Tom Cruise is the victim of his compulsive proselytism

Autres textes concernant le prosélytisme de Tom Cruise
More about Tom Cruise and his proselytism

Mission accomplished: the man who beat Tom Cruise

Sumner Redstone, the mogul behind Paramount, this week terminated his company's contract with Hollywood's once golden boy - and delivered a withering put-down to boot. David Usborne reports on the 'old fart' who took control

enjoyment.independent.co.uk
Published: 26 August 2006

It is 20 years since Tom Cruise erupted into our celebrity-obsessed lives with Risky Business and we know him pretty well by now. We have been subjected to every detail of his break-up with Nicole Kidman, his latest marriage to Katie Holmes and the recent arrival of baby Suri, cutely called TomKat by the tabloids. As for the pictures of the baby we still haven't seen, they will emerge soon enough.

Even before last week most of us had heard quite enough about Tom's batty period one year ago when he bounced about on Oprah Winfrey's sofa to declare his love for Ms Holmes and got into spats with journalists about his commitment to Scientology and his scorn for anti-depressants. Now there is the latest saga: his being fired by Paramount, the studio he had been tied to for 14 years.

But this new chapter has two protagonists, Cruise and the man who did the firing, Sumner Redstone. Who is this "old fart" - as one studio executive unkindly (and anonymously) called him last week - who has the power to show the door to one of the industry's most bankable stars and to do it with such absence of grace?

He is, of course, the chairman and majority shareholder of Viacom, the world's third-largest entertainment conglomerate with subsidiary units that include not just Paramount but a host of brands including CBS, Nickelodeon, MTV, VH1 and Simon and Schuster. It is an empire that he has forged over decades, through countless takeover battles and bloody corporate crusades, from what began as a modest chain of cinemas run by his father in his Massachusetts.

Redstone, if you like, is America's home-grown Rupert Murdoch. Both are ruthless patriarchs married to much younger women - Sumner's wife, Paula Fortunato, is a 42-year-old former school teacher - who enjoy huge personal wealth and for years have left the media guessing over where their own families will fit into their eventual successions. (Redstone was listed number 63 on the Forbes list of the world's richest people this year.) There are differences between them - Redstone lives on the West Coast while Murdoch's new pad has views of Central Park.

Murdoch, at 75, is virtually an adolescent alongside Redstone, who recently turned 83. No wonder, then, that some people in Hollywood are speculating that in sacking Cruise, who over the years has generated ticket sales for Paramount in excess of $2.5bn (£1.3bn), the guy has finally mislaid his marbles. But those who know Redstone even a little will scoff at such talk. He has always been unafraid to make enemies and to speak his mind, even if what he says goes against the tide of everyone else's thinking. At a party celebrating an honour conferred on another studio head six years ago, for instance, this writer found himself talking to Redstone about Time Warner's merger with America Online. The entertainment world was agog at a move that seemed to place Time Warner on the cutting edge of the digital era. What Redstone essentially replied was that the people at Time Warner were utter idiots and the merger would prove a disaster, as, indeed, it later did. Even now the fiasco of that marriage is not entirely mended.

It will take time, however, before we can judge whether it was Redstone who was the idiot last week. Nor is there any consensus yet on what motivated him to cut Cruise off at the knees. Was it his well-publicised obsession with Viacom's share price that swayed him or a desire to win some headlines for himself ? Or was he just in a foul mood ?

We have this story thanks to a Wall Street Journal reporter who, aware that Paramount and Cruise had been at odds about money, on Tuesday managed to get Redstone on the telephone. Redstone dropped the bomb and it landed within minutes on the Journal's web site and thereafter on front pages the world over. He was breaking his ties with Cruise, he said, and, by the way, it was all the star's fault for acting the fool. "We don't think that someone who effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue should be on the lot," he blurted. "As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal. His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."

By anyone's standards, Redstone's remarks were shocking. First, they seemed unnecessarily personal. We now know that talks between Paramount and the production company owned by Cruise and his business partner Paula Wagner, called Cruise/Wagner Productions, had already imploded. Wouldn't it have been better to have left the man who is meant to be running Paramount on Redstone's behalf, Brad Grey, and the chief executive of Viacom itself, Tom Freston, to have arranged a more dignified exit of Cruise at the end of August, when his contract with them was to expire anyway ?

Instead, Paramount woke up on Wednesday to a media maelstrom. For starters, there was the implication that Redstone had undercut his own managers, Grey and Freston, while uncalculated damage had been done to Paramount's relations with the Creative Artists Agency, CAA, the actor's agency that counts Cruise as one of its clients. "Paramount has no credibility right now," declared Richard Lovett, CAA's president. "It's not clear who is running the studio and who is making the decisions."

The affair has shredded morale at Paramount, after a year when management tumult seemed to have been settling down and executives were celebrating a string of box-office successes.

Nor was it long before the Cruise camp fired back. Ms Wagner called Redstone's words "offensive". More outraged was Cruise's veteran publicity agent, Bert Fields, who preferred "disgusting". "He has lost it completely, or he's been given breathtakingly bad advice," fumed Fields. "That a mogul like Sumner Redstone could make a statement so vicious, so pompous, so petulant ... it tells you more about Sumner Redstone and Viacom than about Tom Cruise."

It is unlikely that a man as thick-skinned as Redstone, who studied law at Harvard and served in the Second World War as a cracker of Japanese codes, is much disturbed by any of this. His list of run-ins in the name of business is a long one. Former lieutenants who have fallen out with Redstone or have been fired by him include Frank Biondi, a former chief executive of Viacom until 1995, and Mel Karmazin, who left the same job last year, apparently worn down by Redstone endlessly looking over his shoulder. He attacks the government for over-playing its hand regulating broadcasting and is currently suing Howard Stern, the shock jock who last year decamped from CBS's radio arm to work for a satellite rival.

The battles even extend to within his family where the matter of succession is a source of tension. When Redstone eventually steps down, the job of chairman will probably pass either to Freston, or to Les Moonves, who heads CBS, which was spun off from Viacom in January. But to maintain blood control in the boardroom, Redstone has let it be known that the 70 per cent of Viacom voting shares he owns will pass to his daughter, Shari, 52, who is already on the board. Redstone has a son, Brent, whohas been effectively frozen out of Viacom. In a fit of pique over succession arrangements he filed a lawsuit against his father and Shari this year in an attempt to reclaim what he believes should be a $1bn slice of the family pie.

Even being taken to court by his own offspring doesn't impress the old man. "The lawsuit doesn't bother me," he told Newsweek. "It has absolutely, unequivocally no merit. It has no effect on the new CBS or new Viacom. But it is painful to me. I know it's painful to my daughter."

Meanwhile, if a reporter dares inquire as to when he might relinquish the reins at Viacom, he is colourfully dismissive, noting that he continues to feel physically fit, doing 30 minutes on an exercise bike every morning, completing lengths of his pool and eating sparingly. "Starved cats live longer than fat cats, and I would prefer to be a starved cat," he told BusinessWeek recently, adding with no irony: "There's no chance of me retiring." He told another interviewer: "You gotta remember, resurrection doesn't appeal to me."

Sure enough, when Redstone surfaced a second time last week, he showed no remorse for his outburst, but rather congratulated himself, noting that it resulted in Viacom's shares rising on Wednesday, outperforming those of its sister company, CBS, after months of decline and stagnation. "It's the first time in a long time that Viacom was up more than CBS, which means that Wall Street liked the message," he crowed. "I don't see that any damage was done by what I said."

"Show me the money" was the mantra that briefly became popular vernacular after the release of another Cruise hit (though not with Paramount), Jerry Maguire in 1996, and money - and share prices - is indeed what this spat is really all about. Cruise wanted too much and Viacom, for the first time, balked, thus sending a wider message that it and perhaps other studios too have had enough of cosseting stars.

In short, Paramount had been paying Cruise/Wagner almost $10m a year for the privilege of getting first dibs on all their projects. But the arrangement was more expensive than that. Cruise was not demanding traditional acting fees for the films he appeared in, but insisted on taking a cut first of the box-office receipts of each film and of DVD sales. The terms with Paramount were so generous that, after the relatively disappointing performance of the most recent Mission: Impossible film, the studio discovered it was left with less profit than Cruise, who instantly took 25 per cent of the gross ticket sales, roughly $75m.

Redstone is a man who never ignores Wall Street. In his mind there was no longer any persuading investors that the torrents of cash going Cruise's way were justifiable. To try to trim its costs, therefore, Paramount insisted that the annual fee paid to Cruise/Wagner be slashed to $2.5m. Cruise said no and negotiations broke down.

If it was money that was bothering Redstone, why didn't he just say so, instead of impugning Cruise's character publicly ? The answer is the same - because that was about money. There is no question that Cruise's strange behaviour has been a public relations disaster for him. As The New York Times put it, he has somehow managed to "morph into something no movie star can afford to be : a guy you wouldn't want to know". That translates into lower tickets sales.

Redstone believes that, were it not for Cruise's antics, Mission : Impossible III, released in May, would have made $100m to $150m more than it did. Even for Redstone that is a lot of change to lose, so he did what he does always, he protected his business.

Viacom's Rationale : Cruise Is Risky Business

In Hollywood, It's Okay to Be ... Whatever. That Is, Unless You Start Costing Someone Money

By William Booth and Anita Huslin

Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 24, 2006; Page C01

LOS ANGELES -- In Hollywood, when a huge movie star and his studio break up, they almost always promise to remain friends forever. There is a fog of meaningless sweet nothings about how each wishes the other nothing but the best -- and often a suitcase of make-nice go-away money.

Then there is the Cruise crackup, which is remarkably and publicly nasty -- in a town where mortal enemies smile and air-kiss on the red carpet.

Graceless, shocking, offensive! That's how Cruise's agent, Rick Nicita of the powerhouse agency CAA, put it to the Los Angeles Times. Normally, agents do not even like being quoted in the Los Angeles Times, and when they are, they certainly don't call studio bosses names .

As anyone above the Earth's surface knows by now, Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone announced via the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that his movie studio, Paramount Pictures, was severing its ties with Tom Cruise and his production company after 14 years and $2.5 billion in gross receipts.

"It's nothing to do with his acting ability, he's a terrific actor," the 83-year-old billionaire said. "But we don't think that someone who effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue should be on the lot."

Effectuated and costly suicide ? Ouch.

The split was not completely unexpected. Tom Cruise costs a lot of money and Tom Cruise makes a lot of money. He is arguably still the reigning male action star in America. His last seven pictures each grossed more than $100 million at the domestic box office, but he reportedly takes home 20 percent of the ticket receipts. So reaching a financial impasse -- it is show business -- would be reasonable.

But why so public? Surely not just for the public's entertainment.

It was the way it was done that has Hollywood staring, slack-jawed. Peter Guber, chairman of Mandalay Entertainment Group and co-host of AMC's "Sunday Morning Shootout," says Redstone "is one very smart business person. He does nothing by accident. This is a very calculated decision."

Normally, Guber says, a parting of the ways between Cruise and studio would have been placed in Variety by Paramount chief Brad Grey "saying we were unable to come to satisfactory terms but we wish Tom well, blah, blah, blah, and Tom would have said how they'd shared this great relationship, blah, blah, blah."

You know the drill. But no, the split is announced by Redstone, who calls into question Cruise's sanity on the front page of the nation's premier financial newspaper -- while Cruise's production company is reportedly securing funding by Wall Street hedge funds.

"The methodology is the mystery," says Guber, who only half-kiddingly wondered whether there might be some secret da Vinci coded message in the way the parties uncoupled.

Cruise and his producer partner, Paula Wagner, had been in negotiation with Paramount for months. Cruise's company had a $10 million-a-year deal with Paramount to develop projects, a deal that is generous, according to Hollywood executives.

But a Viacom executive with knowledge of the split who would not speak for attribution explained that the breakup was not so much about the $10 million -- "we could afford him" -- but about Cruise's behavior -- all of it, the bouncing on Oprah, the yelling at Brooke Shields, the lecturing of Matt Lauer.

"His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount," Redstone told the Journal.

Though Cruise has been a Scientologist since 1990, when he was introduced to it by his first wife, Mimi Rogers, he has risen in recent years to the upper echelons of the organization to become a kind of world ambassador for the religion. Eyebrows began wagging as he explained how he helped wean addicts from drugs by promoting vitamins and when he set up tents with Scientology information on the set of "War of the Worlds."

Then came the TomKat union. Within months of meeting actress Katie Holmes, 16 years his junior, Cruise trampolined on Oprah's couch and declared his love for her. Then Cruise let loose on actress Brooke Shields for using antidepressants to treat her postpartum depression, and followed up with a rant at Matt Lauer on the "Today" show, chastising the host for promoting Ritalin and not understanding the evils of psychiatry. (No. 2 Cruise ex Nicole Kidman, whose father is a psychologist, maintained a pained silence through all.) Cruise also challenged the rebroadcast of the "South Park" episode "Trapped in the Closet," which satirized Scientology. Then in April, he announced to the world the birth of his and Kate's first child, daughter Suri, who was reportedly birthed in silence as prescribed by the Church of Scientology.

The Cruise split from Paramount comes at a time when the multinational media companies that own the Hollywood studios are rebelling against the big salaries and percentages paid to movie stars.

Redstone complained that while he thought Cruise's recent "Mission: Impossible III" was the best in the franchise, he says Cruise's antics cost the film $100 million to $150 million at the box office. The movie took in $393 million worldwide.

"The film was not a bomb, but it is true that it was a big step down from the last one," the second "Mission: Impossible," which earned $545 million six years ago, says Brandon Gray, founder of Boxofficemojo, a Web site that tracks film receipts.

While $393 million sounds like a big box office success, the third "Mission: Impossible" reportedly cost $250 million to make and market, the movie theaters get half of the box office, and Cruise takes his cut. "So it's possible that the movie was in the negative," Gray says, though DVD sales are now where most of the profits are (Cruise gets a percentage of that, too).

Did Cruise's behavior hurt the box office? Gray's guess: "I think there were other factors. There were six years between the second and third movie. No one really remembered the earlier ones. No one was really clamoring for a third. I think that hurt more than his off-screen antics."

"Is Tom Cruise over? No. Not at all. But the way it happened is very telling," says Joe Dolce, editor in chief of the celebrity weekly Star, which tracks all things TomKat. Dolce says that his readers, who are mostly women, are not that interested in the 44-year-old Tom Cruise, but are fascinated by his relationship with Holmes. "And what is she thinking now?" Dolce wonders.

"Here she becomes engaged to this man who can help her career and he is essentially fired and she must be wondering if he is going off the deep end."

Dolce sees this in rather mythological terms. The stars possess within themselves the tools of their own undoing. Mel Gibson. Tom Cruise. "They're masters of their own universes and they think they can do anything they want and the audience will accept and forgive and forget. But they don't. They couldn't pull girls in to see 'Mission: Impossible III.' "

Richard Roeper, co-host of the "Ebert and Roeper" movie review TV show, sees it as a black or red proposition.

"If Hollywood is taking a stance against anything, it's against these wildly favorable deals for stars where they get $20 million, and 20 percent against the back end" of the box office receipts, Roeper says. "If Hollywood is going to all of a sudden take some sort of principled stand, it's going to be about money. That's the stand they'll take."

Huslin reported from Washington.

WONDER LAND

Conduct Unbecoming
Tom Cruise learns celebrity is risky business.

BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, August 25, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Source :www.opinionjournal.com

Depending on where you're standing, August has not been a good month.

If you're Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, it has not been a good month. If you were feeling worn down by a world overstocked with Islamic bombers, the news out of unmerry olde England did not make for a good month. And if you are a Boston Red Sox fan and have just witnessed a statistically improbable five-game sweep at home by your mortal enemy, it has assuredly not been a good month.

Then, of a sudden, the clouds parted and delivered unto us, courtesy of a scoop on this paper's front page, Paramount's Sumner Redstone firing Tom Cruise. It doesn't get any better than this, and this deserves some elaboration.

Our narrative turns on a question: Why so public ? Why did Sumner Redstone drive Mr. Cruise out of the fort in the hot midday sun ? And did he ever. Of Mr. Cruise's recent "Mission : Impossible III," Mr. Sumner allowed that the action scenes in the first few minutes were "breathtaking." That sounds like the punch line of a famous joke that cannot be printed in this newspaper.

Hollywood, a thoroughly Pavlovian town, chose to explain the event in terms of a spreadsheet, suggesting that Mr. Sumner was using Mr. Cruise to pare back the share of total revenue that megastars siphon from franchise movies like "Mission Impossible."

Maybe. But so what ?

This is what Sumner Redstone told The Wall Street Journal: "His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."

Translation : Sumner Redstone fired Tom Cruise for being an idiot.

Someone finally fired a celebrity for conduct unbecoming. This is an idea whose time has come, an idea that deserves the widest possible distribution. We are free at last (until he figures out what hit him) of an obnoxious celebrity. Let people of all creeds, all races and all political persuasions join in common cause to rid this precious nation of celebrities who turn themselves into antic idiots.

I have a list. Barry Bonds, Naomi Campbell, Lindsay Lohan, Kate Moss, Dennis Kozlowski, Mel Gibson, Tom DeLay, Paris Hilton, Howard Dean, the certified idiot celebrity wannabe who says he killed JonBenet Ramsey.

You're fired ! (Yes, some might put Donald Trump on any such list.)

Of course with the exception of Dennis Kozlowski, none of them is going away. Besides, if one goes, there are 10 more in line to take his or her place. "American Idol" is testament to that.

Some in Hollywood have raised the idea of bringing back the morals clause in contracts. But Tom Cruise didn't do anything immoral. All he did was jump up and down on Oprah's couch, dump on Matt Lauer and poor Brooke Shields and join the Church of Scientology. This isn't sin. It's worse. It's annoying in a world that already burdens most of us with an unnatural amount of petty annoyance.

Some say moral clauses don't work given the fundamentally amoral commercial world that most celebrities now inhabit. Chanel and Burberry voided contracts with model Kate Moss after the British tabloids in September published photos of her using cocaine. The current "style" issue of Vanity Fair put Ms. Moss on its cover and carries ads with her doing various things for four or five manufacturers.

But properly understood, a morals contract isn't so much about flyspecking morality as it is trying to give people in our wide-open world some sense of where the edge of the cliff lies. Here's the wording of a typical entertainment-industry morals clause:

"The employee agrees to conduct himself with due regard to public conventions and morals, and agrees that he will not do or commit any act or thing that will tend to degrade him in society or bring him into public hatred, contempt, scorn or ridicule, or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or ridicule public morals or decency ..."

One may argue whether those notions should govern an employment contract. But what those words--contempt, scorn and ridicule--would convey to our dearly beloved celebrities is that they do walk the earth amid mere mortals who tend to get grossed out by irrepressible infantilism, ego, wretched excess and overly fancy people who think the rest of us want to live with them in Idiotville. Morals clauses are like taking out the garbage; it's a hassle but better than the alternative. Increasingly, we get the alternative.

Idiotville is real, everywhere and unavoidable. Celebrities gone wild is now a highly structured industry whose 24/7 divisions include magazines, cable TV programs, gossip columns, Web sites, marketing agencies, handlers and helpers. It was ever thus, but this is bigger, a lot bigger.

The celebrities of yesteryear were revered stars. Yesteryear was a few years ago. There were fewer of them way back then. Celebrities today are a dime a dozen. Let's page through the current issue of In Touch Weekly (compared to which People magazine is National Geographic). We find : Jessica Biel, Jennifer Lopez, Mischa Barton, Brooke Burke, David Charvet, Kate Hudson, Mary-Kate Olsen, Rachel Bilson, Kristin Cavallari, Mila Kunis, Shanna Moakler and an extremely weird photo of a pregnant Pamela Anderson who seems to be pregnant in three different places. The celebrity on the cover is Nicole Ritchie, whose fame is a subset of Paris Hilton's.

We have achieved something heretofore thought to violate all the laws of thermodynamics : the dumbing down of celebrityhood.

It may be that Sumner Redstone really wasn't doing much more to Tom Cruise than what successful investors in everything from stocks to basketball players have always done--dump a big contract before the asset heads south. A Tom Cruise is not a dime a dozen, but a Tom Cruise is at risk if he starts acting like the dozens. And if he still doesn't get it, he could ask someone to explain the present value of money. For the rest of us, the consolation comes in knowing that even in Hollywood the calculation of life's bottom line includes unacceptable behavior.

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com

Stephen Vaughan/Paramount Pictures, via Associated Press

Tom Cruise in “Mission: Impossible III.”
The relatively weak opening of the movie in May
worried officials at Paramount Pictures.

Scientology scouting ?

MSNBC June 10, 2006 By Rebekah van Druten

For a brief moment in time, Suri Cruise was the most famous baby in the world.

Of course, that title now belongs to Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt.

But Hollywood heavyweights Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes don't seem to mind.

The soon-to-be wed couple have reportedly congratulated Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt on the newest addition to their family and Tom's personally invited them to visit the Church of Scientology when they return to LA (which some say will be sooner, rather than later).

"Even though they've know Tom for years, Cruise was the last person Brad and Angelina expected a call from. Tom's got babies on the brain. He's still euphoric over the birth of his new girl Suri. He got so caught up in the excitement ... he made the call."

Tom Cruise Attempts to Convert Angelina Jolie to Scientology ?

www.nationalledger.com Jun 9, 2006 By Jennifer Cox

A new report claims Tom Cruise is set to try and convert new mom Angelina Jolie to Scientology. The Mission Impossible actor may be on an impossible mission Hal Lifson writes.

Cruise Attempts to Convert Angelina Jolie to Scientology?

According to Lifson, Tom Cruise personally called Angelina and Brad Pitt in Africa to congratulate them on the birth of their baby last week the report in the Enquirer states.

And here’s the kicker. Tom invited Angie and Brad to visit the Church of Scientology in Beverly Hills once they make their way back to the states.

***

“Even though they’ve know tom for years, Cruise was the last person Brad and Angelina expected a call from,” an insider told the weekly tabloid.

“Tom’s got babies on the brain. He’s still euphoric over the birth of his new girl Suri. He got so caught up in the excitement…he made the call,” the source claims.

But then – the report claims – Tom turned the conversation to Scientology. The M: I: 3 star complemented the vixen for her charity work and mentioned that the Church of Scientology would love to honor her work with a special award.

MSNBC By Jeannette Walls June 8, 2006 Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes fans may be hearing wedding bells — or maybe the sound of a cash register. The couple reportedly have hammered out a prenuptial agreement that will give Holmes as much as $33 million and that will pave the way for the two to get hitched. The happy couple and their lawyers have come up with a contract that will give Holmes $3 million a year up to $33 million for each year that she is married to Cruise, as well as a palatial home in Montecito, California, according to Life & Style Weekly. If the marriage lasts longer than eleven years, the contract becomes void and California's community property law kicks in — giving Holmes half of Cruise's rather sizeable fortune. When contacted by The Scoop, Cruise's rep declined to comment, but an "insider" told the mag that Holmes's parents had been trying to get her out of the relationship — but have changed their minds and now want her to marry Cruise. “If she walks now, Tom will fight her for custody of daughter Suri, and Katie can’t outlast him in court,” an insider told the mag. “She knows she needs to marry him to get the money to fight him for custody, if it comes to that.”

La Paramount a congédié Tom Cruise

www.lemonde.fr 23 août 2006
[Texte intégral]

Avec AFP

La Paramount vire Tom Cruise

lefigaro.fr (Avec AFP, AP et médias américains).

Publié le 23 août 2006

Après quatorze ans de collaboration, le studio américain se sépare de la star. Raison invoquée: le comportement récent de l’acteur.

«Nous apprécions Tom Cruise en tant que personne, mais nous avons estimé que renouveler son contrat n'était pas approprié. La façon dont il s'est récemment conduit n'est pas acceptable pour Paramount». En une phrase, publiée mardi dans le Wall Street Journal, Sumner Redstone, le patron du géant américain des médias Viacom, la maison-mère du célèbre studio, a mis fin à une collaboration vieille de 14 ans avec l’acteur. «Tom est un formidable acteur. Mais il est impossible qu’une personne qui ait un comportement aussi suicidaire pour son image et qui a un impact sur notre chiffre d’affaire puisse rester parmi nous», a-t-il ajouté. En l'espace d'un an, les frasques de la star ont fait de lui la risée des médias et des comiques américains.

Tom Cruise a immédiatement qualifié les déclarations de Sumner Redstone d' «outrancières et irrespectueuses». Associée de sa boite de production, Paula Wagner, s’est déclarée surprise par cette annonce et a regretté que le studio ait agi par voix de presse.

«Comportement d’abruti»

La décision de la Paramount fait suite au relatif échec commercial de «Mission Impossible III» aux Etats-Unis. Le film n’avait recueilli que 133 millions de dollars de recettes aux Etats-Unis pour un budget de tournage de 150 millions. L'attitude de Cruise lors de la promotion de ses derniers films aurait fini par affecter son potentiel au box-office, tandis que son salaire est l'un des plus élevés d'Hollywood.

«Voilà quelqu'un qui était un sex-symbol et qui ressemblait en même temps à monsieur tout-le-monde. C'était la raison pour laquelle le public se précipitait pour voir ses films. Mais en se comportant comme un abruti, il a vraiment endommagé son potentiel», a déclaré Lew Harris, directeur éditorial du site internet spécialisé Movies.com.

Tom Cruise s'est notamment distingué en déclarant sa flamme en public à son épouse Katie Holmes, en trépignant et sautant sur le canapé de l'émission d'Oprah Winfrey, en critiquant l'usage des antidépresseurs et en affirmant que la dépression postnatale n'existait pas. Il s'est également livré à un échange particulièrement vif avec l'animateur Matt Lauer devant qui il défendait ses convictions religieuses. Il a également fait interdire la diffusion d’épisodes de la série d’animation South Park qui critiquaient la scientologie, à laquelle il appartient depuis des années.

«Impatient de travailler avec tous les studios»

Quant à la maison de production qu’abritait la Paramount, Tom Cruise et son associée assurent que son avenir n’est pas en danger. Selon Paula Wagner, les agents des productions Cruise/Wagner avaient cessé leurs négociations avec la Paramount depuis une semaine car le marché que leur proposait la Paramount était moins avantageux que le précédent.

Tom Cruise et son associée ont également affirmé dans le magazine Variety avoir déjà réuni un tour de table de 100 millions de dollars pour continuer à monter des films. «Pour nous, c'est une nouvelle et excitante direction. Nous sommes impatients de travailler avec tous les studios», a conclu Paula Wagner. Leur collaboration avec la Paramount avait généré un chiffre d'affaires de 1,95 milliard d'euros.

Divorce à l'hollywoodienne entre Tom Cruise et la Paramount

Associated Press (AP) par Sandy Cohen 23/08/2006

[Texte intégral]

Le torchon brûle

Rien ne va plus entre Tom Cruise et la Paramount. Le torchon brûle tellement que le PDG de Viacom, le propriétaire de la Paramount, a annoncé mardi sa décision de mettre un terme à sa longue et très profitable relation avec la société de production Cruise/Wagner propriété de Tom Cruise et de Paula Wagner.

Le marié était pourtant un bien beau parti dont les deux derniers films- La guerre des mondes et Mission : Impossible 3 ont rapporté à la firme près de 1 milliard $ US pour cette seule année. Ses sept derniers films ont rapporté à la star et à sa maison de production plus de 100 millions $ US.

Dans les colonnes du Wall Street Journal, le PDG de Viacom Sumner Redstone a justifié sa décision par «la conduite récente de Tom Cruise qui est inacceptable pour la Paramount. Même si nous l'aimons personnellement, nous pensons que nous ne devions pas renouveler son contrat», ajoute Redstone.

Au cours des douze derniers mois, Tom Cruise s'est distingué en déclarant sa flamme en public à son épouse Katie Holmes en trépignant et sautant sur le canapé de l'émission d'Oprah Winfrey, en critiquant l'usage d'antidépresseurs et en affirmant que la dépression postnatale n'existait pas.

Il s'est également livré à un échange particulièrement vif avec l'animateur Matt Lauer devant qui il défendait ses convictions dans l'émission Today.

Mais Paula Wagner a déclaré de son côté à l'Associated Press que les agents des productions Cruise/Wagner avaient cessé leurs négociations avec la Paramount il y a plus d'une semaine et ont depuis pu obtenir un financement indépendant qui permet à la société de production d'exclure tout renouvellement de contrat avec la Paramount.

«J'ignore pour quelle raison, la Paramount a choisi de négocier par voie de presse», a estimé Paula Wagner qualifiant de «surprenante» l'annonce de Redstone. «Ce n'est pas vraiment l'approche la plus professionnelle qui soit. Nous n'avons virtuellement eu aucun contact avec M. Redstone».

Cruise-Wagner Productions avait installé son siège dans les locaux de la Paramount depuis 1992. «Nous nous considérons comme des partenaires de la Paramount», a souligné Paula Wagner, ajoutant que cette collaboration avait généré un chiffre d'affaires de 2,5 milliards $ US.

Elle a rappelé que c'est Cruise/Wagner Productions qui avait rapproché J.J. Abrams, le réalisateur de MI:3, de la Paramount avec laquelle il a récemment signé un contrat de cinq ans.

Paula Wagner explique également que Tom Cruise et elle envisageait «depuis longtemps» de voir leur maison de production devenir financièrement indépendance. «Pour nous, c'est une nouvelle et excitante direction. Nous sommes impatients de travailler avec tous les studios».

Tom Cruise devra se serrer la ceinture pour ses prochains films

bum - www.lecinema.ca - 08.08.2006

[Texte intégral]

La vedette et sa partenaire d'affaires dans la société Cruise/Wagner Productions devront travailler avec moins d'argent pour la production de leurs prochaines réalisations.

Selon le Los Angeles Times, Paramount Pictures a signifié à son partenaire d'affaires qu'elle n'allait plus accorder le budget annuel de 10 millions de dollars par année qu'elle octroie en ce moment à la société de production pour dénicher ses futurs films.

L'entente qui liait les deux sociétés vient de se terminer et le studio a décidé de renégocier à la baisse cette subvention.

Selon des spécialistes, le clan Cruise se montrerait trop gourmand au goût du studio.

Pour preuve, malgré des recettes aux box-offices de plus de 400 millions de dollars, Paramount Pictures n'aurait que couvert ses frais dans la dernière production de Cruise/Wagner Productions, Mission: Impossible III.

Le contrat de mariage de Tom Cruise et de katie Holmes

Un contrat en or pour Tom Cruise et Katie Holmes !

Comme tout le monde à Hollywood (où amour ne rime pas avec toujours) Tom Cruise et Katie Holmes n'échapperont pas à la règle: le couple, prévoyant, vient de signer un contrat prénuptial.

Ainsi, selon le Daily Mail, en cas de séparation avant le mariage - probablement en juillet - , l'actrice recevra 11,5 millions d'euros pour services rendus. En cas de divorce, c'est 20,5 millions d'euros qui l'aideront à sécher ses larmes ...

Même pour un homme qui "pèse" au bas mot 500 millions d'euros, c'est beaucoup. Si, si. Le tabloïd croit d'ailleurs savoir que les négociations entre les futurs époux ont été âpres d'autant que c'est papa Holmes en personne, avocat spécialisé dans les divorces et pas très fan de son gendre, qui s'est chargé de défendre les intérêts de sa fille adorée ...

Comme ça, tout le monde est content.

Jordane Guignon (source : http://www.telestar.fr)

Angelina Jolie et Bratt Pitt disent non à la scientologie

Source: forum ch.talk par stopsciento (11 juin 2006 - 02:59)

Angelina Jolie a été appelée par Tom Cruise suite à la naissance du bébé à qui elle a donné naissance avec Brad Pitt.
Cruise l'a félicitée aussi pour l'oeuvre charitable à laquelle elle participe, et lui a offert une "récompense" de son Eglise de scientologie (de sciento-folie ? d'escrocologie ?), mais Angélina Jolie l'a refusée.

Tom Cruise tente depuis plusieurs semaines de détourner l'attention du public et des médias de ses récentes déblatérations concernant la psychiatrie et l'éducation de ses enfants.

Il y a des savants ou des écrivains qui refusent le prix Nobel. Il y a des citoyens objecteurs de conscience, des citoyens déserteurs, des écologistes, des anti-nucléaire, des réfugiés, des animaux que l'on respecte.

Je trouve que dire Non demande du courage.

Lorsque l'on sait que la scientologie n'est qu'une vaste organisation dont le but est d'escroquer les citoyens et de leur imposer une thérapie à risque et pseudo médicale, et bien, cette manoeuvre de captation du charisme d'une célébrité par Tom Cruise était vraiment malvenue.

A mes yeux a été parfaitement compris par sa nouvelle victime.

Chapeau bas Madame Angelina Jolie

Jean-Luc Barbier

humour : un dessin de Katie Holmes avec comme bébé dans ses bras le "petit-roublard"