|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The real reason Tom Cruise is no longer 'Paramount' |
|
|
OhmyNews brief (qiang)  |
 Email Article
 Print Article
|
|
|
|
Published 2006-08-23 23:14 (KST) |
|
|
|
"They didn't fire me, I quit." Or so goes the latest spin in what is turning out to be an exceptionally ugly divorce between Paramount and Tom Cruise.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal yesterday, Sumner Redstone, the head of Paramount Pictures' parent company, Viacom, publicly humiliated Cruise by revealing that they had terminated their 14-year association with the man Paramount's own marketing head still calls "the biggest movie star in the world," reportedly because of Cruise's "erratic" off-screen behavior.
"His recent conduct," Redstone was quoted as saying, "has not been acceptable to Paramount."
Paula Wagner, Cruise's long-time production partner, fired back almost immediately, claiming that it was Wagner/Cruise that had stopped talking with Paramount and secured independent financing from two hedge funds. They found a better deal, apparently, and left.
Wagner also castigated Redstone for being unprofessional, unnecessarily personal and disrespectful, particularly to someone who has served as their fattest cash cow over the years.
Neither claim, however, can be embraced as entirely true. Studios do not typically fire their biggest and most profitable stars for their off-screen behavior. Cruise's antics, admittedly a bit loony, are in any case far from morally intolerable, as Redstone's comments would have one believe. That a citizen is fired for questioning the limitless spread of prescription pharmaceuticals and engaging in puerile public displays of affection--or for his religious beliefs for that matter--may be the more intolerable posture.
The truth is that no profitable business is in the business of cheap moralizing. Cruise is simply no longer as profitable as he once was. Faced with a slowly fading star, the studio could have done the honorable thing and stuck it out with their long-time breadwinner in recognition of his past contributions. Or they could keep their eyes on the bottom line and either reduce his cut of the take or just cut him loose altogether, while grabbing a convenient pretext that doesn't make them appear as ruthless as the business they're really in.
|
|
©2006 OhmyNews
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
How worried are you about the H1N1 influenza virus? |
|
 |
| * Vote to see the result. |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSS
Del.icio.us
Digg 
reddit
Y! MyWeb
Comments Note: Kindly refrain from personal attacks and profanity.
.jpg)
