Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | My Orble | Login

CINEMATRIX - by LuckyWill

 
Cinematrix is movie goer central bringing everything from the Big Screen to your screen.

Attn: Tom Cruise - You're fired!

August 25th 2006 10:13
Running from the fallout
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
93
Vote


   

   

   


Comments
5 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Cinico

August 25th 2006 12:53
Good play with the last paragraph!

Comment by Scarlett

August 26th 2006 02:39
Fantastic last paragraph - a very thoughtful touch!

Comment by Adrian

September 1st 2006 06:01
Great last paragraph.

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

September 14th 2006 23:12
I think Tom is basically a good person that has unknowingly become intoxicated with a sense of his own importance. He has lost touch with 'us' a little bit, making the 'line' between HollyWorld and the RealWorld blurred . Regretfully, it would seem he is actually experiencing his personal 'war of the worlds'

Let's give him a break and see if he can recover.

Comment by Justin

September 15th 2006 04:47
Fair point Anonymous.

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

Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.


CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag
Home Page (optional)
Comments
Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Separator Left Center Right Separator Quote Insert Link Insert Email
Notify me of replies
Notify extra people about this comment
Is this a private comment?
List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this comment


One per line max of 30

List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this private comment thread. Only the people in this list will be able to see or reply to your comment.


One per line max of 30

Your Name
(for the email going out to the above list, it can be different to your Orble Tag)
Your Email Address
(optional)
(required for reply notification)
Submit
More Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
53 Posts dating from August 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
0

LuckyWill's Blogs

481 Vote(s)
9 Comment(s)
6 Post(s)
Moderated by LuckyWill
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]