f13.net

Paramount has had enough of Mr. Cruise. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/23/cruise.paramountbreak.ap/index.html)

I think the quote below summarizes the article nicely.  No surprise here... just topical nonsense.

Also:


Heh.

Which wouldn't have sucked so hard had his salary not been so vast and had they not cost a fortune to make. MIIIssIIIon IIImpossIIIble III didn't break even, did it?

Quick search indicates it has at least made 130 million so far.

Quick search indicates it costed 150 millions to make and 50 millions to promote.

Oops, I somehow read Righ's question as  "did it break 100 million".

It's funny when you read between the lines, because they basically told Tom that he was an overpaid douche in the offer alone.

They were paying his company $10M a year. They wanted to renegotiate a deal to essentially $2.5M a year. That's a 75% cut.

Unless you can back that up with really hard figures, that's pretty much a fuck you, get off my property offer.

You can also take Xenu and your formerly cute, but now herpes infected beard with you.

Yes they are saying he's overpaid but his original (expired) deal was far more expansive than just getting some money for his production company:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060824/people_nm/cruise_dc

First off, I'd like to meet the idiot from Paramount that ever penned that first deal and make an offer on his house.

Second, even if Tom Cruise wasn't a raving psycho, they would have tossed his ass on the street over money issues alone.

Bah, they probably just finally watched War of the Worlds and realized:

Holy shit, we're paying this nostril-flaring twatflap $10 million a year to crystalize the formerly ephemeral quality boredom into a solid, physical form by turning a rip-roaring aliens invade Earth story into a badly-acted, nonsensical boring run from CGI effects snoozefest. What the fuck are we thinking?

War of the Worlds couldn't have been less interesting if it was 2 hours of Tom Cruise taking a dump in his pants.

Production Budget: $150 million
Domestic:  $133,501,348    34.0%
+ Foreign:  $259,660,663    66.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= Worldwide:  $393,162,011   

Source (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=mi3.htm)

I wonder how that breaks down.

Figure 30-50% of that goes to exhibitors and overseas distributors, 20% to cruise (I read somewhere his total take on the film was close to 100M because he was a producer too). That whittles down the studio take by quite a bit and likely takes it under the 150M budget. Throw in pre-sold cable rights, DVD and ancilllary profit generation (licensing and merchanizing) and it likely came out ahead. Probably not by enough to warrant putting up with his crap though.

Well, their main complaint wasn't that he was unprofitable anymore, but that his antics were biting hard into what they think the profits would've been otherwise.  So if MI3 was that good, they think it would have been better if he had shut his stupid ass up.  The studio is betting they can find a replacement for Cruise, or at least one which is better than nuts-on-a-stick Cruise even if not as good as normal Cruise.

I'll second the bit about wondering where the profit cuts go.  I know that a number of people have to take bites out of it before it gets back to the studio, but I've no idea how much.

Very few people do as the studios bury it in a ton of obfuscation. My favorite was when Paramount tried to claim in a lawsuit that Coming to America, which made 288 million dollars worldwide in 1988 made no money.

Most of the entertainment industries are filled with crooks more audacious than prohibition era mobsters. That accounting procedures are not transparent or that money goes missing is not surprising.

Does that $150 million in production costs include the promotion costs? Can't remember where but I thought I read that a blockbuster type movie can run into the $100 million + range in promotion alone. I could just be totally pulling that out of my ass though.


Edit: Read it here: http://www.ericdsnider.com/snide/i-was-a-junket-whore/
Although he says "normal" advertising and promotion can run in the $50 million range. But again he could just be pulling that out of his ass.

Not that I don't think he had it coming to him, but why would they release him?  How does that profit the studio?  It doesn't break any contracts he has already that keeps the cash flowing in or anything, right?  So he may have made it so they didn't make as much as they would have liked.  How does cutting him benefit them now?  To me, it seems like they just released him to go make movies for other people to compete with their own movies.

Was he in a contract that guaranteed him roles in upcoming movies or something?  That'd be the only reason I could see.  Is it that they believe he would continue his antics and bring down sales for future movies he would have first rights to?

He had an office on Paramount's studio grounds. I'd imagine they can use the space for something else now.

It's probably a lot of #2, in the decision.  His former manager/ publicist kept him on a tight leash, but he fired her and is using his equally crazy sister.  She doesn't hold Tommy-boy back, and he's only gotten weirder.  Paramount probably expects he'll continue to do the shouting, crazy loudmouth Scientologist thing until he winds-up as broke & dead as all the other hardcore Scientologists.

For any other studio to take him on, they'd have to do so with the knowledge he's crazy as fuck, and balance his huge asking price & craziness against the actual box office draw he has -- which drops a bit every time he does interviews/ appearances these days.

Most likely true.

I think it is quite funny they hired the two guys that make the Southpark shows.  I distinctly remember them poking fun at Cruise in several of their episodes.

"Tom, come out of the closet!"

I lol'ed.

You laughed:  that's the risk right there.  The more of a joke he makes himself, the more of a joke any movie he's in will be too.  The fear that MI4 or whatever will make less money without Tom is far offset from the fear that MI4 would be laughed out of the theatres altogether.

Ok- here is my vow: I will see one Paramount movie in the theatre that I would otherwise not see just to prove my support for this decision. Kudos. And fuck Tom Cruise and the thetan he rode in on.

I read somewhere that the Hollywood studios are trying to get more control back, they are tired of all these primadonnas running the show.  In Cruise's case they not only canceled the project but actually went out and bluntly said it was because he was insane, they usually keep quiet.  Maybe they are making an example out of what Forbes called "the most powerful celebrity in the world".  Movie receipts are down and they can't afford to pay people 20 million and cut them in on a percantage of the gross revenue.

Precrazy - Didn't like him, but tolerated some of the movies....some.

Postcrazy - Will never pay for one of his movies again.

The studios made their own mess due to greed.  They kept seeing the $$$ they could possibly make by signing XXX, so they gave them whatever they asked for.  I really don't feel sorry for them, but it is nice to see they are trying to make corrections.

It seems to me the actors I like are good when they are working hard for the money.  Afterward is when they start getting paid a lot, but their appeal seems to go downhill.  I seriously can't remember going to a movie strictly based on the actors in the movie.  Am I alone in this?

I don't go to a movie for strictly anything.  If there are actors I like, I will give more attention to a movie than I would otherwise.  A good actor can turn a "meh" script into something entertaining.  On the other hand, a chump cast in the lead can very well ruin an otherwise decent script.

Here is a link to the budget for "The Village", it's interesting to see exactly where the money trail leads on a AAA hollywood production.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/hollywood/hollywoodsides/0228061woods1.html

Pretty impressive when you can pay yourself a producer fee, a director fee, a writers fee, salaries and retainers for each of those jobs, out of pocket and living expenses for each job even though they overlap, car hire, private jet hire, and then buy a bunch of assistants in for each role because you don't actually feel like working, and ultimately give yourself a huge proportion of the expenses in the form of allowances so that you need not keep receipts. Like I said, crooks.

I'm just amazed Shamalamadingdong got $7.2 million for the story rights and $300k for actually writing the thing. $7.5 million for that turd? I wonder what he would've gotten for a good script.

Makes sense to me.  When you think of it, how big of a draw is one actor, no matter how famous, actually?  There've been too many instances of relative unknown casts in movies doing quite good box office to continue with the fiction that you've got to have a name attached to any picture you do.  I say spread the wealth around and cut these jackasses off at the knees.  The longer I think of it, the Victorian era attitude of actors being just barely a step above prostitutes makes more and more sense.

Unfortunately, I think that for a select few of them (like Cruise), the answer is "real big".  Ignoring actual production costs and profits, I think that having Tommy's name up on the marquee would tend to draw more punters to the theatre (theater?).  One way or another, their staying power ultimately begins to wane.  Tommy is just accelerating his own decline by acting like a clown.

I agree with what you are saying otherwise. 

Oh my God I hope this is fake. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060830/od_afp/afpentertainmentusarts_060830194640)

(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20060830/capt.sge.ivd65.300806212449.photo00.photo.default-512x368.jpg)

It HAS to fake right? Right?  :cry:

I would bet thousand of dollars that it IS a fake.  Firstly, though I can't tell the scale, that looks quite big.   Second and more importantly, a baby's first several hundred poops probably have no solid form whatsoever.  That looks like the poop of a pre-schooler.

Wow, I seem to know a lot about poop.   Interesting.

It's fake.   This is the same guy that did the "Britney Giving Birth" statue.  Wikipedia also lists him as having done a statue of Ted William's frozen head, and a bare-chested Hillary Clinton.

See, everyone thinks he's being 'controversial.'  However, that just means they don't get the joke.  He's pointing a finger at America's obsession with worthless people and laughing because Amercia is stupid enough to buy into all the hype.   He runs the risk, however, of becoming such a figure himelf.. which would be an amusing irony.

Yeah, anyone who has ever changed a diaper knows that's fake.

Actors, no. Actresses, maybe. A Jessica Alba nude scene is easily worth $20 million at the box office on its own. Apparently Sharon Stone nude scenes are worth about $50.

I can't even see going to the theater for that.  One thing's for damned sure; I am not going out like Pee Wee Herman.  I'll wait for the DVD and take care of my business in privacy.

Pause and bookmark loop-play ftw?

Eh, the scene will be on the Internet quicker and cut through all the other worthless, um, movie stuff.  Oh, it would be free too.  Put up as your desktop background for extra fun points.

My theory is that actors don't correspond to gate money at all really. I think if someone did a real study they would see that film budget and marketing budget matter far more than the actors.

Where this might fall down a bit is actors where you know what sort of movie it will be just from their presence. An Arnold action flick is a good example of this. You know it will have some guns, some one-liners, etc.

For actors that don't just make the same movie over and over you don't get that effect. We all know what an Arnold action movie is to some extent, I'm not sure what a Cruise action movie really looks like.

They look like Tom Cruise showing how naturally superior he is to everyone else.

Top-Gun?  Days of Thunder?  Mission Impossible?  Cocktail?  They all have the same pattern. 

[ Stop it ]

[ Just ignore him ]

Maybe I just haven't seen many babies but isn't it weird that the kid has a full head of hair?  Maybe it's some sort of special scientologist diet.

(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20060906/capt.a88106d65b1f473dba517c3c05b70955.suri_cruise_nyol200.jpg)

Not normally, but it does happen.  Most of it will fall out though.  It still looks weird.

My niece (just here over the weekend) has a full head of shocking red hair that never did fall out so it is very very long.  It is very strange to see a 10 month old baby with double pigtails.

That is a cute kid, but the full head of hair is creepy.

Christ, that whole picture is 'shopped to hell and back.

 :|

That photo is just mindblowing in so many ways. Tom is possessing the baby quite aggressively and holding Suri like that is downright uteral.  Katie is peering in like an outsider.  We all know that TC is a narcissistic, controlling fuck, but holy shit. 99% of celebrity baby pictures have the mom as the primary.

I agree that think looks as fake as a pron star convention

It really isn't very responsible of him to hold the baby like that.  The leather in that jacket could fail at any moment, causing the baby to fall to the ground and be attacked by grizzly bears.

Leather is the only thing that can keep thetans away from a still weak and vulnerable newborn, the child must be protected.  Wigs can protect the fragile soft spot.

It looks like that baby is wearing a toupé.

The wig is made up of body thetans. Nothing can keep the millions of thetans away from the future operating thetan. It's whole body is made up of rogue thetans. After all, they came to Earth in billions of DC-8s many trillions of years before the universe existed.

Hubbard's intergalactic villain Xenu Etrawl is an anagram of "new tax rule". :)