Posted on 07/31/2006 2:46:07 AM PDT by abb
For many years, Tom Cruise has enjoyed the richest production deal of any A-list star in Hollywood. But in the latest sign of the industry's increasing obsession with fiscal responsibility, that era may be coming to an end.
Paramount Pictures, where Cruise and his producing partner, Paula Wagner, have been based since 1992, currently has a commitment to pay the pair as much as $10 million-plus a year to cover overhead, project development and other costs at their movie company, according to two sources with knowledge of the arrangement.
But that sweet deal, which is at least four times what stars such as Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt and Tom Hanks are assured by studios to fund their film outfits, was due to expire today. And Paramount Chairman Brad Grey has told representatives of Cruise-Wagner Productions that the studio would not renew it at anywhere near the current terms, sources said.
Instead, Paramount has offered Cruise and Wagner just a fraction of what they've been used to: $2 million plus a $500,000 discretionary fund each year for two years, said informed sources, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.
Cruise's attorney, Bertram Fields, said Friday, "We received an offer and we are digesting it. We will sit and talk about it." Asked whether Paramount left any wiggle room on its terms, Fields said, "It is not the case that they said this is a take-it-or-leave-it offer. I don't think my friends at Paramount would ever talk that way."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Somewhat related...
Celebrity Baby, M.I.A., Stokes a Frenzy
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/business/media/31people.html?ref=business
Pinging with Monday Morning Good News...
Too bad, so sad, tough toenails.
Who gives a rats ass about Hollywierd?
I really don`t get this whole Hollywood mega-actor-studio umbilical cord connection. Why does someone like Cruise who is worth gazillions need a studio? It seems to me what all these movie studios are, are nothing more than loan companies. They put up the cash - "greenlight a project" and the movie gets made.
Why don`t these mega-stars put up the cash themselves? You always here about these mega-actors tied to these studios like Whitney Houston to an endless supply of crack, I don`t get it. The same with comedians... You always hear these mega comedians complaining that their "art" is being comprimised by studio heads who demand certain scripts and cuts, yet someone like Steve Martin could do anything he wants. But he doesn`t! He makes freggin` remakes of "The Pink Panther".
It has to be better than placenta stew.
It is ironic that 100 years ago, prior to the advent of moving pictures and television, most actors were part of an acting company that toured the nation, performing here and there for whatever they could earn. They weren't particularly well paid and had the reputration of being scoundrels, thieves, drunkards and vagabonds.
Fast forward to today. Today, thanks to TV and film (and, in some part to early radio shows), actors are waaaaaaayyy overpaid for their "performances" but, IMO, remaun true to form - they are still scoundrels, thieves, drunkards and vagabonds.
I'm not going to shed any tears (real OR imaginary) over them having to come back to reality a bit and live with less money. It's just life in the real world.
Hey Tom has talent.. He respects the toolbox..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Oi3zUoFcA
I think this video reveals all we need to know about Tom...His first reaction is joy and glee, like he loves getting fluids squirted into his face, then he catches himself......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o4d3O3xIV4
Now if Tom would only admit that he's a homosexual...
"His friends at Paramount" GAG. He's in suck up mode.
Unbelievable.....
I'm convinced he's a fudge packer and skin flute player.
Semper Fi
Ahhhhh........So sorry. They're way over paid anyway. Just like all entertainment. In fact, rather than entertain; they preach. I haven't gone to the movies in years and really don't buy any. I rarely watch any news programs any more. It's just the same bs over and over again. I am pretty sure kids don't watch them; so I am wondering who their audiences really are. No one has the time and really doesn't want to watch lies. I guess it just another way to pay big salaries and have control and power over the masses; only there are fewer masses tuning in.
lol!! Did you read the comments some people left underneath that video? I would post them here but it would probably get deleted.
The most significant thing about this story, IMO, is that it appeared in the LA Times at all. This kind of stuff is usually kept double top secret until the deal is done...
The invention of movies allows actors to leverage their act by simultaneously rerun it at 2,000 - 3,000 venues for months on end. Sorta like how the Inet allows me to leverage my opinion. :)
I am much like you. I dont watch their crap anyway ,nor do I watch much news. Problem is I spend way too much time on FR. LOL
I have always thought Cruise was over rated as an actor, but then when a midget scientologist fag looking control freak like him can play the part of a tough agent, thats acting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.