Paramount cuts ties to Tom Cruise

[Drew]

Suri's coming out now because media and public scrutany of how he's holding Katie and that baby prisoner in his homes. It's an image boost, nothing more.

[Ms. Walsh]

Good. Tom Cruise is a jerk.

I don't think they would have cut him just b/c of all the press he's received in the past two years. They probably thought that the press would garner interest for people to watch his movies, but it did the complete opposite. I've never liked Tom Cruise as an actor, so I wouldn't see his movies anyway. But I know a bunch of people who refuse to watch his movies now b/c of his behavior. If they decided to wait until now, it has to be b/c MI:3 didn't do as well as they has predicted.

I understand celebs trying to shield their children from the media, but it's odd how during the entire pregnancy, Tom was pimping that baby out all the time. During interviews, it would be all he'd talk about. I remember an interview on ABC where, in the middle of it, he called Katie and asked her how the baby was doing.

[Drew]

Katie's not even been allowed to take that baby on a walk on a public street. That's not keeping him away from the media. Keeping her from the media is not taking her to a photo studio to have publicity shots done of her .... then followed up by a reported ton of photoshopping before the pix hit print.

[Adam]

Paramout is my personal hero. Not that it will hurt Tommy in anyway but the guy just needs to be brought down a small notch. He's gotten way to wacko

[SouthOfSoap]

MI:3 made enough money to renew Tom's contract - just on lower terms maybe...

I think the final straw was when he pulled his weight (blackmailed?! - depends on your point of view) in getting those South Park episodes pulled (the ones about Tom "trapped in the closet" and Chef/ Scientology). He threatened to stop promoting films for Paramount if they weren't pulled (this allegation was denied, but so many mainstream papers reported it, meaning they didn't feel exposed to litigation from Cruise or Paramount). Some reports even suggested he threatened to sue Paramount to get those episodes pulled.

Who wants to do business with that?

Links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11882460/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/19/south_park_axed/

[Toups]

I don't believe Cruise had anything to do with the stopping of a RERUN.

Here's more on what happened with Cruise/Wagner and Paramount. TMZ is speculating that something happened between Cruise and Sumner Redstone (controlling shareholder of Viacom which owns Paramount) and things just blew up. I love this hollywood backstage stuff!!

http://www.tmz.com/2006/08/23/cruise-missi...k-the-round-up/

Cruise Missile Attack: The Round-Up

Posted Aug 23rd 2006 10:31AM by Claude Brodesser-Akner

It was the war that happened literally overnight. One day, a tense but peaceful border. The next day, an exchange of rocket attacks.

We're not talking about Israel and Hezbollah, folks. We're talking about Tom Cruise and Paramount.

For month, as we mentioned already in this column last night, the talk at Paramount had been about terminating Tom Cruise's expensive deal.

Then came last night's 25 word stunner from the 83 year old Sumner Redstone:

"As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal...His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."

To everyday folks, that might seem like plain-speaking of the most obvious sort. But in Hollywood, it's a nuclear warhead. Big stars might be crazy, sure, but studios and their corporate parents just don't say those sorts of things, if they plan to work with them again.

And so it begs the question: Is Redstone starting to lose it in his old age? Or did Cruise do something to enrage Redstone personally?

Deeply aggrieved, the reaction from Camp Cruise has been stunning, because typically, the Biggest Star in the World doesn't have a reaction to anything. He doesn't need to. When the world's largest talent agency wants to confirm something, it does so silently, off the record, with a sly wink and nod - not a call for blood shouted from the minarets.

But react they both have - on the record and in print.

"Outrageous and disrespectful" is how Cruise's producing partner of the last 14 years categorized the Redstone remarks in "Daily Variety." In the same story, Cruise's current agents at CAA, Kevin Huvane and Rick Nicita (Wagner's husband, FYI) decried Redstone's animadversion as "shockingly offensive," and to the "Wall Street Journal" described it as "incredibly graceless."

While it's fair to say that both sides feel offended, it would be wrong to suggest either side is really "shocked" by the unraveling of the Paramount deal. As the "Journal" notes,

"One person familiar with the situation said Paramount had not, as of Tuesday morning, informed Mr. Cruise's camp that the studio would not renew the deal. Another person familiar with the situation said Mr. Cruise's camp also had not informed Paramount that they were working on a stand-alone production deal backed by hedge funds."

In other words, no one was showing their cards, because both sides knew the other was unhappy.

It remains to be seen who the hedge fund operators are, but finding outside money to back Hollywood insiders is a rich and storied tradition, one that usually ends with the outsiders reporting hefty losses to the IRS. We can't wait to see how this deal plays out.

[SouthOfSoap]

It wasn't a rerun outside of North America - many countries never viewed the episode. The international market for syndication is lucrative for studios who own the rights. Some companies budget for profit based on North American revenue only, so that international sales are pure profit - and highly leveraged - each additional country sold to means pure profit for no additional effort/cost. Others, particulary movie studios, consider international revenues, DVD, other merchandise etc. sales in their projections making those markets essential, not ancilliary. South Park airs on Comedy Central in N.America, but Comedy Central isn't available in many other countries and South Park is sold as series to local networks. I have no idea how South Park's budgets are drawn up, but either way money was lost due to:

• Reruns
• International sales (first screenings and reruns)
• DVD sales implications

That being said, the amount of money lost was probably not much (relatively speaking) - the threatening of non-promotion for MI3 or litigation by Cruise probably irked Paramount more. It was reported already the new deal between Paramount and Cruise/Wagner was going to be worth less than before. Combined with your article above about Cruise and co. getting alternative finance for projects, shows it difficult to do business with Cruise. Why should Paramount give up exclusivity of project choice - sure, they might pass on the Scientology-centric movies (like John Travolta's Battlefield Earth) but if other backers give better terms to Cruise, Paramount could be screwed. If this article is true, Cruise didn't act with utmost good faith to Paramount. It may have been meant as a tactical scare to Paramount to raise their hand by playing hardball, and if so, I'm glad it backfired on Tommy. Again, who wants to do business with that?stand-alone production deal backed by hedge funds

[Toups]

More from TMZ. Apparently, Redstone is as 'crazy' as Cruise. LOL

http://www.tmz.com/2006/08/23/redstone-not...s-running-amok/

Redstone Not Redfaced; Now Who's Running Amok?

Posted Aug 23rd 2006 9:29PM by Claude Brodesser-Akner

You know, the more we think about it, the more it makes sense that Sumner Redstone lashed out so publicly at Tom Cruise.

For one thing, Sumner is a guy who's currently being sued by his own son.

Earlier this month, a Maryland judge ruled that Brent Redstone, 55, could proceed with a lawsuit against his family's holding company National Amusements. Run by dad Sumner and sister Shari , National Amusements holds a controlling interest in Viacom.

Per "Daily Variety," Brent "filed the suit in February seeking to dissolve National Amusements, 'due to the oppressive acts of those in control of the corporation.' "

You know you're a bad-ass when you're willing to go court against your own progeny.

What's more, TMZ has learned an interesting tidbit about Redstone's public fatwa against Cruise: His "Wall Street Journal" castigation of Cruise is said by knowledgeable insiders to have taken both Viacom co-CEO Tom Freston and Paramount Pictures chairman Brad Grey by complete surprise.

Some posit that the rationale for Redstone's indelicate (and apparently, unadvised) harangue was to take back the limelight he'd lost earlier this year. In essence, his Cruise missile was fired to reassert himself into the running of a company he'd split in two in January and divided between Tom Freston of MTV and Leslie Moonves at CBS. Based on Redstone's previous behavior, it's not such a wild theory: Redstone has gotten into fisticuffs with major Viacom execs before, including former Viacom CEO Frank Biondi, who Sumner fired because he wanted to run the company, and with Mel Karmazin, who so tired of being co-opted that he decamped Viacom's CBS for Sirius Satellite Radio.

And if that's true, then a question needs to be asked: Who's more out of control? Tom Cruise, or Sumner Redstone?

----------------------

http://www.tmz.com/2006/08/23/inside-story...iled-on-cruise/

Inside Story -- Why Redstone Railed on Cruise

Posted Aug 23rd 2006 5:55PM by TMZ Staff

Filed under: Movies, The Biz, Tom and Katie, Celebrity Feuds

Hollywood is buzzing about Tom Cruise and the end of his relationship with Paramount Pictures -- and even more so about the verbal butt-kicking that Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone gave Cruise on his way out the door. So what ticked Redstone off so much?

"Sumner used to wear the same pair of movie-theater-usher pants..."

TMZ spoke to eight Viacom insiders, spread diversely across the media giant's numerous divisions, including the television networks and business affairs. The consensus was a bit surprising -- that Redstone is as nutty as Cruise, and the combo was bound to blow.

One well-placed source said that Cruise, who demanded a huge percentage of gross profits off the top of all his movies, was simply too rich for Redstone's cheap blood. The source mused that "Sumner used to wear the same pair of movie-theater-usher pants -- you know, the ones with the stripe down the side -- day after day with an unmatched suit jacket."

Several other sources attributed Redstone's anger to his native personality. "He has this whole old-fashioned, New England thing and doesn't suffer fools, especially creative ones, lightly," says one source who has worked with Redstone. "It doesn't take much to get him angry and he's probably been keeping this bottled up." Once he got wind that Cruise was trying to raise funds, says the source, Redstone decided to lash out.

Still another source says that Redstone was trying to make an example out of Cruise. Specifically, you don't "screw" with The Man. Cruise and his producing partner, Paula Wagner, say they were the ones to shut down negotiations with Paramount, after a chance of a deal seemed futile.

Virtually everyone we spoke with agreed -- Cruise's departure is a good thing for morale at Viacom. As one source said, as they were suffering "budget-cutting indignities," Cruise was living high on the hog. Now Cruise has been sent out to pasture, or, if you will Green Acres.

[Chris]

I'd say this was a smart move by Paramount. Of course they are only using his "antics" as an excuse to get rid of him. In actuality, he's just way too expensive for them. On top of the $20 million he makes for the movies, he gets 20-30% of each movie's profit. Add on the production costs/advertising costs. For Paramount to even see any money, the movie would have to gross like $300 or more. While Cruise was still their biggest draw, it was smart to cut him loose when they can get an actor who doesn't demand so much money.

[Toups]

Paramount also has pissed off CAA (talent agency). There's definitely a lot of "War of the Words" right now.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/colum...ky_business.jsp

Aug. 25, 2006

How the players fared after the Cruise attack

By Anne Thompson

Money might have been at the root of the dramatic public breakup that saw Paramount Pictures end its 14-year partnership with Tom Cruise and his production company Cruise/Wagner Prods. this week. But in its bitter wake, reputations - which can be invaluable in Hollywood - also are at stake.

On Tuesday, the situation exploded when an intrepid Wall Street Journal reporter managed to get Viacom Inc. chairman Sumner Redstone on the telephone. "As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal," Redstone said. "His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount." With one bold stroke, Redstone publicly shut down a behind-the-scenes negotiation, and suddenly Viacom and Paramount were at war with Cruise, his producing partner Paula Wagner and the mighty, monolithic agency CAA. Cruise's camp angrily responded to Redstone's denunciation by calling the 83-year-old corporate baron's statements "erratic," "vicious," "pompous" and "petulant."

As the drama took on almost Shakespearean proportions, here's how the major players emerged:

The Patriarch: Redstone is a cannily ruthless corporate player who would probably beat every other media chieftain, including Rupert Murdoch, in a game of "Survivor." While some observers charged Redstone with behaving in a manner unbecoming to a captain of industry, he actually was behaving more like an old-fashioned studio mogul than a corporate suit. Unlike the heads of other entertainment conglomerates, Redstone worked his way up through the film industry as an exhibitor. He still tracks boxoffice grosses every weekend, regularly attends studio premieres and has known Cruise since 1986's "Top Gun."

In 1992, Paramount formally brought C/W onto the Melrose lot and since then has made an investment in Cruise worth hundreds of millions of dollars. As long as Cruise was delivering $500 million-plus worldwide grossers, his top-of-the-line deluxe deal made sense. But with "Mission: Impossible III" topping out at $400 million worldwide, Cruise suddenly was pocketing more millions than the studio because he gets more than 20% of the first-dollar gross as well as a healthy cut of DVD sales.

Even Cruise's camp acknowledges that his deal, due to expire Aug. 31 after two extensions, wasn't going to be renewed on its old terms. Instead of $4 million in overhead and a $6 million annual discretionary fund, the studio was offering $2 million and $500,000 - much the same deal that it made last year with Brad Pitt's Plan B Prods.

But why did Redstone insist on kicking Cruise off the lot so publicly? Sounding angry and betrayed, there was something personal about his demeanor. Remember, Redstone is a numbers man. After all the millions that he invested in building up the marquee global movie star brand "Tom Cruise," he was convinced that Cruise's offscreen behavior "effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue," he told the Journal. It seems clear that Redstone simply couldn't bear the fact that Cruise's self-destructive public conduct - most of which took place before "War of the Worlds" more than a year ago - had cost the studio untold millions in lost ticket sales while the movie star himself walked away with as much as $80 million from "M:I-3," leaving the studio with chump change.

So Redstone was sending a message: We are no longer coddling talent. There were many in Hollywood who applauded his bravado.

The Studio Chief. Unfortunately for Paramount chairman Brad Grey, Redstone left a bit of a mess for him to clean up. The only thing Grey could do in the wake of his boss' comments was maintain a silent public profile, making amends behind the scenes. His predecessor, Sherry Lansing, probably would have taken a more subtle tact: If the studio wanted to cut Cruise loose, she would have called CAA and devised a face-saving exit that would leave the studio open to working with the star - who still boasts a huge global fan base - on the deep trunk of projects in which the studio already had invested millions. As of Wednesday, though, a call Grey made to Cruise had not been returned.

Grey now has several fires to put out. Hollywood is still not convinced that Paramount's new team has its act together; the studio is considered fractionalized. "This makes them look weird and talent-unfriendly," one manager says. "There's no grace at this studio. They like to show talent who's boss."

Grey has been tough on deals, demanding reductions on the "M:I-3" budget and Cruise's share of the backend gross and refusing to spend more than $150 million on "Ripley's Believe It or Not," starring the press-averse Jim Carrey. Grey has preferred to back more modest investments such as "World Trade Center" and "Babel," which have generated positive reviews and Oscar talk. "They're taking a page from the Fox book," one manager says.

The Firm: CAA's leaders, usually allergic to the media, went on the warpath to defend their client. "Paramount has no credibility right now," agency president Richard Lovett told the New York Times. "It is not clear who is running the studio and who is making the decisions."

But while the agency had to make public pronouncements in defense of its star, that doesn't mean CAA will refuse to do business with Paramount. In a contracting industry, there are only six major studio buyers, and Paramount - which now owns DreamWorks - is among them. Additionally, DreamWorks partner Steven Spielberg (whose relationship with Cruise has chilled since "War of the Worlds") also is a top CAA client. So once tempers cool, Paramount, DreamWorks and CAA are sure to reach a detente. Still, the whole episode is illustrative of how studios are taking back power from the agencies.

The Power Couple: Rick Nicita, one of Cruise's agents, has long been a respected talent agent and partner at CAA, where Wagner, his wife, worked before leaving to partner with Cruise. Their passions ran high when they learned of Redstone's comments.

Some industry insiders suggested that Nicita and Wagner then announced that CAA had raised a revolving private equity fund worth $100 million - which was news to Cruise's lawyer, Bert Fields - because they were not likely to set up a rich deal at another studio. But no one doubts that can't be done: Cruise is worth a fortune overseas, and there's plenty of money looking for a home in Hollywood. Wagner is a capable creative producer, and the studios will be delighted to pick up well-made, star-driven movies. The studios also will be more than ready to cast Cruise as a star in their own films as well. An announcement along those lines is expected shortly.

The Star: Meanwhile, Cruise maintained a low profile. In fact, Redstone's attack has even earned him sympathy points in some quarters. That's partly because Cruise is not only a marquee draw but also one of the hardest-working pros in show business. His best efforts aside, though, he might not be able to counteract industrywide pressures to cut back on deluxe talent deals. "Cruise could be in real trouble," one press agent says. "He's getting older. The film market is wobbly. People are second-guessing themselves all over the place."

According to Cruise's reps, the star welcomes the opportunities that setting himself up as a well-financed independent would provide: He'll be able to put his brains and clout behind movies that are likely to wind up better than the commercial fare the studios offer him. He may already be looking for new challenges. He recently trekked into CAA for a project meeting and is trying to resurrect an old John Davis project, "Selling Time," with Spike Lee. Freeing himself from a studio like Paramount could be the best thing to happen to him.

Cruise - like everyone else in this drama - ultimately might benefit from a healthy dose of reality. Hollywood still needs stars like Cruise. But as the industry cuts back on needless waste and fiscal insanity, it's re-evaluating the price of stardom.

[Toups]

According to Cruise's camp, they were the ones who decided to not agree with Paramount's offer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/business...nted=2&_r=2

[DaysForever]

HAHA! Less money for this monkey-jumping-on-Oprah's-couch-freak.