Paramount Dumps Tom Cruise

I hated Vanilla Sky.
I try to focus on an entertainer's work rather than their personal life as well, but sometimes it's hard when their personal life is all you hear about.
 
In other news, (THIS IS NOT A JOKE) Paramount has reportedly closed a movie deal w/Trey Parker & Matt Stone.
 
Not surprising since they made South Park the Movie and Team America with paramount and also that Comedy Central is a branch of Viacom which also owns Paramount...
 
Did Paramount make the right decision?
Yes 82%
No 18%
Total Votes: 141,800

From moviefone.
 
Matt Parker and Trey Stone are starting to annoy me
 
Ronny Shade said:
Mission: Impossible 2 was a beautiful, beautiful movie. I fail to understand why I'm the only person who feels this way.

I prefer my movies with plot, thank you. I will say that as far as the overall look and style of the film, M:I 2 was very well done, but the story was very poorly written. Right off the bat, Tom Cruise's character is changed from the ultra-focused, no-bullsh** agent he was in the first movie to a cocky, suave characture of his real life persona. Then he predictably gets involved with the mysterious woman who predictably has a past with the bad guy who predictably is an airborne virus at his disposal that could kill off half the population of the world but the heroine predictably redeems herself and the hero predictably saves her and everyone else on earth by predictably performing a bunch of ludicrous acrobatics and beating the crap out of the villain.
 
That-Guy said:
I prefer my movies with plot, thank you. I will say that as far as the overall look and style of the film, M:I 2 was very well done, but the story was very poorly written. Right off the bat, Tom Cruise's character is changed from the ultra-focused, no-bullsh** agent he was in the first movie to a cocky, suave characture of his real life persona. Then he predictably gets involved with the mysterious woman who predictably has a past with the bad guy who predictably is an airborne virus at his disposal that could kill off half the population of the world but the heroine predictably redeems herself and the hero predictably saves her and everyone else on earth by predictably performing a bunch of ludicrous acrobatics and beating the crap out of the villain.

yeh i agree. De Palma knew(roughly) where it's at.


As for Parker and Stone, their next movie will own and you know it.
 
That-Guy said:
I prefer my movies with plot, thank you. I will say that as far as the overall look and style of the film, M:I 2 was very well done, but the story was very poorly written. Right off the bat, Tom Cruise's character is changed from the ultra-focused, no-bullsh** agent he was in the first movie to a cocky, suave characture of his real life persona. Then he predictably gets involved with the mysterious woman who predictably has a past with the bad guy who predictably is an airborne virus at his disposal that could kill off half the population of the world but the heroine predictably redeems herself and the hero predictably saves her and everyone else on earth by predictably performing a bunch of ludicrous acrobatics and beating the crap out of the villain.
I had an epiphany while watching that movie. I was 17 years old and I was watching a movie that transcended what I had held up until that point as criteria for good movies. It was like watching a dance...a ballet of sorts. Mesmerizing. I've never looked at film the same way again. And besides, it still had plenty of plot, I don't know why you choose to ignore it.
 
Ronny why do i get the feeling you are not seriosu when you say MI2 was like a mesmerizing ballet :o
 
Paramount can't afford more movies like MI:3.

You can talk about how it made such and such worldwide, but Tom Cruise gets such a huge chunk of that back off the top, plus the stuff that goes to the BO and the cost of marketing and distribution, in that sense it was a failure to Paramount.

Paramount as it exists right now cannot afford more movies like MI:3. Back in 2005 there was question if they would even greenlight the movie in light of Cruise's recent behavior. There was some reluctance on their part. And now this happens, MI:3 being the straw that broke the camel's back.

And if Transformers doesn't do well, Paramount will be in big trouble.
 
Paramont hasn't had many big blockbusters for a while.

Plus Cruise is now saying he left Paramount not the other way. Really I don't know what to believe....but one thing for sure...I don't care either way. Personally I thought MI3 was one of the better movies of this summer.
 
Lord Blackbolt said:
Paramont hasn't had many big blockbusters for a while.

Plus Cruise is now saying he left Paramount not the other way. Really I don't know what to believe....but one thing for sure...I don't care either way. Personally I thought MI3 was one of the better movies of this summer.

Paramount don't care how good the movies are, they just care about how much money they make.
 
Lord Blackbolt said:
Paramont hasn't had many big blockbusters for a while.

Plus Cruise is now saying he left Paramount not the other way. Really I don't know what to believe....but one thing for sure...I don't care either way. Personally I thought MI3 was one of the better movies of this summer.
For them the movie was still a flop.

Cruise's camp is saying that to save face.
 
I saw a quote from Matt Lauer defending Tom, pointing out that a number of actors are in & out of rehab & such, but the studios don't dump them. I was a bit surprised to see Matt coming to his defense.
 
Overall, I think that the star-centric method of promoting movies has deflated box office revenue. After being over-saturated with Cruise, Holmes, Bennifer, Pitt and Jolie’s personal lives, why would anyone want to pay $10 plus travel expense to see more of them? Films should be marketed not on personality but story.
 
I've never been a big believer in star power. I can't recall saying "I wanna go see that movie just because ____________ is in it!" If it sounds worthwhile & entertaining, that is my driving motivation.
Oh-you left out snacks & drinks. Some people still do that.
 
People act like Tom Cruise like beat Lower with a bat, and then raped his mother, and took a dump in his pool. All he did was make a jack-ass to himself and made a rude comment or two, and I don't believe it was toward Lower or his character, just that he knew more about the subject. In the end I think Cruise will snap back.
 
Tom Cruise is getting like 75% of the $400 million MI:3 has made worldwide. I dont think he'll be crying about anything anytime soon.
 
Matt said:
I think the hatred towards him has gone a bit too far. The media has definitely played a role in turning him into the 'villian' of Hollywood for lack of better words. So he believes some wacky **** and is inlove with a girl 20 years younger than him...so what? He doesn't believe in psychiatric medicine...his choice. From his perspective I don't think he was attacking Brooke, but more trying to 'help her'. And Brooke had some rather mean things to say in return...unneccessary personal jabs.

Well, I have no problem with the man's beliefs or the fact that he's with a girl 20 years his junior. You're right... so what.

But...

He was attacking Brooke Sheilds. So he doesnt like the idea of perscription drugs...thats him. But just because you dont believe in something doesnt mean you get to label other people as bad or evil because they do. How would you feel if someone came to you and said "oh gee...what you're doing is wrong. Its bad. You're bad. Let me convert you" even though you're trying to do what you need to do for you to feel better. And as a man he will NEVER...EVER experience childbirth or what comes with it so he cant condemn any woman for what she does with her body.
 
I personally think it's a bad idea for ANY entertainer to publicly criticize another. Especially to that degree. You only make yourself look bad. And you can end up burning a lot of bridges that way.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"