Report: Paramount Terminates Tom Cruise's Contract

nickel · 08-23-2006, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Citing Erratic Behavior, Paramount Ends Its Relationship With Tom Cruise, According to The Wall Street Journal

Aug. 22, 2006 — Paramount Pictures is terminating its 14-year relationship with Tom Cruise — one of the most successful actors in Hollywood history — because of the actor's off-screen behavior, according to a report published late Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal.

"As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal," Viacom Inc. chairman Sumner Redstone told The Wall Street Journal. "His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."

Viacom is the parent company of Paramount, the studio where Cruise/Wagner Productions, Cruise's production company, has maintained offices since 1992.

A spokeswoman for Cruise/Wagner Productions declined to comment on the Journal story.

Cruise's box office success is legendary, but his recent films have been overshadowed by his personal antics. These episodes include his infamous May 2005 couch-jumping interview on Oprah Winfrey's talk show, and his war of words with Brooke Shields over postpartum depression and the use of prescription drugs

The Journal story said Paramount believes that Cruise's behavior hurt box office receipts of the most recent "Mission: Impossible" movie, which was released in May.

Hollywood's Most Bankable Star Still Has Clout

His recent film, "Mission: Impossible III," has grossed $133 million domestically and $390 million worldwide. But with a massive budget, estimated at $150 million, it was far beneath expectations.

But Cruise still has considerable clout. In June, he ranked No. 1 on Forbes' "Celebrity 100" list of the most powerful stars in Hollywood, with estimated earnings in 2005 of $67 million.

"Cruise is Hollywood's most bankable actor," Forbes said, just weeks before "M:I:3" opened. The magazine cited "a combination of his awesome earnings from 'War of the Worlds' and the media onslaught following his pairing with actress Katie Holmes."

"War of the Worlds" — with worldwide box office revenues of $591 million — is ranked as the 22nd biggest international blockbuster.

The 44-year-old actor has worked hard for the title as Hollywood's most bankable star. Since his breakout performance in 1983's "Risky Business," he's starred in such hits as "Top Gun," "The Color of Money," "Rain Man," and "Jerry McGuire," earning three Oscar nominations.

Between 1986 and 2001, Cruise was the top box office draw a record six times, according to Quigley Publications' annual poll of movie exhibitors. The only actors to be named No. 1 five times are Clint Eastwood, Tom Hanks, Bing Crosby and Burt Reynolds.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ory?id=2344327
Surprising to me being that even if he's been behaving "eratically" he is still making the studio some serious money.

johnnymk · 08-23-2006, 09:39 AM

This will not affect his ability to draw moviegoers in the least.

BTW, War of the Worlds was a stinker IMO.

DarkFury · 08-23-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnymk

This will not affect his ability to draw moviegoers in the least.

BTW, War of the Worlds was a stinker IMO.

His antics do affect SOME movie goers...

As tempted as I was to go see MI3, I didn't... they shall get no $$$ from me for his crazy @ss ways. Personally, he can pack it up now... he's done.

(I might have to catch MI3 on video eventually...

)

ray · 08-23-2006, 03:35 PM

I'm sure all of the other production companies are lining up to partner with his production company. Unless he goes out and murders someone, his movies will continue to make money.

Jeffbx · 08-24-2006, 05:38 AM

Eh, I dunno. I can't remember the last decent movie he was in. I saw War of the Worlds on a flight somewhere, and I thought it was REALLY weak. Didn't much care for MI1, so never saw 2 or 3.

I just don't see him as an 'action hero'. I think he'd be better suited as the gay love interest in some artsy foreign film.

riskykougra · 08-24-2006, 05:56 AM

"In June, he ranked No. 1 on Forbes' "Celebrity 100" list of the most powerful stars in Hollywood, with estimated earnings in 2005 of $67 million."

Somehow I just dont think he is going to be standing in line for food stamps anytime soon.

DarkFury · 08-24-2006, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riskykougra

"In June, he ranked No. 1 on Forbes' "Celebrity 100" list of the most powerful stars in Hollywood, with estimated earnings in 2005 of $67 million."

Somehow I just dont think he is going to be standing in line for food stamps anytime soon.

You are right... he honestly doesn't have to work a day into the rest of his life... if he plays his cards right and doesn't do a "MC Hammer".

However, I do see his rank in that list slipping a bit in the future. He's definitely not gonna command the same salary of movies past (unless some other company is stupid enough to give him that kind of cash.)

Pretty much, he's already made his fortune... so I guess he figures that it's OK for him go nutty now, or in his case "eccentric".

utcpal · 08-24-2006, 11:40 AM

If the movie sucks, I dont think its entirely his fault IMO.
Majorly its contributed by the Directory/Story-screenplay writers.
Hes just a puppet boy (With a pretty face and good body ofcourse)

Moreover, if hes nutty in his personal life, I dont care. If the movie he is in is nutty, then I do care. Im spending $$ on that.
My 2 cents.

08-24-2006, 05:56 AM	#6
riskykougra Lieutenant Commander Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Too close to the North Pole. Posts: 562	"In June, he ranked No. 1 on Forbes' "Celebrity 100" list of the most powerful stars in Hollywood, with estimated earnings in 2005 of $67 million." Somehow I just dont think he is going to be standing in line for food stamps anytime soon. __________________ I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-23-2006, 09:39 AM	#2
johnnymk Chief of Naval Operations Join Date: May 2000 Location: LEVITTOWN< PA> USA Posts: 13,621	This will not affect his ability to draw moviegoers in the least. BTW, War of the Worlds was a stinker IMO.

08-23-2006, 03:35 PM	#4
ray captain awesome Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 7,054	I'm sure all of the other production companies are lining up to partner with his production company. Unless he goes out and murders someone, his movies will continue to make money.

08-24-2006, 05:38 AM	#5
Jeffbx Fleet Admiral Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Michigan Posts: 9,390	Eh, I dunno. I can't remember the last decent movie he was in. I saw War of the Worlds on a flight somewhere, and I thought it was REALLY weak. Didn't much care for MI1, so never saw 2 or 3. I just don't see him as an 'action hero'. I think he'd be better suited as the gay love interest in some artsy foreign film.

08-24-2006, 11:40 AM	#8
utcpal Lieutenant Commander Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 654	If the movie sucks, I dont think its entirely his fault IMO. Majorly its contributed by the Directory/Story-screenplay writers. Hes just a puppet boy (With a pretty face and good body ofcourse) Moreover, if hes nutty in his personal life, I dont care. If the movie he is in is nutty, then I do care. Im spending $$ on that. My 2 cents.

User Name
Password
Remember Me?