Skip to comments.MGM: A Lion or a Lamb? (Tom Cruise/Valkyrie - Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™)
Posted on 06/07/2008 1:03:39 PM PDT by abb
ON a Thursday morning last month, hundreds of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer workers filed out of the studios Century City office tower and into a movie theater across the street.
But MGM is choking on $3.7 billion in debt, forcing it to cough up more than $300 million in annual interest payments while it delays paying down the principal, its financial statements show.
For the fiscal year ended in March, MGM lost about $400 million; it lost about the same amount a year earlier.
...Mr. Sloans team still had other cards to play like forging a partnership with Tom Cruise.
He quickly gave a 35 percent stake in the dormant United Artists film label to Mr. Cruise and his producing partner, Paula Wagner.
When UA released Lions for Lambs, a film about war and politics that cost about $35 million to make and even more to market (though Mr. Cruise, one of its stars, worked without pay), it flopped at the box office. MGM immediately lost about half of its $75 million UA investment, Mr. Sloan said.
UA then green-lighted a second war movie, Pinkville, about the My Lai massacre, from Oliver Stone. It spent $6 million on preproduction costs before canceling the movie a week after the opening of Lions for Lambs. That leaves Valkyrie, a costlier star vehicle for Mr. Cruise that was already surrounded by negative buzz.
In that film, Mr. Cruise portrays a heroic Nazi officer who turns on Hitler. The release date for Valkyrie has been delayed twice, contributing to a cloud of gloom hanging over the project. The film cost close to $95 million to make and will cost about as much to market, putting its worldwide break-even point north of $200 million in box office receipts, MGM executives said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I’ve never been able to suspend belief while watching Cruise. As a fighter pilot type, I thought the aircraft were the only things worth watching in “Top Gun”. As for Cruise, he’d have wimped out of any real fighter squadron in - about one minute. This guy is - to use our old pilot phrase, a real weak dick.
I still say there isn’t a market in this country for anti-American, America-trashing films. I could be wrong. Hollyweird is so out of touch with reality. I guess that happens when you live in a fantasy world anyway.
Cruise, it appears, is no longer a bankable star as he has been in the past. The old coot Redstone (Viacom CEO) was wise enough to see this two years ago.
Originally posted: June 5, 2008
New Tom Cruise Web site aims to remake image
On the new Tomcruise.com, we learn such valuable tidbits as which movies Tom Cruise starred in and how he looks, sweaty and unshaven, in a muscle shirt.
We also learn, reading between the pixels, that Tom Cruise would like to use the Net to rehabilitate an image that’s recently been battered, largely on the Net.
to: Movie Execs
fr: American public
re: movies we want
if you want to get us back in the theaters, please make pro-American movies. Not your “hating America means you love America” movies. Not “rah, rah, rah” movies, but pro American values (actual American values, not your values) , positive military references, positive male references, positive Christian references (not necessarily religious)and positive ending.
The American Public.(ie, the people you despise and loath)
“Not only has Cruise wrecked his own career, looks like he might take a couple of movie studios with him. “
May Valkyrie be a giant stinkbomb.
Okay, tell me how a movie that ends with Tom Cruise’s character getting shot by a firing squad isn’t an automatic summer blockbuster.
Tom Cruise should have kept his mouth shut about his insanity. I loved that adorable smile. Not anymore.
This may be a bankable strategy from here on. All his characters in any future movies get blown away. Hey, it worked for Sly Stallone. His Rocky character got the stuffing beat out of him in how many movies?
That so saddd what happen to MGM what happen to United Artists both LB Mayor and trio of Mary Picford, Charley Champlin and Douglas Fairbanks Sr are rolling in their graves when they about find out that couch hopping Scientlogitt totally closet actor like Tom Cruise f***k up both MGM and United Artist
I'd say you're partly right and partly wrong.
Michael Moore, e.g., does well with anti-American dreck.
OTOH, the audience for big-budget action flicks is different (based on my survey of one fan). When we go to see a war movie, we want the good guys to win — after they display their heroism. Also, the U.S. should be the good guys. (That's the same in Canada — although, I'd make an exception regarding the War of 1812.)
Wow, looks like only Xenu can help him now.
I recently had a story under consideration at Warner Bros. and a big fear was that Tom Cruise would like it and want to be the lead character.
No matter how much money I would get I prepared myself to say no.
Absolutely agree with your post #7.
That’s what I call a real moral sacrifice, smoketree. Good luck with your future career.
I agree. I would like to see more biker movies, though. And I don’t care if they’re the good or bad guys.
Family-friendly films make money. Taking a look at the Top grossing films of all time, it's hard to find many R-Rated films in the top 30.
Positive films with heroic characters make money. Look again at the top 100 fims in the link above
Films that paint America as filth, and which put down our military? They lose money. They flop. But Hollywood keeps putting them out, because the people who run the major studios like the approval they get from their peers. Their problem is that we now have new studios springing up in competition with the old studios that are willing to make ONLY good movies, and forego making dreck.