Attn: Tom Cruise - You're fired!
August 25th 2006 10:13
This week movie studio "Paramount Pictures" decided not to renew their professional relationship with actor Tom Cruise, which sees the conclusion of their 14 year long partnership. However the philosophy behind this move is more interesting than the result, as there's so many reasons why this could have happened. So in response I’ll posit some possibilities..
1) Personal reasons:
Spouting the medical properties of "a good walk" and vitamins to alleviate post-natal depression and subsequent criticism of psychiatry in favour of reading a science fiction book like gospel.
2) Social reasons:
More people have seen his 'couch as a trampoline' style antics on Oprah than the Paris sex tape, which correlates with a US Today poll surveyed in May "...showed his public approval rating had slipped to 35 per cent." (smh.com.au)
3) Political reasons:
Insiders recite the reason for unexpected box office results from Mission Impossible III was due to his primary goal of spending time in front of the media to solely speak about his love-life, fiancé Katie Holmes and their baby.
4) Economic reasons:
Although an A-lister celeb in specifically the film world but also the wider entertainment world; he is starting to polarize his audience (for reasons above) into a pro or anti partition and lessening the appeal of creating further popularity. This will have effects in the business image of Tom Cruise and particularly the films that ride on his ‘bankable’ name. Did Paramount see Tom on a downward trajectory?
While the observations could all consist of the ultimate reason, boss of Viacom (which owns Paramount) stated “…we thought it was wrong to renew his deal”. Sumner Redstone also elaborated in the Wall Street Journal, “His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount”.
Paula Wagner (Cruise’s production manager) insisted the undignified behaviour was from Paramount not the other way around and additionally it was her and Cruise who left. Still, whoever left whoever first, their relationship has been rocky since Paramount just last month “offered just $US2 million ($2.6 million) annually - down from a previous $US8 million deal - to run their offices on the Paramount lot.” (smh.com.au)
Mercifully Paula had the vision to parlay with investors throughout the ordeal and secure an amount to the tune of “100 million a year to keep making movies” (MX newspaper)
So however you spin it, Paramount looked at the colour of money finding it wasn’t magnolia, then made the war of the worlds with Toms eyes wide shut. Paula felt the collateral and became a top gun dealing risky business with every tom, dick and jerry maguire ensuring a minority report of a few good men to bail them out and now Tom isn’t the last samurai born on the fourth of july – which just goes to show every cloud has a vanilla sky. (Must… stop… myself!)
*Image from smh.com.au
1) Personal reasons:
Spouting the medical properties of "a good walk" and vitamins to alleviate post-natal depression and subsequent criticism of psychiatry in favour of reading a science fiction book like gospel.
2) Social reasons:
More people have seen his 'couch as a trampoline' style antics on Oprah than the Paris sex tape, which correlates with a US Today poll surveyed in May "...showed his public approval rating had slipped to 35 per cent." (smh.com.au)
3) Political reasons:
Insiders recite the reason for unexpected box office results from Mission Impossible III was due to his primary goal of spending time in front of the media to solely speak about his love-life, fiancé Katie Holmes and their baby.
4) Economic reasons:
Although an A-lister celeb in specifically the film world but also the wider entertainment world; he is starting to polarize his audience (for reasons above) into a pro or anti partition and lessening the appeal of creating further popularity. This will have effects in the business image of Tom Cruise and particularly the films that ride on his ‘bankable’ name. Did Paramount see Tom on a downward trajectory?
While the observations could all consist of the ultimate reason, boss of Viacom (which owns Paramount) stated “…we thought it was wrong to renew his deal”. Sumner Redstone also elaborated in the Wall Street Journal, “His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount”.
Paula Wagner (Cruise’s production manager) insisted the undignified behaviour was from Paramount not the other way around and additionally it was her and Cruise who left. Still, whoever left whoever first, their relationship has been rocky since Paramount just last month “offered just $US2 million ($2.6 million) annually - down from a previous $US8 million deal - to run their offices on the Paramount lot.” (smh.com.au)
Mercifully Paula had the vision to parlay with investors throughout the ordeal and secure an amount to the tune of “100 million a year to keep making movies” (MX newspaper)
So however you spin it, Paramount looked at the colour of money finding it wasn’t magnolia, then made the war of the worlds with Toms eyes wide shut. Paula felt the collateral and became a top gun dealing risky business with every tom, dick and jerry maguire ensuring a minority report of a few good men to bail them out and now Tom isn’t the last samurai born on the fourth of july – which just goes to show every cloud has a vanilla sky. (Must… stop… myself!)
*Image from smh.com.au
| 89 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog


















Comment by Cinico
Small Business Scope
Comment by Scarlett
Dessert
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I have to admit to a sadistic pleasure in seeing Tom Cruise get fired. Must be tall poppy syndrome or something.
The scientology stuff just cracks me up. What the hell is the deal with that?
Comment by Anonymous
Let's give him a break and see if he can recover.
Comment by Justin
Do we place too much emphasis (blame) on the personal factors which make up Toms image rather than some of the environmental factors, like being a member of the Church of Scientology, a parent and a superstar.
Probably.
But this shouldn't necessarily account for each and all of his actions and perspectives