Guest #1 August 24, 2006 This Reuters story about Tom Cruise being publicly upbraided by a major Hollyweird suit may be a trend. Studios are apparently getting fed up with the gross percentages that the stars are demanding and the risks aren't worth it to the studios, because they're publicly traded companies and have quarterly bottom lines to make. They also seem to have had enough of all the spoiled-child demands that the stars are making. Harju's analysis: Hollyweird is on the verge of imploding. Here are several reasons-- 1) Ever-bigger paychecks for stars, regardless of whether a film is a major hit or a major flop 2) Declining box-office receipts for a couple of years now 3) Declining DVD sales (so poor that the studios are dusting off all their old 1950s / 1960s TV shows and trying to sell them, but after decades of watching "I Love Lucy" on television for free, what makes the suits think anybody but hardcore fans will buy this stuff?) 4) Remakes of remakes. Did "The Omen" really need to be remade? Will "Gone With The Wind" be next? This points to-- 5) Stagnation of creativity in Hollyweird. Making movies is so blasted expensive and risky that nobody wants to take a chance on a new idea. Better to regurgitate the stuff that's already been through Hollyweird's digestive tract (see 3 and 4). It's so expensive because of item 1 and -- 6) Insanely priced labor. Everybody on a movie that is produced almost all Hollyweird studios is a member of a union, and gets paid an outrageous amount of money to do almost nothing all day. In fact, you can't work unless you are a member of a union (there are exceptions, but these seldom occur). Granted, the production quality is exceptionally high, but even a simple two-hour romantic comedy, being shot in a studio lot (as opposed to a romantic comedy shot in an exotic location like, say, "Six Days, Seven Nights" but where there are no action scenes [stuntmen], explosions [pryo techs] or special effects) can still cost $50 MILLION to make! Where is it all going? BTW - Does this little collection of data remind you of anything, like corporate CEOs getting huge bonuses while running their companies into the ground? Can this be why the suits are saying "Enough is enough"? mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #2 August 24, 2006 Over here the move is being billed as a direct result of his association with and perhaps more importantly, his promoting of that screwed up little lunatic's cult that he's joined. I'm inclined to agree personally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #3 August 24, 2006 His last two films were not exactly smash hits either. I think the cruise star is waning. (I thought the last samurai was a better effort though - a bit less "look at me i'm tom cruise")Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #4 August 24, 2006 While Cruise's behavior has been getting progressively weirder, it hasn't been outright off the map. If I were a shareholder of Viacom, I'd be pretty pissed, Cruise is directly accountable for roughly $3.5B of US based revenue alone (untold billions more in int'l and other merchandising efforts). That ain't chump change. Paramount was hardly hurting from Cruise. They're just butt-hurt that they only made $400M (instead of $500-600M) world wide on the $150M MI:III film. When an enterprise complains about a 100+% ROI, something else is retarded, and it ain't the actor. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #5 August 24, 2006 Actors, musicians, and even to a certain extent, athletes are basically "artists".... that is.. they create 'something of interest' to the general public, be it a film a song or a sport event... NOW what ever happened to the concept of "the Starving Artist"???? you know.... like it was for thousands and thousands of years.... Over most of history TRUE artists Painters, writers, sculptors, lived in relative obscurity, often poor and penniless, sometimes battling terrific personal demons, and often Under appreciated in their own time. Many of the GREATS, only become 'great' well after their deaths, and after so called critics, began to make a big deal about their works... However in this crazy world of today,,, relative "nobodys" become famous, wealthy AND pampered over what is often Talentless behavior... They were just in the right place at the right time. ........ "you complete me "... how romantic.....when uttered by Cruise ( J MaGuire).. Fact is somebody ELSE wrote those words, a HUGE crew of behind the scenes technicians recorded them,, The gullible general public spent millions at the theater to hear them,,, and there are probably a thousand people within our own jumping community who could have uttered them,, just as effectively as Old tommyboy.... Yet he and most ALL other actors, get paid millions and millions,,, and live a lifestyle which FAR exceeds their 'contributions ' to the well being of society in general.. I wonder how many of these self proclaimed artists would offer up their "work", without assurance that they will be financially Compensated well well above the value of what they do... The REAL artists in this world are the community leaders, teachers, parents , and hard working public, who put in regular 40 hour work weeks, for what amounts to a pittance in pay..... All these other 'entertainers' while sometimes amusing, and moderately of interest ,, really do little to enhance the quality of life... In fact it can be argued that many of them ,, corrupt, and detract from the quality of life,,, ( example, hard Rap with cop killer lyrics, and overt sexual innuendo).... starving Artist???? Not in this day and age...........So it's no surprise that money hungry studio bosses are becoming resentful of lots of the players who help make their movies. If those actors and actresses were being paid based on the reality of the Value and necessity of their "work"... then movie tickets would cost a dollar a person...... Disclaimer.............. while some of these Stars are guilty of my stated premise, I will admit that there are some who do step Up and use thier influence and Money to try to help with the "troubles of this world"... Just as long as they get good "press coverage" and publicity from it........ kind of SAD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #6 August 24, 2006 Quoteand gets paid an outrageous amount of money to do almost nothing all day. I'm curious to find out how you back up this statement. Based on what? "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #7 August 24, 2006 It is very important not to confuse the economic concepts of "scarcity" and "importance". The role a teacher fills in society is very important, probably one of the most important jobs in the world. However, how many people could do that job? Millions. Now, being a movie star, or even being a golf pro, what does that really contribute? Not much, relative to the teacher. However, how many people can be Tom Cruise? Just one. How many people can be Tiger Woods? Just one. People want to see Tom Cruise and Tiger Woods perform, accepting no substitutes. Anyway, if the demand for Cruise is truly slacking, the market will reflect that in the form of his next paycheck for his next awful movie. Until then, I'm glad he can keep making his millions.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #8 August 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteand gets paid an outrageous amount of money to do almost nothing all day. I'd be curious to know how you back up this statement. Based on what? Based upon the amount of time that it takes to set up a shot for a movie or TV show. Every task (lighting, electrical, grips, etc. etc. etc.) is done by a different person with a different union. For example, the Focus Puller (Yes, the dude who focuses the camera has his own union) won't do his job until the other 20 union members supporting the camera (teamsters, grips, etc.) have done theirs. I realize that the implication is that they're all lazy - that's not the case. In an independent film, everybody pitches in and helps with the tasks. Not so with union gigs. All production tasks are so granularly unionized that it takes 50 people to do the jobs that ten (or less) can do on a non-union production. Being union jobs, they are also based upon seniority rather than merit, so some of those people can earn $500-$750 per day, even though they might put in only two or three hours of work. There are also overtime rules. People think governent employees have a cush gig - they're major slackers compared to Hollyweird. The only downside is that when the gig ends, the production people don't get paid anymore; whereas the people in front of the camera can collect royalties for years. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #9 August 24, 2006 QuoteFor example, the Focus Puller (Yes, the dude who focuses the camera has his own union) won't do his job until the other 20 union members supporting the camera (teamsters, grips, etc.) have done theirs. Incorrect. In the US, the "Focus Puller" is also called a 1st AC (assistant cameraman). He "builds the camera" and gets it ready to roll. If it is going to take 3 hours to get the lighting done in the morning, he will get a later call. QuoteAll production tasks are so granularly unionized that it takes 50 people to do the jobs that ten (or less) can do on a non-union production. I've worked on both and this is an incorrect statement as well. Studio movies tend to be much bigger than independent productions, and will have much more equipment. While the camera is rolling, regardless of the budget, every one in the main unit stops working (except for the camera operator, 1st AC, dolly/crane grip, 1st AD, Director, actors...). That's at most 4 minutes on 400ft rolls, about 8 minutes with a 1000ft mag. But when there is a change of set up, you'll see 50 people working. Quote Being union jobs, they are also based upon seniority rather than merit More so on the East coast. Not on the West coast ("Hollywood"). Quoteso some of those people can earn $500-$750 per day That's the top 5% of the crew. And if it's for only 2 or 3 hour work, chances are they work only a couple of days on the production. QuoteThe only downside is that when the gig ends, the production people don't get paid anymore And are not guaranteed another job. Quotewhereas the people in front of the camera can collect royalties for years. ...and the director, 1st AD, 2nd AD, UPM, Producers, and some DPs. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #10 August 24, 2006 Yes. valid point regarding Mr Woods... he "creates" his own prestige through long hours of work, practice, concentration and Patience with the general public.....so kudos to him,,,, even though society does NOT NEED a guy who can hit it 325 yards, or can work his irons like a paintbrush.... still HE is amazing. Now as far as Tom is concerned,,, There ARE "more than one Tom Cruise"... they are named, Nicholas Cage, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Kevin Spacey, Robert DeNiro, Gene Hackman, Johnny Depp ( OOOOO I loooove That Johnny Depp... He make-a me cry!!!! ).... etc etc... While it's true that these actors Do have to learn lines,, and "hit their Mark" etc etc... There are just as many Undiscovered superstars who might very well be,, far more intelligent, more accommodating, more generous, more humble...... yet for one reason or another,, Never WERE,, in the right place at the right time.... Don't get me wrong.... I have no animosity to these gentlemen (or gentle lady actresses), and God bless 'em for their good luck and good fortune in life..... But to elevate them to the stature that some of them command,,,, just doesn't sit well with me.. Now I LIKE movies just fine,, I am entertained by them, distracted by them,, and in some cases impacted by them.... Only the actors, are the least important part of the equation. The story, the script, the technical expertise needed to create them,,,,,,,THAT is why I go to the movies... I still contend that many many many "never yet discovered" actors, if given the same script, director, or agent,,,, could just as easily BE Tom, or brad or Nick or Kevin.....I have met many many people , even sometimes on a dropzone, who have the personality, brainpower, ability to work with others and the demeanor, to fill many many of these roles, played by the so-called superstars...... The ones we know about , simply had an opportunity given to them, and they made the most of it....But that does not make them worthy of millions and millions, and millions more......Often that sort of income leads to silly public behavior, or a sense of "aristocracy" or the misconception that whatecver they say and do will be accepted with open arms by the general public.... That is where I become resistant.......especially when their behavior , attitudes, and public statements are off the wall....jmy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #11 August 24, 2006 Hmmm... I'm not so sure that the studio is fed up with him because he's a petulant brat. They've stood that and smiled for years... While he was making them a profit! I suspect that they've dropped him because he's no longer a guaranteed earner at the box-office. In effect, they're losing MONEY on him, so he goes. As long as his presence in a movie was worth an extra $20xx in takings, they'd be happy for him to cost an extra $15xx since they still made an extra 5xx on the movie. Unfortunately, he confused the fact that they made a profit from him with the belief that he was loved & indispensible. Rather like Michael Jackson when his albums were guaranteed best-sellers. IF his next film makes loads at the box-office, you can bet they'll welcome him back with open arms, regardless of his behaviour. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #12 August 24, 2006 >IF his next film makes loads at the box-office, you can bet they'll >welcome him back with open arms, regardless of his behaviour. Which is the bottom line. And if that happens, the people responsible for it will be . . . us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #13 August 24, 2006 Don't blame Hollywood. It's a business and they provide services and products the public wants. Look at all the weekly magazines that track actors and what they are up to. If you want to point the finger at someone point it at the people who pay 10 plus dollars to go see a crappy movie and spend $3.50 a week buying USWeekly or People magazine. Hell look at the top grossing movie this last weekend. It's not Hollywood that's weird it us who thrive on knowing what celebs are up to, what they are wearing, who they are seeing and all that BS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #14 August 24, 2006 QuoteI suspect that they've dropped him because he's no longer a guaranteed earner at the box-office. In effect, they're losing MONEY on him, so he goes. Well....not exactly the only issue. Cruise's star is waning for various reasons, some including the star temper tantrum he pulled about the South Park episode (more on that in a mo...), attacking his fan base by calling post partum depression something which exercise can cure (erm, not really, dude), attacking Matt Lauer on the same issue, his public statements about prescription medicine, and jumping around on Oprah's sofa like a teenager. His FAN BASE bailed on him; thus, his movies don't create the box they used to. That's one (very big) reason his production co. contract was not renewed. The other, and I think far more important, reason it wasn't renewed was because South Park pulled some strings. Remember the ad the producers of SP placed in Variety a while ago? Something on the order of "you may have won the battle, but the million year war for the planet has just begun!" (complete paraphrasing, but that's the idea...). Guess what happened yesterday? South Park producers just signed a huge deal with...guess. Go on, guess....Paramount. I am willing to bet that the producers of SP said "it's him or us. Take your pick..." and Paramount went ahead with a sure money maker. Furthermore, the episode which was pulled because of Cruise's temper tantrum is up for an Emmy (I think the Emmys are this weekend; if not this weekend, next weekend). This is simply a power struggle, and the weaker guy lost. Considering all the income SP produces - not just immediate revenues (i.e. commercials, et cetera), but all the side stuff; tee shirts, mugs, all the items which go along with a fan base like that - none of that Tom Cruise has in his pocket. I can go into a store and see a SP mug, but no Tom Cruise mug. Add into that the very strange behavior Cruise has demonstrated in the last year, and you see an implosion and an overplay of his hand...hugely. If you all didn't see this coming, then you weren't paying attention. The WAR OF THE WORLDS apparently really has, in fact, just begun. Don't piss two multi-billion dollar revenue generating producers off and expect to stay in the same studio. That's the lesson, imho. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #15 August 24, 2006 well, and it hurts to say this as wierd and stupid as Cruise is, he's a pretty decent actor when he tries ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #16 August 24, 2006 Quotewell, and it hurts to say this as wierd and stupid as Cruise is, he's a pretty decent actor when he tries Ya think? He always seems like he's playing Maverick, regardless of which movie he's in. Not even in the same league as Dustin Hoffman.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #17 August 24, 2006 Quote... He always seems like he's playing Maverick, regardless of which movie he's in. Not even in the same league as Dustin Hoffman. He has certainly been typecast, particularly with his gymnastic ability. Having said that, given that he's a dwarf with European teeth, it's difficult for him to play "All-American". That's Tom Hanks's job, while Nick Cage plays the anti-hero or the brooding villain, keeping it nice and simple for the market. It'll be interesting to see what he appears as next now that he's away from the studio. As long as he doesn't team up with John Travolta in a sequel to "Earth - Final Battle" (or whatever that Hubbard trash was called). Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 August 24, 2006 Quote His FAN BASE bailed on him; thus, his movies don't create the box they used to. That's one (very big) reason his production co. contract was not renewed. The other, and I think far more important, reason it wasn't renewed was because South Park pulled some strings. Remember the ad the producers of SP placed in Variety a while ago? Something on the order of "you may have won the battle, but the million year war for the planet has just begun!" (complete paraphrasing, but that's the idea...). Guess what happened yesterday? South Park producers just signed a huge deal with...guess. Go on, guess....Paramount. I am willing to bet that the producers of SP said "it's him or us. Take your pick..." and Paramount went ahead with a sure money maker. Let's return to reality for a moment. Mi3 and WotW generated a billion dollars in revenue. His last 5 movies with Paramount totalled 2B. You think South Park comes close? I know Comedy Central is doing well enough to pay Dave Chapelle $50 (or was it $75) for a season, but I don't think Parker and Stone have this huge future earning potential. The two movies they agreed to do for Paramount are unlikely to eclipse the 100M (and perhaps 50M) pt. I suspect the breakup is similar to the break up of PB as 007. Asking price too high. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #19 August 24, 2006 Another big issue studio execs have with Cruise: he contractually demands to have approval rights on any product placement and tie in promo involving a feature in which he stars. Nowadays, product placement and tie-ins represent a huge chink of income for studios (while costing them nothing). DHL got in on MI3. Several others didn't, strictly on Cruise's refusal (or, in one case, his inability to sign a contract on time, which caused a huge national promo to be canceled at the cost of the advertiser). Execs were not too happy. It's about the bottom line... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #20 August 25, 2006 Quotewell, and it hurts to say this as wierd and stupid as Cruise is, he's a pretty decent actor when he tries like when? he's just a pretty face, i havent paid to see a movie he was in ever.. (except for Last Samurai, as i was interested in the content..)____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #21 August 25, 2006 I thought he was credible in Born on the 4th of July. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 August 25, 2006 he's has several decent showings in his life. Not one of the superstars of acting, but certainly no Stallone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #23 August 25, 2006 All true. Thanks for your contribution to the thread. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #24 August 25, 2006 As we know, Hollywood has always put so much emphasis on looks. I've often wondered if there are really great actors out there who never get a chance at a roll because they're just not attractive. Are we really getting the chance to see the best acting on the screen or just the best acting of the good-looking people? Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #25 August 25, 2006 I dunno - every superstar needs a supporting cast. I mean, have you seen Mackenzie Crook?? Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
