In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Today's News: Our Take
Film-Studio Exec: Tom Cruise Cost Us $150 Million
Sumner Redstone isn't done deriding Tom Cruise. In a new Vanity Fair feature, the Viacom chief says Paramount's onetime tentpole-hoister was "embarrassing the studio," and "costing us a lot of money." How much did Tom's Kate-induced antics supposedly affect box office? To the tune of "$100 million, $150 million on Mission: Impossible III," Redstone surmises. "It was the best picture of the [franchise], and it did the worst."
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 9:38 AM
|
Yikes, Sumner, tell us how you really feel!
But, honestly, if Cruise really cost them that much money, I can see giving the guy the boot. It is show business after all. I know I'm a JJ Abrams fan who didn't end up seeing MI:3 (or War of the Worlds, for that matter) because I had all I could take of Cruise for a while.
Kind of like the Russell Crowe dynamic where their off-screen behavior so overshadows everything they do that you can't see their movie without envisioning them jumping on a couch or throwing a phone at someone. They just need to give me a chance to miss them.
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 10:37 AM
|
Come on!!
He cost them $150 million for 1 movie, but why he doesn't talk about all the money he did for them with his other works?? check his filmography and you will see he did a lot!!
All i'm saying is that, no matter what happened, it doesn't seem fair that he is doing so many comments about how much money he cost them based just in 1 failure between so many hits he had while working with them. I don't care if Redstone fired him, but it would be better if he keeps his mouth shut... after all, open it too much was what damaged Cruise.
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 11:11 AM
|
There is no way that Cruise cost them $150 mil on one movie. Over the past couple, yeah maybe.
I cannot stand Cruise, but he did do alot for them in the past. Do they really think people will want to work for them if they treat their ex-superstars that way?
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 11:44 AM
|
the $150 mil is possibly worldwide box office loss or so i'm guessing. I could believe the number if that's the case. It also was the best of the 3 MI movies.
At any rate its seems some studio exec has a personal vedetta since he can't seem to drop subject.
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 12:19 PM
|
I agree that it was by far the best of the 3 MI movies... As I said at the time, it was like watching a very long Alias with even higher production values... I might even spring for the DVD...
Don't know if the $150MM number is accurate but when you've been the success that Sumner has been, you've got to take his word for it...
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 1:22 PM
|
|
come on, picking on tom cruise was so 6 months ago, move on people, and leave tom alone, Ironically REDSTONE your the one embrassing the studio now, shut your trap
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 1:43 PM
|
You know, Tom Cruise's beliefs and assertions insult me as a person, but I'm going to call Redstone's bluff on how much money Cruise really "cost" the studio. If MI:III really performed THAT far under expectations, then part of the problem was setting expectations at that high of a level. Last time I checked, a film that grosses in the $250 million range worldwide is not a failure -- especially when it is the third picture of a franchise (best or not, most franchise pictures tend to decrease in return each outing, especially if there is a 6 year gap between pictures). If Redstone wants to lament about giving Cruise 65% of DVD sales, maybe he should be chiding Paramount President Brad Gray for making that ridiculous deal. Both Collateral and War of the Worlds were big hits for Paramount, and that's without even getting into how much money he's made for that studio over the last 15 years.
I understand getting out of a business arrangement that you feel gives one party too much power (and Cruise has had a higher percentage of profit sharing than pretty much anyone in Hollywood), but to lash out about how much hypothetical money was lost, especially when you are complicit in signing those deals that cost the studio profits, is just unfair. I respect Sumner Redstone but I have always found his assault on Tom Cruise to be of ill taste and smell of scapegoating.
I'll say this about Tom Cruise vs. Russell Crow: Yes, Tom Cruise's personal pratfalls had a negative impact on his US box office, but MI:III still opened big (I don't buy the whole "$47 Million Opening Weekend is a Flop" line -- get real). They had to resort to GIVING away tickets to "Cinderella Man" (Crowe's last film) and that film didn't even come close to breaking even box-office wise. Both have bad attitudes -- but one star can still have a good opening -- and it isn't Crowe.
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 3:07 PM
|
You know, Tom Cruise's beliefs and assertions insult me as a person, but I'm going to call Redstone's bluff on how much money Cruise really "cost" the studio. If MI:III really performed THAT far under expectations, then part of the problem was setting expectations at that high of a level. Last time I checked, a film that grosses in the $250 million range worldwide is not a failure -- especially when it is the third picture of a franchise (best or not, most franchise pictures tend to decrease in return each outing, especially if there is a 6 year gap between pictures). If Redstone wants to lament about giving Cruise 65% of DVD sales, maybe he should be chiding Paramount President Brad Gray for making that ridiculous deal. Both Collateral and War of the Worlds were big hits for Paramount, and that's without even getting into how much money he's made for that studio over the last 15 years.
I understand getting out of a business arrangement that you feel gives one party too much power (and Cruise has had a higher percentage of profit sharing than pretty much anyone in Hollywood), but to lash out about how much hypothetical money was lost, especially when you are complicit in signing those deals that cost the studio profits, is just unfair. I respect Sumner Redstone but I have always found his assault on Tom Cruise to be of ill taste and smell of scapegoating.
I'll say this about Tom Cruise vs. Russell Crow: Yes, Tom Cruise's personal pratfalls had a negative impact on his US box office, but MI:III still opened big (I don't buy the whole "$47 Million Opening Weekend is a Flop" line -- get real). They had to resort to GIVING away tickets to "Cinderella Man" (Crowe's last film) and that film didn't even come close to breaking even box-office wise. Both have bad attitudes -- but one star can still have a good opening -- and it isn't Crowe.
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 3:07 PM
|
I agree with the previous posts. While MI3 certainly would have made more money had Cruise kept his mouth shut, I think it's unfair for Redstone to go after him for the "failure" of one movie. Especially considering how much money Cruise has brought in for Paramount/Viacom. Studios are feeling the corporate pinch and must retreat on the lavish deals they've thrown at actors. I agree that business is business, but it's already over with, so why does he insist on harping on it?
As for Crowe, while his acting abilities is one of the best in the business, he definitely doesn't have the drawing power that Cruise has (or once had).
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 10:18 PM
|
|
Redstone most likely realizes by now that he made a rash decision based on personal feelings and maybe coercion from other parties...like say...the wife...i'm sure he's backpedaling right now and hoping to correct his monumental(!) monetary error by letting cruise go...MI 3 was the best of all the series and there is so few that can say that about a sequel! business is business...personal feelings should never be allowed...yes..in real life cruise is weird but on the big screen he is DYNAMITE...big mistake Redstone... some ass kissing wouldn't hurt...i am hoping for a MI 4!
|
|
Oct 6, 2007 1:28 AM
|
|
Redstone most likely realizes by now that he made a rash decision based on personal feelings and maybe coercion from other parties...like say...the wife...i'm sure he's backpedaling right now and hoping to correct his monumental(!) monetary error by letting cruise go...MI 3 was the best of all the series and there is so few that can say that about a sequel! business is business...personal feelings should never be allowed...yes..in real life cruise is weird but on the big screen he is DYNAMITE...big mistake Redstone... some ass kissing wouldn't hurt...i am hoping for a MI 4!
|
|
Oct 6, 2007 1:31 AM
|
|
|
