Tom Cruise

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

Tom Cruise

#1 Post by exte » Thu May 26, 2005 9:33 pm

I know, I know. This is not a new film, and certainly not a film director, but did anyone catch the half hour interview Tom Cruise had with Billy Bush today on Access Hollywood? The guy sounds like a lunatic. He kept saying over and over that he wants to help people, but when it came down to the tough questions about Scientology, he either laughed them off, or went on about his passion for it rather than coming up with some facts. The most distressing moment had to be when Bush brought up that Brooke Shields battled with post-natal depression using Paxil. Cruse then said that vitamins could've done the job and that psychology, psychotherapy and all such prescribed drugs have no basis in science.

Billy Bush brought up the fact that he fired his long time publicist of 14 years for his sister, and in the past he never used to mention his religious beliefs... Of course Cruise tried to spin it his way, but I doubt his publicist would have ever allowed him to go on and on like he did in that interview. Virtually anyone could tare him apart just using that interview, and just like Jackson agreeing to do that Bashir documentary, it's almost like he's asking to be nailed as the next Hollywood nutjob...

Again, this isn't your usual criterion-esque discussion, but to anyone who saw it, isn't he completely shooting himself in the foot, digging his own grave, etc? I never saw him on Oprah, but from the clips they showed on Conan and Jimmy Kimmel, it must have been just as bad, if not worse. Anyone care to explain what's going on with this guy?

User avatar
devlinnn
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:23 am
Location: three miles from space

#2 Post by devlinnn » Thu May 26, 2005 9:45 pm

Mid-life crisis, with a little empty pecker, can bring down many a man.

User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

#3 Post by dx23 » Thu May 26, 2005 9:54 pm

I never saw him on Oprah, but from the clips they showed on Conan and Jimmy Kimmel, it must have been just as bad, if not worse.
I saw him on Oprah and he came as a man in love with a woman, with his kids and with his work. He seem a friendly guy and very aproachable, which I heard he is. It seems he is very into Scientology, which is a religion or cult, or whatever it is, that not everyone appreciates. Whatever works for him. I don't see him anywhere near Michael Jackson, who is a known pederast, who was abused by his father and really is a nutjob.

Tom Cruise is as escentric as John Travolta, Nicholas Cage, Lisa Mary Pressley and Elton John. That is Hollywood and his views and comments are considered normal to the behavior that some other members of the celebrity club show on their daily lives(ex. Paris Hilton, Phil Spector, OJ Simpson, Kobe Bryant, Robert Blake, George W. Bush, Billy Bush).
Last edited by dx23 on Fri May 27, 2005 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
godardslave
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:44 pm
Location: Confusing and open ended = high art.

#4 Post by godardslave » Thu May 26, 2005 9:57 pm

well this is no doubt a fascinating discussion on psychoanalyzing tom cruise, but what this has to do with "new films" is beyond me.

User avatar
The Invunche
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:43 am
Location: Denmark

#5 Post by The Invunche » Fri May 27, 2005 12:03 am

Scientology is most definitely a cult.

EDIT: dx23 did you change your post?
Last edited by The Invunche on Fri May 27, 2005 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#6 Post by exte » Fri May 27, 2005 2:01 am

godardslave wrote:well this is no doubt a fascinating discussion on psychoanalyzing tom cruise, but what this has to do with "new films" is beyond me.
Excuse me slave, but there's no "other" at this forum, so I did the best I could.

User avatar
Cinephrenic
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: Paris, Texas

#7 Post by Cinephrenic » Fri May 27, 2005 11:37 am

I think the whole idea of Kubrick casting Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut was his attack on the scientology cult. This couldn't been a mistake. Any thoughts?

User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

#8 Post by dx23 » Fri May 27, 2005 1:35 pm

EDIT: dx23 did you change your post?
Yes, I change my post. I knew Scientology is a cult or religion, but i put the "not" where it didn't belong. Is not easy posting, doing work and thinking in 2 languages at the same time. :wink:

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#9 Post by exte » Fri May 27, 2005 3:09 pm

cinephrenic wrote:I think the whole idea of Kubrick casting Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut was his attack on the scientology cult. This couldn't been a mistake. Any thoughts?
How so? I never heard this before, and now I'm curious... googles away...

User avatar
Cinephrenic
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: Paris, Texas

#10 Post by Cinephrenic » Fri May 27, 2005 5:57 pm

This movie can also be taken as Stanley Kubricks attack on the Church of Scientology. Examples: COS is a secret society which requires complete faithfulness at its upper levels, lack of which is rumored to bring a persons demise, FIDELIO = FAITHFULNESS, which brought death to Nightingale and Mandy, Obsession with Naval Officer - L.Ron Hubbard (church founder) was a naval officer, Costume is bought at Rainbow fashions - "Go Beyond The Rainbow" = scientology motto, In the final dialog between Ziegler and Bill,Victor is shot for a long time with a SHIP behind him. The ship of the naval officer, as well as, every time Bill tells a lie he finds out the truth. This is presumably unbeknownst to the two main stars (cruise and kidman are both members of COS) because Kubrick hid the story (as well as never explained the meanings of his films).

There is probably a whole lot more things going on in this film. Strangely, Kubrick died soon after. I wonder if this accidental too. :roll:

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#11 Post by exte » Sat May 28, 2005 12:08 am

Give me a break. After some reading - namely one page had it on the whole internet - the book was written in the 20's, well before L. Ron started the religion. These 'attacks' hardly seem like any at all, just coincidences (the naval officer, chief among them). On the other hand, I could see Kubrick being sneaky with his two stars. I just don't buy it, though.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#12 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:01 pm

an amusing piece in The New York Times on how Cruise's wacky behavior may be ruining his rep in Hollywood:

How Personal Is Too Personal for a Star Like Tom Cruise?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/02/movies/02crui.html

jcelwin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:09 pm

#13 Post by jcelwin » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:31 pm

The Australian 60 Minutes had an interview with Cruise, and he got a little angry with the interviewer when asked about Kidman and Scientology. The interviewer was asking why he had to go to a four hour scientology lecture for the interview, Cruise replied that he didn't. When the interviewer replied that he felt that he did, Cruise said that was his (the interviewers) own perception.

When asked about Kidman Cruise finally got too annoyed and told the interviewer that he was 'stepping over the line' (these are not exact quotes), and that he should 'put his manners back in'.

At the end of the interview the interviewer thanked Cruise and said it had been an interesting interview. Cruise then replied that it was 'terrific', and the interviewer asked 'even though you told me to get some manners?' Then Cruise replied that it was terrific, because they had been able to move on from that point and continue.

He seems wound a little too tight for the interview, even from the outset he didn't seem too happy. His tone and the way he kept adding 'Peter' (the interviewers name) at the end of many sentences, also sounded quite demeaning.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#14 Post by exte » Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:29 am

jcelwin wrote:The Australian 60 Minutes had an interview with Cruise, and he got a little angry with the interviewer when asked about Kidman and Scientology. The interviewer was asking why he had to go to a four hour scientology lecture for the interview, Cruise replied that he didn't. When the interviewer replied that he felt that he did, Cruise said that was his (the interviewers) own perception.
That's what I'm talking about. They called Michael Jackson, Jacko. Well, who's wacko now, you know? That's sad he's so pompous, unopen about Kidman and degrading to the interviewer, not to mention the four (FOUR!) hour intro to Scientology. I was talking with a friend tonight, and he said the rumours abour Richard Gere having gerbals stuffed up his ass were a result from when he bolted from the Scientology cult. Apparently, when you do these honesty sessions, where you're hooked up to a machine, there's always someone present to listen to all your dirt. His theory is that they gave it to the press when he left... I wonder what Cruise has to hide... A LOT, probably.

User avatar
Oedipax
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta

#15 Post by Oedipax » Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:37 am

I'm kind of visualizing Frank Mackey's breakdown during the interview while reading about the Australian 60 Minutes thing. So weird.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#16 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:30 am

exte wrote: Well, who's wacko now, you know?
Um, Tom seems pretty nuts nowadays, but I think I'm still sticking with Michael Jackson as the bigger wacko.

User avatar
Jem
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Potts Point

#17 Post by Jem » Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:52 pm

The Australian 60 Minutes had an interview with Cruise, and he got a little angry with the interviewer when asked about Kidman and Scientology. The interviewer was asking why he had to go to a four hour scientology lecture for the interview, Cruise replied that he didn't. When the interviewer replied that he felt that he did, Cruise said that was his (the interviewers) own perception. If anyone is interested....
Transcript - Cruise control

60 Minutes - Australia
Tom Cruise talks to Peter Overton
June 5, 2005

PETER OVERTON: It was precious time with Hollywood's biggest star � an interview with Tom Cruise about his new film, War of the Worlds. There's no doubt the movie will be a success, with Cruise as the leading man and Steven Spielberg in the director's chair. But before we sat down, there was an unusual request � an invitation to a session on Scientology, the controversial religion Tom's been following for the past 20 years. So I went, then I met him. And that's when I discovered there's another side to Tom Cruise � that when he's angry, the cool man of Hollywood can become downright icy.

STORY

PETER OVERTON: There's a saying in Hollywood � name three actors who can guarantee you a box office smash. Answer: Tom Cruise, Tom Cruise and Tom Cruise. For half his life, he's been the biggest movie star in the world. His films, even the bad ones, routinely rake in more than $250 million. In a business where the bottom line is the only line, Cruise is king.

TOM CRUISE: I feel � I feel privileged. That's how I feel. I feel I live a privileged life.

PETER OVERTON: At 42, he's one of the most powerful people in Hollywood, in control of everything and everyone he encounters.

TOM CRUISE: How are you? Hey. How you been?

PETER OVERTON: Nice to see you.

TOM CRUISE: Good to see you.

PETER OVERTON: Long time.

TOM CRUISE: I know.

PETER OVERTON: Take a seat.
But today, that famous Cruise control will be tested.

TOM CRUISE: You're stepping over a line now.

PETER OVERTON: Okay.

TOM CRUISE: You're stepping over a line, you know you are. I'm just telling you right now � put your manners back in.

PETER OVERTON: Tom Cruise is used to getting what he wants. He was still a child when he first set his sights on Hollywood.

TOM CRUISE: I wanted to be an actor when I was about four years old. Yeah, four years old was the first time I thought of being an actor. I was living in St Louis. That was the first time I thought about being an actor. It just evolved. I wasn't necessarily thinking of this, I didn't plan this out. This just happened.

PETER OVERTON: This boy from a broken home set himself a deadline to achieve success and he didn't have to wait too long. In 1981, in his first film, Taps, the director was so impressed with the young Cruise, he gave him someone else's part. He never looked back. In more than 30 films, he's given us some of the most iconic movie moments of the past two decades. But off screen, Cruise has devoted much of his power, influence and substantial wealth to the Church of Scientology. It's a controversial religious philosophy based on the teachings of L Ron Hubbard. Scientologists believe we are spiritual beings in control of our own destiny and that therapies like psychiatry wrongly label individuals. The message struck a chord with the young Cruise at a time when he was struggling with dyslexia.

TOM CRUISE: I had absolutely what they defined as learning disabilities, dyslexia.

PETER OVERTON: That is what you were diagnosed that you had?

TOM CRUISE: Sure, absolutely. That's what they do. "You've got ADD, ADHD." You go, "What is the solution to that?" "Well, there isn't a solution." And today it's take drugs. They actually wanted to put me on drugs. My mother wouldn't let them, back then. And then a friend of mine gave me this picture book about suppression and social and antisocial personalities and I was like, "What is this?" He said, "Scientology." I said, "Oh, I'm very interested." That's when I became a Scientologist, about 20 years ago.

PETER OVERTON: It's obviously had a massive impact on you.

TOM CRUISE: Significant. You look at, you know, as a father, as an actor, as a businessman, I mean, every level. It's something, these tools that I apply absolutely every day.

PETER OVERTON: I've done my fair share of celebrity interviews and often you'll be asked to meet certain requirements, like watch the movie that the star is promoting. But this is something new � Tom Cruise's office has asked me to come to the Scientology Celebrity Centre in Los Angeles to embark on a four-hour crash course in Scientology and what it's all about. Why, then, was it a condition of me talking to you today that I had to spend quite an intense four-and-a-half hours in the Church of Scientology here in Los Angeles?

TOM CRUISE: You didn't have to. You could have said no.

PETER OVERTON: I felt I had to.

TOM CRUISE: Okay. Well that's how you felt. People are interested in Scientology and I find that people wanted to know. They want to know about it. It's also... There's people out there that want help and that need help.

PETER OVERTON: Would you also agree there's a perception out there that it gets bad press � cult-like secrecy, controlling � and you almost have to defend it?

TOM CRUISE: You know, I don't feel... Ignorance breeds bigotry, breeds racism, okay? You have been there and you've seen it for yourself. Okay?

PETER OVERTON: Do you feel discriminated against when people say this is what Scientology is, that you're a bunch of lunatic fringe or whatever?

TOM CRUISE: Peter?

PETER OVERTON: Tom?

TOM CRUISE: No-one's ever said that to me.

PETER OVERTON: No, I mean that perception out there.

TOM CRUISE: But that's not the perception out there. That is absolutely � maybe from your perspective.

PETER OVERTON: This isn't my personal opinion, I'm just saying, how do you feel about that when people...

TOM CRUISE: Well, how would you feel?

PETER OVERTON: If it was my faith, I'd feel really...

TOM CRUISE: Not even your own faith � I find that appalling when people who don't know what they're talking about say things like that. I think it's ... I think it's appalling. I think it's appalling that they're still burning synagogues in France. I think it's appalling how certain Muslims are being treated. I think it's absolutely appalling when we talk about freedom of speech and human rights. I think it's appalling that they electric shock people. I think it's appalling that they drug children. I think it's appalling that they say that there are no solutions for those things. I think it's appalling that people have to live a life of drug addiction when I have personally � personally � helped people get off drugs.

PETER OVERTON: It's obvious Tom Cruise is a passionate man � especially passionate when it comes to his own family. He's determined his adopted kids Isabella and Connor will have as normal an upbringing as possible.
Your family life was difficult. You were estranged from your father and your mum and dad were divorced. Has that had an impact on you as a dad, how you bring up your children?

TOM CRUISE: Do you have children?

PETER OVERTON: I'm hoping to. I hope I can.

TOM CRUISE: Good. Good. Uh, yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. I've got a great mother and a very close family. And it's something that ... I always wanted to be a father and I think that one of the great things that we've done with our children is allowing them to be themselves.

PETER OVERTON: Is that hard, to give them a perspective that they are like the kids down the road even though their parents are who you are?

TOM CRUISE: Here's a point � everybody's different, Peter. I don't buy into this whole thing of being 'normal'. There's no such thing as normal. When you look at someone's life and you look into their life, everyone has a story. Everyone has something that is going on that is very unique to them. So that, with regards to our children, it's, you know, I think they feel very fortunate for the life they have and they're really good people. I'm really proud of them.

PETER OVERTON: Of course, the Cruise children are Australian citizens and spend much of their time here with their mother, Nicole Kidman. But it was when our conversation turned to Nicole that the cool man of Hollywood turned icy.
Now, Nicole.

TOM CRUISE: Mm-hmm.

PETER OVERTON: When you were married, it was like you were an adopted part of Australia. Do you still have a connection to Australia?

TOM CRUISE: Yeah. My children are Australian. Absolutely. Absolutely. I have a lot of friends in Australia. I love Australia.

PETER OVERTON: Was Nicole the love of your life?

TOM CRUISE: What do you mean, Peter?

PETER OVERTON: You were married for 10 years.

TOM CRUISE: Listen, we raised children, I ... you know ... I mean, how do you answer that question? She's someone that I ... I plan on getting married again.

PETER OVERTON: You do?

TOM CRUISE: Absolutely, yeah.

PETER OVERTON: And having kids?

TOM CRUISE: Absolutely.

PETER OVERTON: But Nicole was a major part of your life and a love of your life at the time?

TOM CRUISE: I loved Nic very much, there's no question.

PETER OVERTON: Would you like Nicole to remarry?

TOM CRUISE: Yes. I want Nicole to be happy. That's what I want.

PETER OVERTON: And do you have a relationship where you talk � a parenting relationship � and talk professionally about each other's...

TOM CRUISE: Listen, here's the thing, Peter. You're stepping over a line now. You're stepping over a line, you know you are.

PETER OVERTON: I suppose they're questions that people want to know.

TOM CRUISE: Peter, you want to know. Take responsibility for what you want to know. Don't say what other people� This is a conversation that I'm having with you right now. So I'm just telling you right now, okay, just put your manners back in.

PETER OVERTON: Do you think I was out of line?

TOM CRUISE: Yes, absolutely.

PETER OVERTON: Well, I apologise for that sincerely.

TOM CRUISE: Good, good.

PETER OVERTON: Yet seldom a week goes by where Tom Cruise's private life isn't very publicly displayed. In this recent appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show, he openly � and some have said over-enthusiastically � declared his love for new girlfriend Katie Holmes. Do you believe in your role that there is a place where the world does want to know about your personal life and there is a line that you have to draw?

TOM CRUISE: Absolutely. I mean, I know people are interested. I don't have a problem with that and I also don't have a problem to say, "Hey, listen, where I am with Nic is in a great place." I don't mind answering questions, but there's a way of phrasing something that's polite and has manners. And things that I say, you know what, I wouldn't answer that to someone coming up to me at a party. Of course I know people want to know about my life.

PETER OVERTON: But when I read so much about you, Tom, these are questions you answer.

TOM CRUISE: Peter, you want to waste your time on this right now or do you want to ask some other question?

PETER OVERTON: Twenty years time, where will Tom Cruise be?

TOM CRUISE: You want to move on? Come on Peter, let's go, man.

PETER OVERTON: And so we did, to Cruise's new movie, War of the Worlds � a $200 million remake of the HG Wells classic. Teaming up with the most bankable director in the world, Steven Spielberg, Cruise plays a father trying to save his family amid an alien invasion.

STEVEN SPIELBERG: I love him as an actor and he's a very under-appreciated natural actor. I mean, he plays, you know, bigger-than-life hero characters in many of his films, but he's never played a dad. And he's a great father. And I know him more as a father than in a professional work experience. I've known him since '83 and I knew Tom when he first adopted his first two kids and so I really felt that this part suited Tom to a t.

PETER OVERTON: Who's the star in this? Is it the aliens, the Martians or Tom Cruise?

TOM CRUISE: I don't know. I never kind of look at it like that. It's a story � it's a story about this family. The aliens are spectacular, the tripods are spectacular, secrets are spectacular. But at the bottom of any story, if you don't have those characters that you want to follow as an audience � that's really what I invest in when I'm seeing a movie.

PETER OVERTON: It's been an extraordinary life so far. Cruise's wealth is estimated at $450 million and his 10 percent take from War of the Worlds could add another $100 million. But he insists it's not the fortune, nor fame, that drives him.

TOM CRUISE: I wanted an adventurous life my whole life. I want to know people, I want to understand what life is about, Peter. And I really ... I want to help people. It's not something that I just say. It's something that I actively pursue. And that's how I feel. I feel privileged, truly.

PETER OVERTON: Tom, thank you.

TOM CRUISE: Peter, thanks.

PETER OVERTON: What I call an interesting interview.

TOM CRUISE: Thanks pal. It was terrific. Thank you. Thank you.

PETER OVERTON: It was terrific?

TOM CRUISE: It was terrific.

PETER OVERTON: Even after you told me to learn some manners?

TOM CRUISE: That's alright. You stepped out of line, I whacked you, we got on with it.

PETER OVERTON: Good on you.

TOM CRUISE: Thanks mate.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#18 Post by exte » Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:55 am

He said Peter eight times, and the interviewer said Tom once. "I whacked you" is a bit much, don't you think? Anyway, that doesn't make him wacko, just untouchable in interviews. I remember the usual contract for the interviews, when it was mentioned for Eyes Wide Shut on a Good Morning America exclusive interview, is that all the unused footage had to be destroyed. And he would help select what was put in. That's pretty stringent cruise control. Anyway, that NY Times article essentially says that if WotW fails, or does less business than normal, than they'll possibly cancel MI:3, but I seriously doubt that. MI:3 is pure money, plain and simple.... Alright, enough about this...

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#19 Post by Polybius » Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:05 am

Oedipax wrote:I'm kind of visualizing Frank Mackey's breakdown during the interview while reading about the Australian 60 Minutes thing. So weird.
You beat me to it :wink:

He's a no talent, delusional little twerp, who sullies everything and everyone (including, alas, some of the best Directors in the world, who seem to think he's some sort of star) he comes into contact with.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#20 Post by Andre Jurieu » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:13 am

exte wrote: ... is that all the unused footage had to be destroyed. And he would help select what was put in. That's pretty stringent cruise control.
That's actually a pretty smart thing to do when you're managing an multi-million dollar image and promoting a multi-million dollar film. If your image is your biggest asset, do you really want someone using the un-aired footage of you, that captures you unaware of the "camera-as-critic", and perhaps is used (let's say by some documentary filmmaker) to show you in a negative manner, without proper context. Look, I don't doubt that Cruise is a complete nutcase and not all that bright, but he's usually managed his image impeccably well in the mainstream press - that is, until lately, when he fired his publicist and replaced her with his sister. Since then, he's been off his rocker.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#21 Post by exte » Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:18 pm

Great points. I don't know why he fired his long-time publicist, but I think in that Access Hollywood interview, they made it seem like she was the one who kept him from mentioning Scientology, and he wanted more freedom to do so... In regards to documentary filmmakers, I first thought of Martin Bashir and then Michael Moore. You're right, if I had that kind of status and clout, I'd have certain demands, too, just for those reasons.

I just remember thinking who's been the number one star consistently, and for awhile it was both Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise, but lately, it's back to Cruise. Now, it seems, he's so blinded by his "passion" that he's literally throwing his image and potentially his career off the tracks, and that's so surprising. It really is. Then again, it must be very difficult to stay at the top forever, and like some people have mentioned, maybe he is having a midlife crisis. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if some hard studio decisions get made, and whether or not he fights them or gets in line again... because I really do think it's about the bottom line with this guy.

Arcadean
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 5:33 am

#22 Post by Arcadean » Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:53 pm

His publicist told him around the time that he was promoting The Last Samurai that maybe he shouldn't talk about Scientology. 2 months later she was fired.

Cruise can be a decent actor but he isn't helping himself. I do tend to stay away from fluff stuff like this but it seems to have spread too far for me not to hear about it.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#23 Post by Andre Jurieu » Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:17 pm

exte wrote: Anyway, it will be interesting to see if some hard studio decisions get made, and whether or not he fights them or gets in line again... because I really do think it's about the bottom line with this guy.
The always "clever" Entertainment Weekly (who I put in the same category as People Magazine) has this news (by Gary Susman) on their website regarding MI:3. The new casting decisions sound very strange to me:
War of the Wallets
Tom Cruise takes pay cut to resuscitate ''M:I3.'' The much-delayed, rumor-plagued third installment will finally begin shooting in July

While Mission: Impossible 3 has been delayed over the past few years by several director and cast changes, the production's biggest obstacle may have been its biggest draw: star-producer Tom Cruise. Reports last week in the New York Times and elsewhere suggested that Paramount might pull the plug on the expensive project because of fears that Cruise is alienating potential moviegoers with the public spectacle of his romance with Katie Holmes and his increasingly frequent talk of Scientology. A more likely cause of Paramount's jitters was Cruise's budget-busting profit-participation deal. On Wednesday, however, Paramount announced that the film is a go, with shooting to begin next month. According to the Los Angeles Times, what put the film back on track was Cruise's willingness to take a major pay cut, giving up what could amount to tens of millions of dollars.

According to the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and Variety, new Paramount chief Brad Grey has been negotiating with Cruise for the last week over the budget, which had soared north of $150 million. (The Los Angeles Times cited Paramount insiders who placed the figure at $185 million.) Cruise was to have taken no fee upfront but 30 percent of the gross, the same deal that ultimately earned him $70 million on 2000's Mission: Impossible 2, according to Variety's estimate. The Los Angeles Times reports that Cruise agreed to cut his pay to 22.5 percent and to drop some expensive locations (like Shanghai) from the shoot. As a result, the film will now begin shooting in Italy on July 18, as originally scheduled.

Cruise will be going into the project with an untried director and a relatively unknown leading lady. The film was initially supposed to be in theaters by summer 2005, but director David Fincher (Fight Club) dropped out of the project, and last summer, after Paramount had spent tens of millions scouting locations and hiring crews, so did director Joe Carnahan (Narc). Cruise hired J.J. Abrams, who has never directed a feature before, but the TV drama whiz had to oversee the first season of Lost and the fourth season of Alias, so he was unavailable until this summer. The cast of Carnahan's version � Scarlett Johansson, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Kenneth Branagh � all left when the movie was delayed last summer. Instead, joining Cruise will be leading lady Michelle Monaghan, who's best known for her year-long stint on Boston Public, though she'll also be seen opposite Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie when Mr. and Mrs. Smith opens this week. Also in the cast are Mission vet Ving Rhames, Jonathan Rhys Meyers (last seen starring in CBS' Elvis miniseries), and Philip Seymour Hoffman. M:I3's release date is set for May 5, 2006.
So at least he's not crazy enough to kill off his own Cash Cow.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#24 Post by exte » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:28 am

Andre Jurieu wrote:The new casting decisions sound very strange to me... ...at least he's not crazy enough to kill off his own Cash Cow.
He didn't kill it, but he sure took the wind out of it.

Getting a TV guy who never directed before to take on a huge Hollywood spectacle with two TV actors as back up to Cruise, with only Seymour Hoffman to spare, sounds pretty shaky to me. Really, it's no wonder that Cruise wanted such a huge percentage of whatever it would make. I can't believe Carnahan and the prior cast really slipped through. Can you imagine! Carrie-Anne Moss and Scarlett Johansson together, in the same film with Cruise, would've been enough to guarantee 200+ million at the box office, easy.

Now they have this chick:

Image

when it could've been these two:

ImageImage

Oh well, it's a big budget Hollywood film that's third in a franchise... not really typical fodder for a healthy criterion-esque discussion, eh?

User avatar
neuro
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

#25 Post by neuro » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:35 am

While we're superficially gossiping, the relationship has done wonders for Katie's complexion.

Post Reply