Not Terribly Interesting To Me, But From The Glass House On Melrose…
Merissa Marr scooped the final decision not to renew the Cruise/Wagner deal at Paramount. The only interesting part of it – for a company that just overspent on DreamWorks and doesn’t need any more rich foods in their diet – is that Sumner Redstone talked to the press directly….
Paramount Ends Relationship With Tom Cruise’s Company
By MERISSA MARR
August 22, 2006 7:48 p.m.
Viacom Inc. Chairman Sumner Redstone said his company’s Paramount Pictures is terminating its 14-year relationship with actor Tom Cruise’s production company, citing the actor’s controversial and sometimes erratic behavior of the past year.
Mr. Cruise, the star of Paramount hits like “Mission: Impossible,” “Top Gun” and “Days of Thunder,” has based his moviemaking company, Cruise/Wagner Productions, on the Paramount lot since 1992. But in the past year, Mr. Cruise’s star has fallen in the wake of a series of public incidents in which he stumped for his faith in the Church of Scientology; severely criticized the use of antidepressant drugs; and engaged in sometimes offbeat behavior, such as jumping up and down on Oprah Winfrey’s couch to proclaim his love for actress Katie Holmes.
Paramount now believes that Mr. Cruise’s behavior hurt the box office of his most recent film, “Mission: Impossible III.” Now, Mr. Redstone said he wants to sever the studio’s connection to its biggest star.
“As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal,” Mr. Redstone said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount.”
A spokeswoman for Cruise/Wagner Productions declined to comment.
After being contacted by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Cruise’s representatives presented a different version of events. They said that Mr. Cruise’s production company had decided to set up an independent operation financed by two top hedge funds, which they declined to name. Paula Wagner, Mr. Cruise’s partner in the company, said such an arrangement represented a new business model for top actors prominent enough to take advantage of the flood of money coming into Hollywood from Wall Street.
“This is a dream of Tom and mine,” Ms. Wagner said. She challenged Mr. Redstone’s assertion that Mr. Cruise’s behavior had cost the studio ticket sales, pointing out that the star’s movies have made the studio a huge amount of money.
So I guess this frees up Trey Parker and Matt Stone a little bit.
Am I right in figuring that Redstone’s personal statement amounts to a huge personal smackdown and attempt to humiliate Cruise?
Is there more to this story? And what can be gained by Paramount critizing their former golden child? The business end of this is not all that surprising to me, but how it’s being handled in the press is very odd. Why the need to specifically mention the “why” here? And it seems like a bad business move, leaving on such harsh terms.
Jeff, it’s noteworthy in its honesty.
Which I am a big fan of.
Redstone just made it a little easier for the moguls to shun stars for being lunatics. Not saying anyone’s next, just making an observation.
Damn, between this and the Lindsay Lohan smackdown, execs are gettin’ a little punchy…
I don’t get the rewritten title of this post “glass house”.
Those who live in glass house shall not throw stones.
The thing about Sumner’s comment is that it is nasty and bullshit. Cruise’s only “bad behavior” that matters to Paramount was making too much of Sumner’s money and not taking a smaller deal.
The story, when it comes out, will be why Sumner was the exec talking and what happened in the last week.
Paula W is equally full of shit. It’s not like they have been ready to go public on private financing either. Sumner beat her and TC to the punch and gave ’em a kick in the cajones as a bonus.
My take is that Sumner is just positioning himself for the market when Cruise makes $400 million gross – and decent profit – on his next film for someone else.
Well that explains it.
I think Baby Suri was the last straw in the PR dept. Personally I think TC and PW are perfect for the fund business, I suspect they’ll land at WB soon or someplace nicer than Dreamamount.
Whether it’s true or not, the statement is unnecessarily personal and absurd. Cruise’s films have brought Paramount hundreds of millions, if not billions, over the past 20 years. “Top Gun,” “Days of Thunder,” the “Mission: Impossible” franchise, “War of the Worlds,” “The Firm” …
End the relationship if you must, but that just seems petty.
To borrow a metaphor from sports: Sumner Redstone threw Tom Cruise under the bus, ran over him, made sure the body was dead, then ran over him some more.
I know the expression. What I don’t get is what could be thrown back inside Redstone’s glass house. These expressions have to mean something if people are going to use them.
No, Sumner’s house is a straw dog and the red stone he threw was a distraction. The big bad wolf, rabbi dave, blew it down. It’s neutral for mel then — have you guys read that he has to attend a meeting every day for 5 weeks? Harsh, that’s a cramp.
The way the press has treated Cruise in the last two years has been shameful. I still don’t understand the big deal about the whole couch-jumping thing. People claimed, sans evidence, that his relationship with Ms. Holmes was for public show to promote their movies. As if either of those summer movies needed any extra attention. Then when they got engaged (yes, in a decidedly cliche way) people still insisted it was fake. Then she got pregnant and, well, that was for still more publicity. (Plus, even more insist — and I do hate this stupid bullshit gossip, so I apologize for indulging — but they said she faked the pregnancy itself, which is why the baby has been shown). I mean, there’s nothing he can do.
Then there was the whole thing with South Park. Parker and Stone told him to come out of the closet. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!1111oen
People now despise the guy, and Redstone kicked him while he’s down.
It was nasty and uncalled for, your title was right on. Now, much as I don’t agree with Mr. Cruise’s opinions in regards to psychiatry, and his attacks on Brooke Shields were totally uncalled for, that is over a year old and really just a smokescreen for what was the real reason IMHO. That to me is so chicken shit.
If the real reason is that it costs Paramount too much because of TC’s upfront percentage, then why not say that. That to me would be more understandable than cutting someone when they’re down and being mean about it too.
Hobbette, it’s cover: “My take is that Sumner is just positioning himself for the market when Cruise makes $400 million gross – and decent profit – on his next film for someone else.” Red dumped him on pricipal, that’s the cover. I makes sense to me.
Cruise could have cut a deal and stayed. He needed to do his thing, how could we ever buy him again as steely tom if he buckled. He’d be limp.
Anne’s got the best title copy: Cruise Goes Indie
Yeah, this comes after what must have been some back-room negotiating, which as far as I’m concerned means that Cruise/Wagner screwed themselves by not accepting a new deal.
Personally I’m in favor of anything that encourages the reining in of these ridiculous star-power salaries and percentage deals.
This was the top story on MSNBC’s Scarbourough Country (thank GOD the war is over!) and the points I gleaned were:
Cruise used to take less money up front for his films and make duckets on the backend. Now, with his lastr few films being slightly off, he wants more up front.
People are annoyed at the way he supposedly handled the SOUTH PARK deal…going behind the scenes to get it yanked. He also apparently sets up Scientology recruitment booths on sets. Dunno if I believe that though.
He’s also getting older and isn’t viewed as an action/big budget guy any more.
That’s just what was said, some of it makes sense, other stuff seems kind of “meh.”
The bit about Scientology booths on sets is true.
They’re not Scientology booths, they’re massage tents. I think I read somewhere that that’s what they’re disguised as. Does that ring a bell?
My pet conspiracy theory:
Spielberg (courtesy of Mrs. Speilberg)had a real hand in this.
He is still very pissed off that Cruise sicked his Scientology dogs on the Spielberg’s personal psychiatrist (Or is it thier family friend who’s a psychiatrist?)And because of such a personal infraction wasn’t going to be sharing corporate space with Cruise in any way.
While David’s theory is the most valid, my gut just screams Spielberg had a major say in Cruise’s dismissal.
Like I said, my personal conspiracy theory, and I have not a shred of evidence to back it up other than a gut feeling.
However, I don’t think it’s any big secret that artistic integrity/genius/etc. aside; Spielberg has a reputation arount town of being quite a ruthless bastard when it comes to business, and has been said to end more than one career over less.
This has a nasty tone to it that leaves a real bad aftertaste.
Specially after all the money Cruise has made for Paramount.
The stuff about Scientology tents is absolutely true. It shows the power he had a Paramount — that he could proseyltize on the set of a film. (Spielberg even threw his weight around supporting that nonsense). The stuff about pulling the South Park episode, however, has never been proven as far as I know. It’s just that no one else had a clear motive.
Cruise has attempted to gain favor in Spielberg’s good graces by personally presenting (and surprising) him with some award in Chicago. (All the major stars only bothered to video-tape their standard thank yous.)
I learned of their strained relationship, as well as the above event, in an article on _Slate_. The story goes that Cruise overheard the Spielbergs at a party endorsing some pscyiatrist. The next week Scientologists were in front of the doctor’s office protesting with Cruise denying any responsiblity.
Most of the angsty stuff goes back to his religious fanaticism. The public has a very, very low opinion of Scientology. It’s easy to dismiss as a wacky cult, but the more they learn about it, the more they dislike it. Not to mention the fact people generally despise celebrities for speaking up about anything important like religion and politics.
Of course George Clooney, Ed Norton, Tim Robbins, Susam Sarandon , Barbra Streisand etc. have never had cause to be concerned, right?
I mean it’s not like they’ve ever said or done anything that upset the public, right?
Scarborough Country was wrong about the upfront money.
He hasn’t taken any cash up front in years and makes a lot. What is possible – don’t know who was spewing for them – is that he wanted a deal that would give him up front money again in exchange for lower backend.
Where did I say or suggest any such a thing?
Also there’s also a difference between Streisand fundraising for Bill Clinton and the DNC and Cruise advocating Scientology — which, as I said, is far outside the mainstream. I forget the poll, but Scientology has the lowest public opinion when it comes to religions.
Also, there’s an expectations game. In Hollywood you’re supposed to be Democrat-loving New Ager. Only hardcore right-wingers hate Streisand — or even care about Streisand — linking to opinion articles in the NYT from her weblog. Women who grew up with Cruise and Shields and read PEOPLE magazine are slightly different.
Nicol, all of those people you mentioned are within the mainstream of American politics. It’s absurd for you to inject politics into every discussion you get into.
To me, as David points out, the real question is WHY did Sumner choose to do this and so publicly?
Some people think it’s to give Brad Grey cover, but all I see it doing is making him look weak. It just seems personal. What possible business reason could it be not to simply say creative differences?
What is going on over at Paramount? Yesterday reorganizing Nickolodeon and MTV into the same company and after heavily promoting how they individually help them target different markets for the last year? Everyone at MTV is leaving or being let go seemingly… and now this?
Just so much odd decision making. Putting their development library into turnaround, relying so heavily on Dreamworks (as if DW could do that itself)… What next?
My question now is how the Cruise camp can possibly keep him insulated from this. I believe Cruise’s handlers have kept him away from the tabloids and gossip sites to the point that he really hasn’t been fully aware of the public vitriol toward him. That seems impossible now.
David- I think that was what they said on Scarbourough-that the NEW deal was for more money upfront and for someone perceived as fading in the spotlight, that would be an apparent bad investment.
Nicol-I used to find your posts interesting and insightful, now they’re as one trick pony as any raving politicians or “pundits.” Get a grip, man.
a poison arrow, to be sure
maybe Tom tried to get Sumner Clear. It certainly sounds much more personal than professional.
more will come out later & I don;t buy the “hedge funds”, not yet anyway, but no doubt Mr Cruise is working on it.
For those whose computers won’t spontaneously combust, FoxNews has an article that claims to have some “inside scoop ” on the whole fiasco.
Hmm…my hyperlink didn’t show up…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209943,00.html
I still like Tom Cruise, at least as a movie actor. I think he has a great onscreen presence and personality, and I really don’t care about any of the stuff about his private life, religious beliefs, etc. I hope he’ll bounce back from this, because he really doesn’t deserve the kind of treatment he’s been getting. It’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t with anything he does.
Funniest shit about the article was the plea for Warners to take them
I know some made men over there and THEY’D RATHER NEVER WORK WITH THE GUY AGAIN
I am Spam Dooley and I don’t spit into the wind!
I am a huge Cruise fan but even I have to admit that he has essentially, over the last couple of years, shot himself in the foot … multiple times.
However, and M:I3 hasn’t performed that badly, this isn’t that big of a story. Contracts are being re-negotiated all over the place and many of them are being terminated. This is just another contract that was terminated.
Redstone is a very smart and diplomatic guy who usually looks at the big picture, witness his Newsweek interview in late April, and so his words to WSJ are surprising … if one does not know the whole story.
And here is a link, making clear of the timing and Emmy nomination…
http://www.slashfilm.com/article.php/20060822214836295
Anyways, this is sick. A company chairman calling out a single talent for events that happened nearly 12 to 18 months ago? This just goes to show how viable Cruise still is as a worldwide draw.
Boohoo, the man fell in love, jumped on a couch, and has a dumb view on psychiatry. Everything else is just doublespeak and hearsay.
so much anger and spite towards a guy who is a) a really good actor and b) a box office draw. Even his underperforming films at least hit the break even point.
i know he’s a little kooky, but when did it turn into such a palatable dislike for the guy? Last year i equated his couch jumping over exposure to Bennifer. People get tired of seeing people on tv, on tabloids, etc.
To see a chairman turn on a talent like that, in such an ugly way, could make many others at Dreamamount think twice about their own contracts.
And for what? Timing, and nothing more.
People get fired all the time for underperforming. And if his commissions are too high (and back-end deals), all the more reason to dump him. His popularity (which escapes me…always has) is waning. It happened to Burt Reynolds, Harrison Ford, Elizabeth Taylor…the list goes on and on. Is Cruise a great actor? Nope. Does he work on humanitarian or ‘greater good’ causes like so many of his peers? Nope. He’s got a great smile and makes a ton of money. What do we owe this guy? Nothing.
Tell us then, if underperforming is the issue, then why cite his personal behavior, and not the underperforming aspect?
This could’ve have been handled in a formal manner, but now has turned into an outright public fiasco, and for what?
I’ve got to wonder what octogenarian Sumner Redstone is up to with his backstab to his former golden boy. Ok, ok, Tiny Tom is carrying heavy baggage these days, and his fees are part of it, but despite my personal distaste at his antics, he is the premier movie star of the planet.
Why didn’t Brad Grey just issue a statement that “with regret” we have been unable to come to a financial agreement … we wish Cruise/Wagner well… blah blah blah… never mind whatever the reason they’re parting ways. The really weird thing to me is that we didn’t hear the usual platitudes.
Maybe some people at Paramount [ Dreamworks] weren’t on the same page about re-newing the expensive production agreement.
Because SR’s comments were so personal and surprising, one must wonder if Redstone was using the behavioral [scientology, et al] issues as a scapegoat and beard for the actual reasons behind the decision. which was an internal disagreement that he doesn’t want to expose.
Or maybe Redstone is losing his mental acuity and business sense and has simply committed a blunder.
Friedman, as usual, knows nothing.
He doesn’t know the real rift between Spielberg & Cruise… not that it’s remotely relevant here.
He doesn’t know that Flags of Our Fathers is half-owned by Warner Bros, who will release it overseas.
He doesn’t understand the current financial trend at Paramount, which is cutting back after spending frivilously for the last year with little to show for it.
He says that Sumner cited stuff that I haven’t seen him refer to in detail at all.
And, of course, Warners is under even more pressure than Paramount these days. Bringing in a tainted Cruise is not a smart power play for them. Fiscally conservative Fox or Sony are the likely landing spots.
Blech…
Cruise’s films have brought Paramount hundreds of millions, if not billions, over the past 20 years. “Top Gun,” “Days of Thunder,” the “Mission: Impossible” franchise, “War of the Worlds,” “The Firm” …
Though I agree with you Josh on Cruise’s great box office track record with Paramount, one could say this is a case of “What have you done for me lately?” that has Redstone flippin’ out.
Top Gun‘s world-wide box office of $353 million came on a production budget of $20 million, according to the late Dawn Steele, the film’s producer. MGM’s Rain Man was done for $25 million and hauled in over $300 world-wide. I’m not sure if Cruise ever got a slice of that, but no doubt his reps made sure he did for work on the Mission Impossible franchise, and rightfully so.
I checked BOM for numbers on other films produced by Cruise/Wagner for Paramount: Narc made $10 million; Suspect Zero made $8 million; and Elizabethtown managed $26 million. (Sorry, I don’t have production budget numbers for them.)
The days of a $20-30 million budgeted film with an A-list start bringing in pools of box office cash were over a long time ago. If the non-renewal deal with C/W is an economic matter, then Redstone should have stuck to that script.
Unnamed Paramount powers that be couldn’t stop counting the money they felt they lost as soon as Pat the publicist went.
It could be imagined to be a couple hundred million as the last two Cruise movies were expected to take far more at the US box office.
^^^^You got it, babe!
well it will be an interesting future if actors will start to be held accountable for imagined/prospective cashtakings. Normally it’s execs.
I wonder what will happen to Tom now since he’s climbing that age hill and he effectively got canned. Dave says he’s a big star but it is possible that he wuz a big star.
My Ma sez she used to sing “I got you babe” before she stuck me in bed Palmtree. I guess Sonny & CHer used to do that at the end of their variety show which I got to see tapes of in the 80s.
I am very grateful for satellite 70s reruns because seeing those old variety shows was fantastic–with real soul and rock groups on them as guests too. and Charo. Jesus A. Christ how did that woman ever get on TV.
They should try to do some of that stuff now on broadcast TV. Dave Chappelle’s Variety Show. Tom and Katie Show. Pammy and Kid Rock. Snoop and Cube. The Missy Elliot Hour.
Fittingly I know it as how Bill Murray wakes up in Groundhog Day…
Chappelle back on TV would indeed be a great thing.
You mean like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IIrxyGWHXc
I’m just pleasantly astonished at how unpolished these things used to be.
Dig Mike Douglas’ Howard CO-sell toupe hairdo.
I would go back to a happy and willing TV addiction if they would just put some decent variety on TV with hosts who aren;t full of smug one-liners and reality TV. yes unpolished is more Real people.
Dave Chapelle and Missy Elliot House Party Hour. That could salvage an unnamed broadcast network right there.
I agree that everything for TC’s public image went downhill when he dumped his publicist Pat Kingsley (?). I’ve thought thast for a while. He should hire her back for alot of money.
Pat’s too smart to take him back at this point, even if she were willing to forgive him for unceremoniously dumping her for a relative.