…Tom Cruise-Paramount Deal Pending!

COMMENTS (18)

• Tom Cruise can go to any studio he wants. The general public is no longer interested in him or his films.

  Comment by phil dale duckie — Friday March 28, 2008 @ 6:03pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Tom Cruise’s career is over, anyway.. unless he does a comedy film about aliens with tax inspections.

  Comment by anonymous — Friday March 28, 2008 @ 6:58pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I’d be iffy about bringing Tom Cruise back into the Paramount fold. He’s done a lot to alienate the general public, and he’s just too damn expensive to hire for the box-office he brings in.

  They’d be better off with re-booting the franchise with a cheaper lead actor and a script that emphasizes the ensemble over the one “star.” That is unless they signed ownership of a chunk of the M:I franchise to Cruise, which would be downright stupid.

  MGM should consider letting Cruise return to Paramount, and luring over Dreamworks and other sizable production companies into a partnership with United Artists. It’ll give Dreamworks a home, and MGM a more commercially viable release slate very quickly, while the new team rebuilds the company.

  Comment by Furious D — Friday March 28, 2008 @ 7:01pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Sorry MiraJeffAICN, it seems you may be a bit out of the loop on this one (or maybe spending too much time looking for aliens in the sky). His box office appeal is so low right now. People all over the US dislike him immensely. He’s completely alienated himself and because of this his box office results have hit rock bottom. As long as he’s making videos to pump ANY religion, real or fake, he will continue his downward spiral. Sad too, because Rainman is on my top 5 list. As well, MiraJeffAICN, I’ve read Valkyrie, and I think Christopher McQuarrie is an amazing writer, but this movie is coming out in October 2008, just when the entire country will be immersed in a very draining election, and I truly feel that this material is too heavy for a country that will be suffering even more from economic issues.

  Comment by phil dale duckie — Friday March 28, 2008 @ 7:44pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I guess Tom is eating lunch in this town again after all….

  Comment by mheister — Friday March 28, 2008 @ 9:04pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Note to MiraJeffAICN: You’re the loop. Oh, ok… Mission Impossible 3 was a disaster. You like that crap? Saw all I needed to see in MI1 and MI2. OK, Tropic Thunder, funnier then shit. Read it and saw much of it in post. People will go see that movie because, Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr., and Bill Hader. Not because of Tom Fuse, oh, sorry Tom Cruise. That movie is hysterical and loaded with great cameos. Tom Cruise whatever. You have been hanging around down on Beachwood in LA too much my friend. I think you should pull yourself away from Birds on Franklin Avenue and check yourself into the Hubbard center and start your auditing, NOW. Don’t mess with Texas and Tom Cruise??? Now I am seriously frightened. Can you say WACO? Oh yeah, one last thing. I do not believe that most people would give up their identities and life (hitting rock bottom) for a religion that was created on a bet. Go Asimov…….

  Comment by phil dale duckie — Friday March 28, 2008 @ 9:34pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I think you can quote me on saying that tom mapother will never see another $100 million domestic film again.

  *scribbles down his prediction for future reference*

  Comment by anonymous — Friday March 28, 2008 @ 9:37pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Phil Dale Duckie, you’re making MiraJeff’s point for him. Regardless of what you, personally, Phil Dale Duckie, thought about MI3, it grossed $400M worldwide. And it wasn’t exactly burning off the heat of MI2, which was 6 years earlier. It was Tom Cruise that brought the faithful to the box office. Of which, as you’ll recall me mentioning, there was $400M of, worldwide.

  I don’t like Tom Cruise either, as a personality or even now less as an actor. But he’s not going anywhere, anytime soon.

  Comment by S — Saturday March 29, 2008 @ 7:23am PDT  Reply to this post

• Tom Cruise is too old.

  He’s done.

  Clooney’s too old, Pitt’s too old, etc.

  Hollywood’s grasping at old straws instead of looking into the new unknown.

  Comment by JR — Saturday March 29, 2008 @ 8:15am PDT  Reply to this post

• Bringing Cruise back into the Paramount fold would be a bad idea.

  Not only because Cruise demands just about every bit of profit on any movie he desires to “act” in, but because it would mean Paramount is basically saying they were wrong to have kicked his ass to the curb. And can you imagine how out of control Cruise would be? Jesus! He’s bad enough as it is.

  One other thing – Cruise isn’t a Jew so who are the “Jews”? Sumner Redstone and who else?

  Comment by Sandy Daley — Saturday March 29, 2008 @ 2:21pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Phil, MI3 was easily the best in the series, without question, although that’s more thanks to J.J. than TC. MI2 was ridiculous, all action with no story and the first MI, while presenting the most iconic images of the trilogy, was still a little confusing, especially when I first saw it at 12 years-old. I didn’t say people would go see Tropic Thunder for TC. They’re not even supposed to know he’s in it. It’s a cameo. It’s not like I said it’ll be successful because of him. Meanwhile, I might be a little too new to LA but I don’t know any of the places you referred to, so maybe you’re the one who needs to step back and get away from the game. Take a vacation. You seem to harbor a lot of hate toward Scientology. You should just do what I do. Don’t think about it. Then you can spare us all your lame postings. I believe there’s room in the world for everyone’s beliefs, whether they came from bets or not. And Anonymous, I’ll bet you anything you want that Cruise has another $100 million film in him. The stupidity on this board astounds me.

  Comment by MiraJeffAICN — Saturday March 29, 2008 @ 3:39pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Could anyone actually sit through MI3? I tried my damnedest because of Philip Seymour Hoffman but I had to give up. Not only because of Cruise’s bad acting (God he’s looking old these days) but also because the jerk-off who wrote it obviously forgot he was writing a spy movie and the script suddenly veered off into chick flick territory with an engagement party and other stupid scenes that did nothing for the “story”.

  The first MI was okay. The second one was pathetic and I assumed nothing could be worse. I was wrong. Along came the third one.

  Comment by Sandy Daley — Saturday March 29, 2008 @ 7:50pm PDT  Reply to this post

• much passion behind these two warring commentators; perhaps they too feed off the Man and have more than sidelines interest as an investment? Tom Cruise is a big deal whether AAA or not; he is still a big deal in generates lots of money and great ancillary money. Sumner Redstone is an impetuous old man and his respect or admiration arises out of his sums and not his brains today.

  Comment by ONtheSIDE — Saturday March 29, 2008 @ 7:59pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The deal will probably be a one off for MI4 with both UA / Paramount co-pro and distributing….

  Comment by R — Sunday March 30, 2008 @ 10:35am PDT  Reply to this post

• Od course, WSJ is full of crap, they can’t deny they were wrong and are Sumner’s puppet.
  Fow is Sumner’s puppet.

  Comment by Mary Tom — Wednesday April 2, 2008 @ 5:47pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The only people who think Tom Cruise’s career is over are the mad-dog press and critics, who have obviously been paid off to trash any and all areas of his life. I LOVE Tom Cruise, and always will. Anyone who looks for himself at what he has done, at his life, his ideals and his films, and looks through the black propaganda that is washing over the press and the internet, could not help but agree.

  Comment by Mary — Monday April 7, 2008 @ 6:16pm PDT  Reply to this post

• MiraJeff has it right: with MI3′s domestic box office a slight disappointment it still made $135 million and worldwide box office off from the first film by only $57 million that’s a slump any A lister would take. Cruise is still the most reliable, consistent star out there and Lions for Lambs can’t be counted against him anymore than Magnolia can be: they are small-scale ensemble art pieces never intended for mass consumption.

  Personal prejudices aside Cruise has that great eye for material, being able to straddle the line between commercial and artistic. He’ll be back in a big way, especially once his couple of comedy parts come out, effectively erasing the bad memory in the public’s minds.

  There’s a reason Cruise has been on top for so long and people will re-discover that reason.

  Comment by Rich Elvers — Tuesday April 8, 2008 @ 1:53pm PDT  Reply to this post

• “I didn’t say people would go see Tropic Thunder for TC. They’re not even supposed to know he’s in it. It’s a cameo”

  Actually, Cruise is the biggest buzz, everyone saw the set pic of TC, and NYT made a whole piece in its paper about Cruise ‘crameo’ (as J Black put it)

  Stiller flopped with his last movies, so I don’t rely on him.

  Comment by Holy Mary — Saturday April 12, 2008 @ 12:37am PDT  Reply to this post