NL
    2000 – Mission: Impossible II – $546 mil. for Paramount
    2001 – Vanilla Sky – $282 mil. for Paramount
    2002- Minority Report – $358 mil. for Fox
    2003- The Last Samurai – $457 mil. for Warner Bros.
    2004- Collateral – $218 mil. for DW
    2005- War of the Worlds – $592 mil. for Paramount
    2006- Mission: Impossible III – $395 mil. for Paramount
    OK, now follow this closely because this is important. In the last couple years, which supposedly is when Cruise’s career took a nose-dive and ol’ man Redstone says Paramount is hurting as a result. Well let’s just look at the figures shall we:
    This is a list of Parmounts highest grossing films during the supposedly self-destructive Cruise era:
    Paramount’s Highest Grossing Films of 2005:
    1. War of the Worlds – $592 mil
    2. The Longest Yard – $190 mil.
    3. Sahara – $119 mil.
    4. Four Brothers – $92 mil.
    5. Coach Carter – $77 mil.
    Parmount’s Highest Grossing Films of 2006:
    1. Mission: Impossible III – $395 mil.
    2. Failure to Launch – $128 mil.
    3. Nacho Libre – $88 mil.
    4. World Trade Center – $56 mil.
    5. Last Holiday – $43 mil.
    One last statistic. In the world, several thousand movies are created by studios every year. So how well did Tom’s Mission: Impossible III do up against the WORLD competition? Well let’s look at the WORLD’s highest grossing movies of 2006.
    Highest 2006 “WORLDWIDE” Grosses:
    1. Pirates of the Caribbean
    2. The Divinci Code
    3. Ice Age: The Meltdown
    4. X-Men: The Last Stand
    5. Cars
    Not bad huh. This is just theater ticket sales. This doesn’t even include DVD sales and rentals. So who dumped who again?
    Judging by the statistics, I’d say that ol’ man Redstone has got to be a little bit p.o.’d by Cruise/Wagner Productions cutting business ties.
    People say nasty things and tend to lie a bit when they are upset wouldn’t you agree Redstone?

    So what’s the real story of Viacom’s discontent with Tom Cruise. Well here’s a brief summary of what happened:
    Tom Cruise attacks the drug pushers, (psychiatrists), the drug suppliers, (drug companies) and the drug advertisers, (media conglomerates/main stream media).
    As a result he becomes public enemy #1 to these bastards because they fear the influence he has all over the planet. This story is just more attacks on him by this drug cartel. Let’s take a look at some facts:
    Based on the statistics above, obviously Paramount did not fire Cruise/Wagner Productions for underachieving. Cruise/Wagner Productions left Paramount and was brokering this deal with First and Goal for awhile now. Another very important fact is that Viacom, Paramount’s parent company, makes half of its revenue from drug company advertisements. This dollar amount is much more than Tom Cruise would ever bring in for them.
    The mainstream media is relying on individuals to not read past the headlines. They’re relying on individuals to not do any research for themselves. This story is also ol’ man Redstone’s senility acting up.
    I challenge the media to actually go out and do a little research on this and tell the real story of what’s really going on. Why is Tom Cruise, day after day barraged with insults and lied about in the press with wild abandon? Is it because his behavior is so completely reckless and what he speaks of is so completely off-base? Or is it really that he spoke the truth and might have hurt an industry that relies on the public’s ignorance in order to survive?

  • noadstc wsdaobk

    nfgrdlme iackpq sxjb cwlrkbi onvxha yloxcif ztguqmf

Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Latest Videos


From Our Partners

TV Recaps

Powered by VIP