• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

Tom Cruise...what comes next?

Matt

IKYN Guy Groupie
Joined
Aug 9, 2000
Messages
80,934
Reaction score
9
Points
31
After the bomb of MI:3, everyone is pointing fingers at ol' Maverick...so what comes next for his career? I can't see a studio wanting to touch him right now...I wonder if Tom will be getting into producing and staying off camera?
 
I think the word hit or flop is a term thrown around fartoo lightly. People have just gotten used to the Spider-Man, Star Wars, Harry Potter type of opening weekeneds and such. Look at films like Gladiator, Batman Begins, heck even, Titanic. All average openings going off to gross a good amount of money. I think we have to wait til the end of the month to see how the film fares. However, Cruise is already doing two other films, so says his filmography.
 
please, atleast wait for a couple of weeks before you start calling MI3 a bomb
 
Jess said:
I think the word hit or flop is a term thrown around fartoo lightly. People have just gotten used to the Spider-Man, Star Wars, Harry Potter type of opening weekeneds and such. Look at films like Gladiator, Batman Begins, heck even, Titanic. All average openings going off to gross a good amount of money. I think we have to wait til the end of the month to see how the film fares. However, Cruise is already doing two other films, so says his filmography.
Gladiator got great reviews. It also didn't come out when movie tickets cost this much and movie attendance just kept getting lower and lower.

Also, MI:2 came out the same month and same year as Gladiator.

Basically, MI:3 will have to have f'n insane fantastic legs and WOM to get Batman Begins or Gladiator type money. Which I kind of don't see happening. Also, some people are just so turned off by Cruise now that they refuse to see anything with him in it. It's the Ben Affleck/J-LO affect essentially.

Plus Poseidon coming out this weekend, which I'm not sure what way it will go. I decided to forego a screening tonight. My friend said it was mediocre. So I'm not going to pay to go see it.
 
What comes next? Hopefully the return of Xenu so we can all see Cruise's sorry @$$ thrown into the nearest volcano.
 
What are the MI3 numbers?
 
I think some actors need to quit eating up the budget with their paycheck. *Looks at Mr. Cruise*
 
Yeah zer00. This pretty much bombed considering all the factors. Just go compare its numbers to the other movies in the series. It sucks that this movie is getting ****ty numbers. Looks like another Cinderella Man.
 
Jess said:
I think the word hit or flop is a term thrown around fartoo lightly

Exactly. Like when people said King Kong bombed because it didn't live up to their unrealistic "it could be bigger than Titanic"-expectations. A movie is only a failure if it makes less money than it costed to make. Definetely too early to call M:I 3 a bomb
 
I didn't go see MI3 because, well... I've never been interested in any of these MI movies, not the least bit.

The first one, I saw on cable one night and it was pretty good but not enough to make me hunger for more.

And I didn't even know this movie was on its way, in fact it sort of feels like there is no MI3 and this is all a dream. Was the marketing that poor?

I feel tom should make a Legend 2, Attack of the Couches?.
 
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2061&p=.htm

'Mission: Impossible III' Doesn't Thrill
by Brandon Gray
May 8, 2006

This franchise will self-destruct in three movies.

Count Tom Cruise's Mission: Impossible among the mega-movie series that faltered by the third outing, joining Beverly Hills Cop, The Matrix and The Terminator among others.

Mission: Impossible III detonated with $47.7 million, below such other recent spy pictures as The Bourne Supremacy and Mr. & Mrs. Smith. At 4,054 theaters, the $150 million action spectacle had the fourth widest launch ever but did not achieve a commensurate height in box office, trailing its predecessors by a wide margin in terms of attendance.

Released ten years ago, the first Mission: Impossible's $45.4 million opening weekend would equal around $67 million today, adjusted for ticket price inflation, while the second's $57.8 million from 2000 would be about $70 million. To be fair, both bowed on Memorial Day weekend when Sunday is as potent as Saturday, but both also burnt off demand with Wednesday debuts. Mission I went on to gross $181 million, or $266 million adjusted, and Mission II did $215.4 million, or $260 million adjusted.

According to distributor Paramount Pictures' exit polling, Mission: Impossible III's demographic breakdown was identical to the previous movies, with 64 percent of the audience over 25 years old and 56 percent male.

Prior to the weekend, a Paramount spokesperson told Box Office Mojo that an opening between Mission: Impossible II and War of the Worlds ($64.9 million) was their bar for Mission: Impossible III's success, lower than media and industry expectations that had ballooned past $70 million. On Sunday morning, a hopeful Paramount likened Mission: Impossible III's potential to Batman Begins, which had a weaker-than-expected $48.7 million first weekend but went on to earn $205.3 million. Both sprung from dormant franchises with baggage—Batman and Robin for the latter and Cruise's overblown off-screen antics in Mission's case.

Waiting more than a few years to produce a sequel is always risky business in franchise movie-making. For every Bad Boys II, there's a Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines or a Legend of Zorro. What's more, the first two Mission: Impossibles were ephemeral thrill rides, not movies that many continued to love through the years, and, beyond Cruise's star power, they didn't establish compelling characters, like a James Bond, Jack Ryan or Jason Bourne.

Aside from a number of random action shots, including a rocket exploding behind running man Tom Cruise on a bridge, Mission: Impossible III lacked the strong hook and sense of fun of its predecessors in its presentation to the public, which was more damaging than anything Cruise did in his press campaign. After all, the centerpiece of the teaser and trailer was co-star Philip Seymour Hoffman threatening to torture and kill Cruise and his girlfriend—Cruise seethes in response and then performs a blur of stunts without ever uttering a word. The proceedings looked as generic as the movie's tagline, "The Mission Begins 05:05:06," leaving it to composer Lalo Schifrin's theme music from the original Mission: Impossible television series to add the excitement.

Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible III
On the bright side, Mission: Impossible III will likely extend Cruise's $100 million streak to seven—beginning with Mission: Impossible II, his last six pictures have each grossed over $100 million at the domestic box office alone. Internationally, Cruise is an even bigger draw, evidenced by the additional $70.3 million that Mission: Impossible III generated overseas in its first five days. That all speaks to how consistently well-packaged Cruise's pictures have been, from concept to director to co-stars, which is why people who say they don't like Cruise still often like his movies.

As a summer kick-off, Mission: Impossible III was softer than most in the past decade, but it did top the openings of last year's Kingdom of Heaven and House of Wax combined. It's also not likely to derail 2006's momentum—Summer 2004 was initially underwhelming, with relatively modest bows from Van Helsing and Troy, but it ended up the highest-grossing summer on record, led by Shrek 2 and Spider-Man 2.

Also debuting, the first wide release from Freestyle Releasing, the $14 million period horror, An American Haunting, captured $5.8 million at 1,668 venues. The distributor reported that three quarters of moviegoers were less than 25 years old.

Meanwhile, Walden Media's latest children's book adaptation following pictures like Holes and Because of Winn-Dixie, the environmentalism-themed Hoot uprooted a mere $3.4 million at 3,018 theaters—the weakest opening ever for a movie playing at over 3,000 theaters.

Among holdovers, last weekend's hot topic, United 93, descended 53 percent to $5.3 million, despite moviegoers rating it highly in distributor Universal Pictures' opening weekend exit surveys. The $15 million Sept. 11, 2001 recreation has collected $20.2 million in 10 days.
 
Matt said:
After the bomb of MI:3, everyone is pointing fingers at ol' Maverick...so what comes next for his career? I can't see a studio wanting to touch him right now...I wonder if Tom will be getting into producing and staying off camera?
Matt you are jumping to conclusions. 47 million is a soild opening weekend, only 10 million less that part 2.
 
I use to love watching Tom Cruise movies,now I can't stand them,and it looks like everyone else feels the same way.
 
GoldGoblin said:
I use to love watching Tom Cruise movies,now I can't stand them,and it looks like everyone else feels the same way.

I havent been able to watch him in film for a few years now... MI:3 actually makes him watchable again.
 
It wouldn't call this a bomb..........yet. Let's see what happens after this weekend.........Poseidon could do well and it could bomb, I have no idea how to read that film.......
 
I don't even see MI3 doing Vanilla Sky's domestic numbers sadly. :( Hopefully I will be proven wrong.
 
Bomb is hyperbole,the movie opened only 10 mill less than the 2nd with a slump currently in effect at the BO,ppl with ridiculous predictions are the only ones that can call it a bomb

Cruise will be fine his next movie is 3:10 to Yuma which will not carry the BO expectations
 
A movie should be good or bad regardless of how much money it made.

A movie being a bomb or not is defined by the quality of the movie, NOT how much money it made.

"Titanic" made a lot of money and it sucked. Same with "Garfield".
 
thealiasman2000 said:
A movie should be good or bad regardless of how much money it made.

A movie being a bomb or not is defined by the quality of the movie, NOT how much money it made.

"Titanic" made a lot of money and it sucked. Same with "Garfield".

Well, the majority disagree with you about Titanic. Most think it's a quality movie, which means it's just not your TYPE of movie. Same with Garfield. There is a world OUTSIDE of your opinion.
 
Well when good movies bomb at the box office and **** movies cash in it pretty much equals more **** being made.
 
^Yup. Prime example is Fantastic Four.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"