It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Poland, it’s not just the jumping on the couch. Like you said it’s the Lauer, psychiatry is bad thingy, as well as the courting of both the media and his wife (i.e. Eifeel tower charades etc), Scientology being force-fed to movie crew members (i.e. on-set tents), pissing off Spielberg’s wife by “outing” a psychiatrist close to them, purchasing the baby ultrasound machine, his cultish attempts to hide his wife etc etc. Something wrong with the picture there.
And btw I loved MISSION IMPOSSIBLE III and JJ’s Directorial debut, but frankly, Redstone was right to do what he did. He fired a shot across the bow to all “stars” who may think of bringing unreasonable baggage to Paramount, not just Cruise. I think candor in Hollywood is a refreshing thing as opposed to the usual spin bullshit (“we have enjoyed working with this immensely talented performer and look forward to future ventures” blah blah blah).
Hundreds of millions are at stake with a film. If you are a star you have a responsibility to act responsibly towards the studio’s hareholders, fans and business partners.
Comparing Cruise and Singer is unfair: one uses the media to push his agenda while the other dropped the ball directing a potentially lucrative franchise.
Yeah, between Cruise and Singer I vote ‘neither’.
Nikki went crazy again! Of course, the first thing she does as a responsible journalist is assume she knows more about business than Mr. Redstone and that his motives were not strictly business.
Singer has shown that he has almost zero understanding of the movie business, making him a bad choice for any film that doesn’t fall within the limited range of his talents. Cruise is a better bet in terms of the business.
I would rather spent $250 million to Bryan Singer, because he is willing to share less profit than Tom Cruise.
Superman Returns will make more profit than Mission:Impossible 3.
Warner Bros will make $50 million profit on Superman Returns.
For Mission:Impossible 3, Paramount will only barely break even while Tom Cruise can make $80 million on the movie.
Obviously Cruise, like anyone else in negotiations, is going to let it be known he is looking elsewhere.
When the deal went south, Redstone could not make it look like he failed to keep one of the biggest stars on the planet, on the lot. Cruise’s behavior aside, he is still an earner (with a proper budget) and most likely will continue to be.
Now, with Cruise looking for another deal, Redstone has to save face and try to damage Cruise’s rep by saying that it had to do with his ‘behaviour’.
The last thing Redstone, Viacom or anyone associated with them want is for Cruise to pop up in a Warner Pic with a 200 mill domestic box office or such. And it is very possible; Cruise is down, but he isn’t out.
Redstone’s statement more and more seem like it is more about saving face in the business community than anything to do with Cruise’s ‘behaviour’.
If he can’t have Cruise, he will do the best he can to damage Cruise’s rep and hurt whatever negotiating power he still has in Hollywood. He hopes these comments will tarnish the perception of any deal Cruise/Wagner makes next.
Redstone seems like a typical sleeze businessman using the media and public as a negotiating tool.
Sadly, many will buy into it.
It is just entirely unprofessional of chairman.
I’d take the Cruise gamble over Singer, who isn’t likely have any better luck with his next Superman, and has no trademarks in his style or substance that an audience demands.
“Superman Returns will make more profit than Mission:Impossible 3.”
The key words that you didn’t include there was “WB claims.” Doesn’t make it true.
“I would rather spent $250 million to Bryan Singer, because he is willing to share less profit than Tom Cruise.”
Is that true? WB deal with Singer doesn’t exactly sound cheap.
The difference Dave is in “Cultural Capital” which in some ways is imminently more potent than financial capital.
Bottom line, Cruise blew all of his when he started trying to force his religion onto other people. It’s not the couch jumping, Holmes stuff. It was the prostylezing about psychiatry and drug dependence and forcing Scientology recruitment on his film sets.
And with the internet, the world is not six degrees of separation anymore, it’s TWO.
So the general public caught the vibe of Cruise trying to force his kooky religion on others, and the real backlash inside and outside of Hollywood began. That is the difference here between Cruise and Singer.
All Bryan did was not deliver the movie that was wanted, and inhibited the marketing.
If Cruise just kept to his silly Holmes couch-jumping antics, and stopped with the “conversion tour” during his W.O.W promo, then he’d probably be fine.
But when he goes around telling everyone that ONLY his belief system is the valid one, Psychiatry and Psychology is the epitome of evil and that any kind of mental health treatment that uses medication “doesn’t work” – and he knows, because he’s PERSONALLY, PERSONALLY helped people get off drugs!
BIG difference between Bryan and Tom.
And if MI:3 still made it’s intended money?
Hmm…I don’t know.
Could it be that Redstone’s shot was not just at “Movie Stars and their baggage” as some are saying – but maybe it was a shot directly at Scientology itself? Which some feel has gained too much “power” in the game. I think that might be the personal angle.
Lesson to be learned: No one likes someone else’s religion shoved down their throats.
Big Difference in your comparison Dave.
And THX… if you think any of the mercenaries at Paramount would actually make that distinction, you know a different group of people than I do…
This is why the scam about it not being business, strictly personal, is working. People want to slam Cruise. Easy pickins.
My point is, however, that you see a distinct difference between how WB is treating its money loser and how Paramount is treating its money loser. And no matter how you or I feel about him, Cruise is still one of the best movie salesmen in the game. He works his ass off for his movies. He may be a whack job, but he does the job of movie star like no one but Will Smith still does.
Just look how much hype this minor story is getting today.
No one is mentioning Sumner’s full comment, which is that Cruise’s stuff cost the studio money. That’s all that matters in that world.
But keep believing it’s about something else if you like. That’s what Paramount wants.
Which is just odd. Why not just come out and say it was a business matter, no muss, no fuss. That would go a much longer way to curb other rich deals than this circus.
No one is mentioning Sumner’s full comment, which is that Cruise’s stuff cost the studio money.
Oh, missed that. It wasn’t in the blurb you quoted, and many of us don’t have access to wsj.com.
It was in the followup today…
“It’s nothing to do with his acting ability, he’s a terrific actor,” said Mr. Redstone. “But we don’t think that someone who effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue should be on the lot.”
“Which is just odd. Why not just come out and say it was a business matter, no muss, no fuss. That would go a much longer way to curb other rich deals than this circus.”
Because….
When Cruise makes his next blockbuster movie, it will look like Redstone made a bad business decision. So therefore Redstone made it sound like it wasn’t purely a business decision.
Exactly, palmtree.
This has very little to do with Cruise’s past behaviour and everything to do with saving face and colouring the percetion of what Cruise does next.
So if next week, even if Cruise announces the biggest deal of all time at WB, the media will say “WB got the whack job that Paramount rejected”.
It is also intended to tar Cruise/Wagner into not getting a better deal than Paramount was willing to offer.
We’ll see if it works.
For whatever reason (probably because he’s bitter over the studio’s most bankable star tarnishing his image to the point where he’ll no longer be viable toplining pictures costing more than $100 million), Redstone wanted to take a shot at Cruise on the way out the door. As someone who loathes Scientology for the way it values financial success above all else, I think this is funny.
Practically, though, Redstone made a very wise decision. M:I3 was Cruise’s lowest international grosser since MINORITY REPORT, and he does seem to be rapidly turning into a laughing stock all over the world. Since he has no interest in rehabilitating his image, each picture will likely be a case of diminishing returns. Cruise is badly damaged goods. He might as well buy a Tahitian island and start eating his weight in Arby’s on the daily.
As to the question at the end of DP’s post, how ’bout a $250 million adaptation of DON QUIXOTE directed by Singer and starring Cruise?
Sometimes I wonder why DP links to stories since he seems to prefer to tell everything from scratch himself.
Poland, you say Cruise works his arse off. True, but excessive marketing and high profile interviews etc did hurt MI3. He is damaged goods.
He darkened box office prospects for WOTW and the film got hurt. Cruise could have benefited from that media backlash and hunkered down and taken a low key approach up to the MI3 premiere and beyond; he didn’t.
Redstone has to answer to shareholders as well. They don’t like excesive vaniy packages to stars who don’t deliver the goods.
I think Cruise is more or less at a low ebb, the way Sinatra was after the bobbysoxers left him and he got dumped by the record company.
Cruise might have a Sinatra-like resurgence in the future, who knows, but for now, people have had enough of him and his antics, the likes of which even rival Michael Jackson’s 80s eccentricities (Elephant Man bones etc).
Dave, I’m not disagreeing with you. It’s always about the money, and like I said in the earlier post, your theory is the most valid, and I’m sure the most correct.
But don’t underestimate people (including Redstone)to take things to the personal even in business, if they have had an experience that gets into their personal life and affects their own feelings and beliefs.
What’s different about Cruise over Gibson and anyone other star having a meltdown right now is, they didn’t push their religous beliefs behind closed doors on their co-workers.
And in accordance, they didn’t use their star capital to enforce their religous beliefs and damage other sources of revenue for Viacom – a la having that South Park ep. pulled.
No other star in recent memory has pulled those kinds power trips that go so far to fuck with people’s money outside of the mutual project because of their religous beliefs. (South Park blocking, etc.)
Gibson didn’t try and have an episode of South Park pulled when they skewered him over his catholocism (that I know of).
Yes, it’s about money. Cruise’s wasn’t going to take a lower deal or wanted out or whatever. But also using your star capital and blocking other resources of revenue to enforce your religous beliefs….
To think that there are no personal feelings involved and this is just a really calculated move on Redstone to cover his ass when Cruise may have another profitable film, is too blanket a statement.
To deny that Cruise didn’t cause some major static with Steven and the other moguls and it’s just about the deal?
Do you really think it’s just that?
Like I said, I’m not disagreeing with you. But would the story be so big about the personal if there wasn’t some grain of truth there somewhere?
Cruise crossed a line with the insiders with the Scientology stuff (I am discounting the Holmes stuff.) I am talking about the tents on sets, the psychiatrist picketing, and the Matt Lauer interview
Let’s not forget how many women he alienated with his antics on post partum depression and mental health with his Xenu pushing. I think that is the most damaging. Let’s face it, Women HATE HIM now.
Do you think Redstone, Freston, Grey, Spielberg and Co. were going to put up with being nagged by their wives for renewing the C/W deal? He is enemy number one to those power ladies right now. What mogul wants to deal with that personal hell from their wife/significant other?
Yes, you’re right Dave. It is about the money.
But it is also definitley about the personal in this case too. The story is big because Cruise turned into Jerry Fallwell, pissed off a lot of people – especially women – and it cost him his deal.
As B. Pitt said: There’s a grain of truth to every rumor. That side of the story is big.
Perhaps you’re frustrated about the spin, and how no one is reporting the numbers side of it?
But Dave, you’ve just reported it. Everyone has gotten that component of the story now. You reach a wide audience. But because it’s not as juicy as Cruise getting let go for his Falwell antics, doesn’t negate that a component of Cruise’s non-renewel was because of his behaivor and choices.
Even if MI:3 was a huge success, they were never going to renew his contract as is anyways. Too expensive. So Cruise still fucked himself out of any leverage with his antics by giving Redstone and Co. all the ammo they needed publicly for this.
Again, I’m not disagreeing at all with your assesment and logic. I’m sure your Redstone “cover ing his ass down the line” theory is the motivating factor in this result. But there is more than one side to a story. Always is. And to purport the idea that Redstone is a non-emotional Mr. Spock playing a master game of chess, and could not possibly be reacting emotionally (albeit publicly) is a one sided view.
Though I agree that your assesment as being the motivating component for this move.
But you and I both know that this town gets smaller and smaller the higher up the ladder you climb. And when Cruise went Falwell about his beliefs, and chastised others for having a different take as all religous zealots tend to do, And the moguls had to hear it from the wives about how Tom had his fanatics picket their doctors and made his on set demands, you telling me their isn’t a part of Redstone and company that isn’t just
“Fuck Tom Cruise” ?
I agree that %75 of Redstone’s move is to cover his ass in the way you described in case Cruise can bounce back enough that is pisses off Viacom stockholders that C/W is no longer there.
But I stand by, that based on Cruise soley pushing his religion in the workplace it’s views in the press, and then infracting on his peers personal lives by having their doctor’s picketed,
Redstone’s statement had a good %25 of “Fuck Tom Cruise.” behind it.
Not because of the Holmes antics, but the Scientology pushing behind the scenes and losing his female fans over mental health care, I think crossed a line for many personally and to discount that is just as one sided as to deny that this is also really about money.
I just wrote a book above to essentially say, Redstone got personal in the press because human beings have a low/no tolerance to having religous or spiritual beliefs imposed upon them. It’s a very personal violation (especially in the workplace) and so it’s not too untoward to think Redstone and company might’ve reacted personally after Cruise started using his star power to fuck with other revenue streams that satirized his religion. Is it?
I don’t think Cruise can rebound enough to support your theory Dave. But I do agree that it’s the most sensible reason for Redstone to make the comment just in case.
And I’m not trying to diss you Dave, but do you really think your sources are going to own up that Spielberg and Co. had nothing to do with this?
Everyone knows Spielberg and Co. is like a ninja that leaves no traces after the kill….
To think there were no personal feelings involved based on Cruise’s antics is just as naive as to think it was ONLY about his antics, and had nothing to do with money.
DP wouldn’t have commented on this story if he didn’t think he could correct those behind it.
People afford themselves personal feelings after they have decided it won’t cost them money.
This was not some great stand. They have been negotiating for months. Did they like him and his behavior better last week?
I agree. And I don’t think there’s a more ethical entertainment journalist around. I’m just saying IF they had a hand in anything (consulted, etc.) I don’t think they would ever own it, even off the record.
I don’t think Spielberg and Co. knew Redstone was going to take his public shot. But I do think they were consulted during negotiations.
And Dave, if I come across in anyway as questioning your credibility or ethics, let me apologize right now. Not my intention. You know I got your back.
Singer, all the way.
Not an issue with you, THX… happy to agree and disagree with you…
What do you suppose Redstone would do if he had a deal with President Bush that was about to expire? Substitue Bush and his ilk for Crusie in any of the Scientology related comments written above and amazingly the comments read totally normally. Sad.
“Everyone knows Spielberg and Co. is like a ninja that leaves no traces after the kill….”
You got that right. Just ask Dee Wallace.
Cadavra,
What do you mean? Is this just a joke or did Spielberg have something to do with the fact that Dee Wallace never really found work after ET?
I actually used to really like her as an actress and in that “hotty mommy” kinda way and was surprised she got on the train to nowhere fast.
Perhaps Cadavra meant to say Amy Irving?
Yeah, Spielberg totally hates Dee Wallace.
Check out this picture where he’s seen strangling her!
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0083866/Ss/0083866/f6scan_19-2.jpg
Okay, so he doesn’t hate Dee Wallace; but I think based on that picture the evidence is in that he hates the actor who played the older brother, Robert MacNaughton.
Why else would he allow him to appear in a group photo wearing an octopus on his head?
MacNaughton (ever the method actor) grafted the octopus on to his head for his audition of the Davy Jones character in Dead Man’s Chest. Although passed over for the coveted role, the Pirates 2 casting director was impressed enough with his audition to offer him the role of comic pirate sidekick “Penis Breath.” Alas, it wasn’t high profile enough for the in-demand MacNaughton, so he turned it down.
The media had the butcher knives out for Cruise. They were just waiting for a film of his to underperform so they could bash him til he bled. It didn’t happen much to their chagrin with WAR OF THE WORLDS. It didn’t really happen with MI3 but they couldn’t help themselves.
Well it did in America at least.
No, it’s not a joke. As I recall, he asked Wallace to either do or not do something in connection with the film’s promotion. She refused, and he essentially had her blackballed (which you apparently can do when you’ve just made the biggest-grossing movie ever on a $9 million budget). One doesn’t go from top billing in a cultural phenomenon to TV-movies almost overnight without some external reason.