Skip to comments.
Who's Crazier: Viacom or Tom Cruise?
Hollywood Dateline ^
| August 22nd, 2006
| Nikki Finke
Posted on 08/23/2006 12:00:13 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-215 last
To: Talking_Mouse
Cruise is a geek. Hollywood can make Al Gore look hip and make Cruise look like an action star, which he is not especially at 5 feet 2.
To: strider44
Pride & Prejudice, Crouching Tiger, Four Weddings and Funeral,Sense & Sensibility
202
posted on
08/24/2006 5:59:40 PM PDT
by
TET1968
(SI MINOR PLUS EST ERGO NIHIL SUNT OMNIA)
To: strider44
What country makes better movies?
I will never accuse you of not being astute. You saw right through me.
In the beginning of the movie industry, it was pandemonium. In my view....In a few short years after the negative film producing companies, lost control of the movie industry....
Movies....
The French saw it as a form of art....truly respectable. The Germans saw it as a useful tool...truly useful, for a time.
British, and Americans....mostly had their heads up their collective asses in the good old days of Cinema.
Likely that was a good thing, as you cannot win a fight with celluloid swords.
Still the proverbial pen is mightier than the sword, as the lying cut throats in the media are still desperate to prove, because, as the alternative means ultimately their demise. The end of their influence, which is clear anyhow, despite the implicent denials. Implicent, because of the refuasal to acknowledge the legitinate criticisms, all over the net.
American movies are considered the best, for a number of reasons. Largely financial. Mostly they suck, big time. I don't even bother going anymore. If it is out there, it is in here, on my cable channel, in just a few short months.
In my mind, the French are/were artistically the best at the new medium. The Nazis recognized the potential of the new art form for political reasons. They took advantage of it more than any other country.
In the USA, the "NEWS" Industry is what we have that is comparable to the Goebels Industry. All of their marbles have been thrown into this method of indoctrination.
They seem to have won the war of the Boomer Families, and our parents......but good news.....Our children are giving these neo nazis (Democrats) the finger, in great numbers. The Internet which was supposed to be their secret weapon, has backfired on them big time. C'est la vie! No movie about the matter will fail down the path, once others see the truth of it.
You'll see.
Take a hike around a few My Space accounts if you doubt me. The kids are not buying into the Kennedy Kerry Bullshit, and their world has been turned upside down. That despite what you see on the Nightly News, and in the local daily rag.
203
posted on
08/24/2006 7:27:03 PM PDT
by
Radix
(Law was made for Man, and Man was not made for the Law.)
To: strider44
I liked his movie "Far and Away" with Nicole Kidman.
sw
204
posted on
08/24/2006 7:33:17 PM PDT
by
spectre
(Spectre's wife)
To: strider44
True, War of the Worlds made $592 million world-wide. But the theaters get about $270 million, leaving $322 million for Paramount. It cost $132 million plus marketing costs another $30 to $50 million. So now Paramount's down to $140 million. But Spielberg and Cruise get a cut of the revenue also (on top of their big salaries for directing, producing and acting). And overseas, foreign distributors often are involved, taking their cuts also. There's not much left by then. Of course, TV and DVD usually bring in even more -- but, Cruise and Spielberg are powerful enough to get big cuts on them and all other ancillary revenues. Add in Cruise pissing off female fans, and you get lower DVD sales/rentals. What should have been the big profit generating film of the year for the studio becomes a film that generates a below average ROI for the studio. Cruise makes a fortune, but Paramount doesn't.
And since most Cruise projects do less than half that in revenue, his large salaries and cuts make those projects even less profitable for the studio. If Cruise was paid a normal Hollywood salary and got smaller cuts, then Paramount could probably afford to keep up the partnership. But as of now, Paramount's been providing all the capital and taking all the risks while Cruise grabs most of the profits.
205
posted on
08/24/2006 10:17:46 PM PDT
by
LenS
To: Wolfie
I doubt that spin. Cruise won't be able to find another domestic studio willing to give him the same big salaries (one for acting and one for producing) and the big percentages of all revenues. He'll have to con individual investors or spend his own cash.
206
posted on
08/24/2006 10:20:30 PM PDT
by
LenS
To: Anti-Bubba182
I heard Cruise was being replaced by this guy...
207
posted on
08/24/2006 10:27:55 PM PDT
by
Liberty Valance
(Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
To: LenS
He's already hooked up with venture capital.
208
posted on
08/25/2006 3:09:41 AM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: durasell
Can you imagine a business where there is the possibility that the finished product will have almost zero value?
That would be virtually every single business.
To: A Longer Name
That would be virtually every single business.
Not really. If I'm making watches and fail in business, then the components have some value. In real estate land never loses all of its value. Most failed businesses leave some scap behind that can be sold off.
In movies, the finished product is a very long piece of plastic and a copyright.
210
posted on
08/25/2006 9:46:09 AM PDT
by
durasell
(!)
To: Berlin_Freeper
The makers of SP make fun of the Left as much if not more then anyone else in the film business.
211
posted on
08/25/2006 9:58:54 AM PDT
by
Borges
To: peggybac
I don't know about that. It looks like she's tapped into the same pond again.
To: TightyRighty
"I don't know about that. It looks like she's tapped into the same pond again."
No no no no no - Keith is straight. I can't imagine Nicole making the same mistake twice.
213
posted on
08/25/2006 10:33:14 AM PDT
by
peggybac
(Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing)
To: Anti-Bubba182
To: JavaTheHutt
Suri is a breed of alpaca. Why would anyone name their kid after an animal?Oh my goodness, you're right! LOL. Now that's just strange.
215
posted on
08/25/2006 7:36:23 PM PDT
by
Sue Perkick
(The true gospel is a call to self-denial. It is not a call to self-fulfillment..John MacArthur)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-215 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson