Comments on: Sumner Redstone, get off the couch

By: steve

steve — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:59:49 +0000

I’ve always liked Cruise’s work. (I even saw “All the Right Moves” in the theater, although I gave Born on the Fourth of July a miss). He can carry movies that otherwise would be dead–see Rain Man or Collateral. Cruise has a ton of successful movie-making left in him. He’s barely scratched the surface on playing villains, for example.

By: Mary Schmidt

Mary Schmidt — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:36:49 +0000

And, all will be forgiven when Tom produces the next mega block-buster…It’s all about the money, baby. My thought was the studio was looking for an excuse to “fire” him.

I do agree, however, that Tom’s audience is dwindling. I loved him in Risky Business even, (I’m embarrassed to admit) liked Top Gun. He can’t really act – but he is eminently watchable (But why do all his movies have to include a running scene?)

By: Ennis

Ennis — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:21:59 +0000

From Tyler at Marginal Revolutions, an economic explanation for why Cruise could be easily fired:

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/why_paramount_d.html

btw, I disagree that Cruise can still deliver blockbuster hits. Younger audiences at theater’s I’ve been at are pretty impatient with him – they don’t really get his appeal. And he’s become less appealing to viewers in their 40s, those with the fondest memories of risky business, etc.

By: Grant

Grant — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:55:08 +0000

Bach and Robb, thanks for adding this factor. I didn’t know about P.F. Thanks, Grant

By: robb

robb — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:17:18 +0000

Again a classic example of a clueless man being led by an even more clueless woman… thank Paula Fortunato for paramount/viacom’s blunder in firing Tom Cruise.

By: bach

bach — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 07:54:40 +0000

First, the Scandalous Smithsonian-Showtime deal, then a bigoted attack on an arguably stupid actor’s beliefs. What do they have in common? According to gossips, input from the current Mrs. R. The Showtime deal was so off the wall, so un-Sumnerish. Can it be that the ex-schoolteacher envisions herself as censor and arbiter of what our kids see in the classroom? (The Smithsonian gave Showtime control of the National archives so that to use any of its material, a film maker would have to have have permission from Showtime.)Paulita, perhaps?

By: Poustman

Poustman — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:20:19 +0000

I think Cruise has gone wacko during the last year. However, I don’t see how applying pressure on Viacom et al is extortion (if indeed Cruise did any such thing, which is in doubt.) I think it was simply that Cruise knew he had the influence to get what he wanted, so he applied it. Again, I think he’s lost it but extortion it wasn’t.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:55:27 +0000

If someone had just held your property hostage to their cult leader’s commandments, would you be willing to sign contracts with them again? Especially if, in doing so, you’d necessarily be committing yourself to leaving even more of your own wealth under their control?

I doubt Mr. Redstone gives a damn about South Park, but a movie star who threatens to renege on his postproduction obligations unless his studio’s parent company bullies another of its subsidiaries out of a behavior the star happens to personally dislike is a movie star that the studio can do better without. Being a movie star does not give Tom Cruise veto power over the behavior of all Viacom subsidiaries. Upon discovering that he doesn’t have this power by right, this year he extracted it by extortion.

If you happen to enjoy being the victim of extortion, I’m sure any number of criminal organizations would be happy to make your acquaintance. But don’t blame Redstone for reacting in a more typical and reasonable fashion, once MI3 left the theaters and Cruise lost his leverage.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:07:29 +0000

I’ve had similar experiences, Tom. The most amusing were the cellular phone company execs (men in their fifties, to a man) adamant that nobody, just nobody, would want to send text messages to anyone else when they could simply call them.

By: Tom Guarriello

Tom Guarriello — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:03:41 +0000

This reminds me of scores of conversations I’ve been in, in which elderly white m/billionaires provided “authoritative/definitive” opinions (which drove enormous business decisions) on “what’s sexy now” for 17-25 year old women. I remember sitting there in astonished horror and thinking, “well, we’ve certainly gone through the looking glass now.”