Paramount chooses to disavow Tom Cruise by chrisisall

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Paramount chooses to disavow Tom Cruise

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 08:44
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1321
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:31 AM

WTF?
Yeah, Tom is a wacky screwball, but is THAT a reason to pull the chain?
He's being punished for being different, and I don't hold with that.
(I also don't hold with Scientology, but that's Cruise's business, now isn't it?)
A bad precident is being set here; fall in line or you're next.

McCarthyism, anyone? What d'ya think?

In line Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:37 AM

CRUITHNE3753

The same day they signed up Trey Parker and Matt Stone... connection?!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:46 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

I think it's money, brother. Hollywood is full of Scientologists. They can't run them all outta' town.

The article I read talked of the hugely disappointing box office of MI3. And I know some people (older 50's, 60's) who have been genuinely turned off by his antics (craddle robbing, lecturing Matt Lauer on medicine without medical degree, bashing Brook Shields for her postpartum depression, etc...)

It also said Paramount was absolutly apoplectic when he forced Comedy Central not to air "Trapped in the Closet".

And his salary demands were getting so high that the studio couldn't afford to put other big name actors in his movies.

I guess Paramount figured better to cut ties now than to invest 100 million in his next film and have it flop.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:49 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Did they say why?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:56 AM

CHRISISALL

It was like, 'we can't support Tom's antics', or something like that.
More like 'we can't support Tom', it may just be an excuse to save $.
If what they stated was the truth, though, I don't like it.

Goofin' on Tommy is one thing...Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:04 AM

MISBEHAVEN

It doesn't make much sense unless you look at it from a financial perspective. Cruise has entered a whole new level of creepifying lately. Personally, his behavior doesn't bother me one way or the other, and I rather enoy it for its comedic value; however, he has alienated a lot of people who care about the personal lives of celebrities. I'm more concerned if whether the movie is good, or a piece of gos se. But I think the bottom line is that lately his films just aren't producing the financial return needed to justify his outrageous salary. After all, this is America, and it's all about the dollar.

Morbid and creepifying I got no problem with, so long as you do it quiet like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:08 AM

ELDUSTO

I liked some of his movies, but I don't like the road he's traveling these days.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:12 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/23/cruise.paramountbreak.ap/
index.html

Redstone estimated that Cruise's off-screen behavior cost his latest movie, "Mission: Impossible III," $100 million to $150 million in ticket sales, even as he praised the film as "the best of the three movies" in the action series.

"It's nothing to do with his acting ability, he's a terrific actor," Redstone said. "But we don't think that someone who effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue should be on the lot."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:28 AM

DREAMTROVE

Chris,

It's a perfectly equitable system, it works like this:

1. Tom cruise makes hollywood films, and generates billions of dollars.
2. One day, he criticizes the pharmaceutical mastergod.
3. Now everything he does is wrong.
4. Slowly, bit by bit, we feed anti-cruise into the media to detach the people from him, otherwise the people will follow him.
5. They fire him. Now the people will here no more bad about pharmagod.

It's like the Mel thing. If you critize Zionazi expansion, whatever you did for us yesterday is irrelevent. You're a dead son of a bitch.

What we need is a healthy alternative media so that we don't have to put up with this cr@p. Remember back in the days before the mass media mergers of the 90s (oh yeah, whose idea was that?) and in those old days, musicians used to always speak out about what's going wrong. No one ever said "support our president no matter what." But now it's not jsut Britney Spears, it's the whole viacom crew., rappers getting up and saying 'I support bush because he defends us from the terrorists.' Yeah sure, either that or, hmm...

I remember Dean getting flushed. It was a clean job. Take a "Hyah!" and magnify it. Then feed in some feedback noise, and replay it on the air over 600 times per channel in one week. Afterwords, bury him, urinate on his grave, and then dig him up and make him your undead bitch.

So, I was in the supermarket, and there were these two cover side by side:

Brad and Angelina: Heaven on Earth (or something like that)
... and ...
Is Katie trapped in Tom's prison hell?

Yep, fair *and* balanced.

So, Don't dis the pharmagod, or you'll end up like Tom (a multi-millionaire with a sexy bride young enough to be your daughter.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:44 AM

CHRISISALL

On some level it's his own fault; he could've been contraversial AFTER MI3 made it's dough...

The Truth (of your opinions) will set you 'free' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE