The All-Tom-Cruise Channel
Sumner Redstone's timing is perfect: just when every drop had been wrung out of the Mel Gibson story, Redstone gives us an excuse to replay all the Tom Cruise nuttiness from the last couple of years. Thanks, Sumner! And to think Viacom doesn't even own a cable news channel....
Anyway, check out this analysis from the Times' Charles Duhigg, Chris Gaither and Kim Christensen. But wait, there's more! Here's our editorial, a nice follow-up interview with Redstone, and a piece on candor in Hollywood (surprisingly, it's not short).
My personal favorite interpretation of the episode came from a publicist who has worked with several studios: it was all about spinning Wall Street. Viacom stock had been in a long slump, despite the spin-off of CBS and Infinity that was supposed to excite investors. With other studios across town jettisoning production contracts, Paramount was under pressure to bring its deal with Cruise and his partner, Paula Wagner, down to more reasonable terms. But Cruise/Wagner balked at Paramount's offer and started shopping around for another backer inside and outside Hollywood. This put Viacom in an awkward spot as its contract with Cruise/Wagner neared its end: if Cruise announced a deal with someone else, Wall Street analysts would say that Paramount had just lost its biggest star, and the stock would take another hit. So Redstone moved first, saying (to the Wall Street Journal, mind you, not Variety or the Hollywood Reporter) that he was casting Cruise off because the guy's weird effusions had cost Paramount $100 million to $150 million in lost receipts on "Mission Impossible: III." In other words, Cruise had become a liability, not an asset.
The affair reminds me of Lakers owner Jerry Buss dumping Shaq in 2004. The calculation was about the same: huge paycheck, increasing risks, declining returns. But if Shaq is the model, Tom Cruise has at least a few blockbusters left in him. Stay in shape, Tom, and find a co-star who can put up even bigger numbers than you do.
The photo of Redstone and Cruise at a "Mission: Impossible III" screening was taken by Lester Cohen of WireImage.
Subscribe to this Blog - What is RSS?
The reason for the collapse of the Hot Air Balloon known as Tom Cruise can be summarized in two simple words: Johnny Depp.
Tom Cruise? Stick a fork in him. He's done.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | August 25, 2006 at 06:58 AM
Depp: Secret Window, 9th door... lots of bad movies and flops, still very ok;
ok for Pirates, but what else? is he able to play Dr Hardford in Eyes Wide Shut? a 'normal' character? no.
Posted by: Antony | August 25, 2006 at 09:15 PM
The "All-Tom-Cruise Channel" article is an excellent article. Very insightful as to what's REALLY going on.
I admire Tom Cruise for his courage to say what he believes, unlike so many others in Hollywood.
His detractors, while noisy, are but a small minority.
Posted by: J. Chen | August 26, 2006 at 04:48 PM
Good perspective.
Michael Locker MD
Posted by: Michael Locker MD | August 27, 2006 at 06:06 AM
It's a sad day when enertainers cannot be themselves. I just can't understand why everyone thinks Tom Cruise is wakko for jumping up on Oprah's sofa. He was just in a playing mood that day--and he can do that with Oprah, because she doesn't judge people when they are just having fun.
The people running Hollywood are "control freaks" and want to dictate what people can and cannot say. Actors have a life as people, just like the rest of us and need to act like and be regular people. If studio officials look in the mirror, they are saying nasty, spiteful and untrue things everyday via the movies they make. If everyone was like them, we would all protest everytime a movie came out.
I like him as an actor and from what I can tell he a pretty good person and entitled to his own opinion. I will remain a loyal fan because I think he is a talented actor. When he's at work he works. When he off work let him be off work!!!!
Posted by: L. Sims | August 28, 2006 at 02:30 PM