Comments on: ...Tom Cruise-Paramount Deal Pending!

By: Holy Mary

Holy Mary — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:37:22 +0000

“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.

By: Rich Elvers

Rich Elvers — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:53:30 +0000

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.

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:16:01 +0000

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.

By: Mary Tom

Mary Tom — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:47:31 +0000

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

By: R

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:35:26 +0000

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

By: ONtheSIDE

ONtheSIDE — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:59:27 +0000

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.

By: Sandy Daley

Sandy Daley — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:50:48 +0000

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.

By: MiraJeffAICN

MiraJeffAICN — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:39:41 +0000

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.

By: Sandy Daley

Sandy Daley — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:21:26 +0000

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?

By: JR

JR — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:15:38 +0000

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.

By: S

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:23:51 +0000

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.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:37:09 +0000

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*

By: phil dale duckie

phil dale duckie — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:34:22 +0000

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…….

By: mheister

mheister — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:04:42 +0000

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

By: MiraJeffAICN

MiraJeffAICN — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:58:57 +0000

Note to Phil: I am the loop, and I think most Hollywood actors would feel fortunate to hit Cruise’s rock bottom. And only someone out of the loop would think his box office appeal is ’so low,’ as if another Mission Impossible movie wouldn’t instantly gross $100 million and easily clear a quarter billion internationally. Granted, Lions for Lambs and Valkyrie weren’t and won’t be blockbusters but they weren’t designed to be. Cruise and his peeps are fully aware that the country got a little bit tired of his shtick, so her relegated himself to arthouse fare to generate a little good will, regardless of what you thought of Lions for Lambs. People are going to get a kick out of him this summer in Tropic Thunder and eventually the public and its very short memory will forget about the couch jumping and Scientology videos, or at least forgive him as far as supporting him at the box office is concerned. Bottom line, Phil, is that you are out of your league here, pal. Why do you think a guy like Sumner wanted to make amends anyways? Because there are two things you don’t mess with: Texas and Tom Cruise. Not Anthony Pellicano, as he’d have you believe.