Viacom To Make Nice With Tom Cruise
Looks like Viacom realized that Tom Cruise is a better ally than enemy:
Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone wants to be friends again with Tom Cruise.
The actor’s antics over his romance with Katie Holmes and his defense of Scientology were reasons cited by Redstone when he broke ties with Cruise last year after a long relationship at Viacom-owned Paramount Pictures.
Cruise has since signed a deal with MGM to resurrect the United Artists movie studio.
Although Redstone hasn’t talked with Cruise since the falling out, he said this week he hopes the two can resume their friendship, according to People magazine.
If I were in Tom position I wouldn’t be feeling so friendly towards Redstone after the negative publicity he caused.
Source Tags: tomkat, tom cruise, katie holmes, viacom, sumner redstone
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Gossip, Tom Cruise
62 opinions for Viacom To Make Nice With Tom Cruise
libraesque
Mar 5, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Negative publicity Redstone caused? You’re KIDDING right?
This was a reaction to over a years worth of VERY negative publicity that TC caused, in relation to the public,industry insiders and collegues reaction to what they felt was a PR sham re: his relationship with Katie, and more importantly, his interview on the Today Show with Matt Lauer. Also, he used and abused his face time while promoting WOTW, and MI3, causing both movies, which SHOULD HAVE been mega-hits, to BOMB.
He was a liability, plain and simple. And to blame the demise of Tom Cruises career , or his association with Paramount, on anyone but TC, is a delusional fantasy
Haylie
Mar 6, 2007 at 12:36 am
Take that Redstone.
Jeanette Jones
Mar 6, 2007 at 6:17 am
Tom Cruise made mire than One Billion dollars for Paramount and he was NOT employed by Paramount
Jeanette
Sasha
Mar 6, 2007 at 7:39 am
Good people always win at the end.
Anna
Mar 6, 2007 at 8:56 am
Year and WOTW did not bomb at all, it perfiomed better than expected. Mission impossible fell short of expections but did well as films go! In fact it beat international expectations but did not do well iin the US beause of deliberate boycots.
Douchebag Redstone has realised that there is only one TOM CRUISE! That he is the world’s biggest star and even if he shit on TV, HE WOULD STILL BE THE WORLD’S BEGGEST STAR.
HA HA HA …. AM SOOOOOOOO ENJOYING THIS!
Anna
Mar 6, 2007 at 9:00 am
I cannot stop myself, Brad Grey warned that old hag, theat no star will ever make that much for Paramount again, the hag thought, a script makes a movie. Bwah! Stars make a movie. What did he think? That Jake Gyllenhaal adn Brad Pitt would replace TOM CRUISE? In the words of Michael Moore, there is only one TOM CRUISE!No amount of media slur can change that.
Anna
Mar 6, 2007 at 9:14 am
Sasha you are so right, the righteous will triumph! Tom never did anyone any wrong apart from Brook and he apologised. All he did was fall in love. UA too is doing so well and is about to conclude a deal with Meryll Lynch.
I want to scream it. Stuff it Redstone, you thought you would crush our Tom, but boy you did not do your maths.
Zodiac a paramount picture opened at No 2 with 13 million. Travolta’s film beat it at 38 million, so am really wondering whether Americans hate scientologists that much.
Redstone has realised how he misfired, and how can he say he did not fire Tom and blame the media? He repeated those slurs three times! What did Tom do? Paid back in kind! Now Old hag sees success beckoning and he thinks he can easily sweet talk his way out of this. Where is his wife who advised him that all women hated Tom?
La vie est BON! DANCE WITH ME.
Anna
Mar 6, 2007 at 9:17 am
To Libraesque,
Suffer! foam at the mouth, tear out your hair, kick scream and go take some prozac or methodone or both! You’ve earned it!
bumblebee
Mar 6, 2007 at 9:55 am
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?me…&subID=1499
The restart of a beautiful friendship?
They should have driven a stake through his heart. Just six months after Tom Cruise, who once played the vampire Lestat, was apparently killed off by the head of Paramount Studios and dismissed as history by Hollywood pundits, he’s back, undead and more powerful than ever.
So powerful, in fact, that the man who caused a furore in Hollywood last August by cancelling Cruise’s $10m-a-year production deal with Paramount now wants to be friends again.
Back in August, Sumner Redstone (right, with Cruise), the elderly chairman of Viacom, which owns Paramount, called the actor’s behaviour “inappropriate” and said “his recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount”.
He was referring to Cruise’s proselytising for the Church of Scientology, his denunciations of psychiatry and his notorious ‘couch- jumping’ on the Oprah Winfrey Show when he declared his love for his fiancee - now wife - Katie Holmes.
Redstone blamed those incidents, which caused Cruise to plummet in the public’s affections, for what many saw as the weak box-office performance of Mission: impossible: III, which grossed just $134m in the US, $81m less than the previous film in the series.
The dumping of Cruise made headlines worldwide - but the star wasn’t down for long. In November, in a move which surprised many in Hollywood, Cruise and Paula Wagner, his producing partner, took control of United Artists, the venerable movie studio started in 1919 by actors Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and director DW Griffiths.
In return for running UA and producing around five films a year for it, Cruise and Wagner were givena 33 per cent stake in the studio. They have now started shooting their first film, a $35m thriller called Lions for Lambs, directed by Robert Redford and starring Cruise, Redford and Meryl Streep. And Redstone, seeing one of Hollywood’s top stars back on top, is now claiming his split with Cruise was all a bit of a mix-up.
Talking to People magazine, he said: “What happened was I gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal. In the course of it they asked me what was going on. I said, ‘You know, he would no longer be in the lot.’ They treated that like I was firing him. I didn’t fire him! I had nothing to do with it. But they treated it explosively. And I didn’t like it.”
This is not how Hollywood insiders see it. They say the complaints about Cruise’s personal life were a cover. Redstone wanted to take on Tinseltown’s high-priced ‘talent’ and the powerful agencies like CAA (the Creative Artists Agency) which had long represented Cruise. Paramount barely broke even on Mission: impossible: III, yet Cruise’s lavish production deal meant that he made around $70m from the film.
The man who stepped in and saved Cruise’s reputation was Harry Evans Sloan, who runs MGM, which owns United Artists. Sloan believes Cruise and Wagner can restore the fortunes of UA, which was once known for films like Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz and Annie Hall, but has recently limped along on profits from the Bond films.
Tom Cruise remains one of the biggest box-office draws in Hollywood history; films he starred in, including Mission: impossible and Collateral, generated more than $2.5bn for Paramount during his 14 years at the studio. Sloan knows that, and it looks like Redstone has suddenly remembered it too.
bumblebee
Mar 6, 2007 at 10:03 am
Even more good news for Tom and United Artists:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-crui…1&cset=true
Cruise’s unit at MGM near funding deal
Merrill Lynch may invest $500 million in UA
By Claudia Eller, Times Staff Writer
February 27, 2007
Wall Street may be ready to show Tom Cruise the money.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.’s long dormant United Artists movie unit — which Cruise and his producing partner are attempting to resuscitate — is close to raising about $500 million to finance a slate of movies over the next few years.
The money would pay the cost of making prints of the films and advertising them, as well as the cost of making them.
People close to the talks cautioned that the deal with expected lead investment bank Merrill Lynch wasn’t final, and that terms were still being negotiated. They said an agreement could take an additional 10 days to two weeks to complete.
“We expect to announce full funding for UA shortly,” MGM Chairman Harry Sloan said in an interview. He declined to elaborate.
Sloan struck a deal in November with Cruise and longtime associate Paula Wagner to try to return the UA label to its historical roots as an artist-driven production company in which actors, screenwriters, directors and producers are free to make movies outside the more restrictive studio system. The agreement came two months after Cruise and Wagner were cut loose by Paramount Pictures, where for more than a decade they enjoyed one of the most lucrative production deals in the business.
Sloan’s plan to use a star of Cruise’s stature to revive UA harked back to the studio’s founding in 1919. Silent film icons Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and director D.W. Griffith formed the studio as a way to give artists creative freedom and ownership in their films.
If Sloan makes a deal to raise the money, UA would become the latest in a long line of Hollywood production companies and studios to tap Wall Street financing to help bankroll their annual output of movies.
This trend, accounting for billions of dollars in recent years, has occurred as stars and filmmakers are being squeezed by studios intent on slashing production and marketing costs. As a result, much of the financing from investment banks, private equity firms and hedge funds is going into the projects of Hollywood’s most bankable talent, providing significant autonomy to those players.
In the UA deal, Merrill Lynch is expected to enlist other banks to supply some of the financing, a combination of equity and debt. In recent years, the investment bank has been active in backing slates of movies by other studios and independent producers including Paramount Pictures, Marvel Entertainment and Montecito Picture Co., headed by director Ivan Reitman and former Universal Pictures Chairman Tom Pollock.
Sloan has said that he wants UA to stand apart from MGM as an autonomous production unit, with its own film financing and bank credit lines. He believes that by building UA as a separate asset, MGM could someday spin it off to the public or sell the label to a bigger media company.
UA’s business plan calls for MGM, which owns 65% of the unit — the remainder is held by Cruise and Wagner — to market and distribute at least four of the production firm’s films a year.
Cruise and Wagner, who operate UA on the 11th floor of the MGM Tower in Century City, have the power to give the green light for production to any movie costing as much as $50 million without MGM’s consent.
Its first production, “Lions for Lambs,” could serve as a model for some of the studio’s productions. Directed by Robert Redford, who also stars with Cruise and Meryl Streep, the film is being shot with funding from MGM.
A political drama set in Afghanistan and written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, “Lions for Lambs” tells three interconnected stories in which Cruise plays a congressman, Streep an investigative reporter and Redford an idealistic professor whose former student is a soldier wounded behind enemy lines.
Despite boasting top stars and an Oscar-winning director, the film’s budget is $35 million — significantly lower than what similar high-profile movies cost when made by a major studio.
Sources familiar with the film’s economics said Cruise, Streep and Redford agreed to defer most of their usual upfront fees in exchange for a cut of the profit after MGM recoups its production and marketing costs. MGM is expected to release the movie in the U.S. in early November and handle its international sales.
bumblebee
Mar 6, 2007 at 10:04 am
To Libra… looks like your Hollywood insiders missed these news, huh?
Leah
Mar 6, 2007 at 10:11 am
Yeah how convenient that thse bloggers have also missed all these juicy details. Another Article is here.
ARTICLE;
The restart of a beautiful friendship?
They should have driven a stake through his heart. Just six months after Tom Cruise, who once played the vampire Lestat, was apparently killed off by the head of Paramount Studios and dismissed as history by Hollywood pundits, he’s back, undead and more powerful than ever.
So powerful, in fact, that the man who caused a furore in Hollywood last August by cancelling Cruise’s $10m-a-year production deal with Paramount now wants to be friends again.
Back in August, Sumner Redstone (right, with Cruise), the elderly chairman of Viacom, which owns Paramount, called the actor’s behaviour “inappropriate” and said “his recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount”.
He was referring to Cruise’s proselytising for the Church of Scientology, his denunciations of psychiatry and his notorious ‘couch- jumping’ on the Oprah Winfrey Show when he declared his love for his fiancee - now wife - Katie Holmes.
Redstone blamed those incidents, which caused Cruise to plummet in the public’s affections, for what many saw as the weak box-office performance of Mission: impossible: III, which grossed just $134m in the US, $81m less than the previous film in the series.
The dumping of Cruise made headlines worldwide - but the star wasn’t down for long. In November, in a move which surprised many in Hollywood, Cruise and Paula Wagner, his producing partner, took control of United Artists, the venerable movie studio started in 1919 by actors Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and director DW Griffiths.
In return for running UA and producing around five films a year for it, Cruise and Wagner were givena 33 per cent stake in the studio. They have now started shooting their first film, a $35m thriller called Lions for Lambs, directed by Robert Redford and starring Cruise, Redford and Meryl Streep. And Redstone, seeing one of Hollywood’s top stars back on top, is now claiming his split with Cruise was all a bit of a mix-up.
Talking to People magazine, he said: “What happened was I gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal. In the course of it they asked me what was going on. I said, ‘You know, he would no longer be in the lot.’ They treated that like I was firing him. I didn’t fire him! I had nothing to do with it. But they treated it explosively. And I didn’t like it.”
This is not how Hollywood insiders see it. They say the complaints about Cruise’s personal life were a cover. Redstone wanted to take on Tinseltown’s high-priced ‘talent’ and the powerful agencies like CAA (the Creative Artists Agency) which had long represented Cruise. Paramount barely broke even on Mission: impossible: III, yet Cruise’s lavish production deal meant that he made around $70m from the film.
The man who stepped in and saved Cruise’s reputation was Harry Evans Sloan, who runs MGM, which owns United Artists. Sloan believes Cruise and Wagner can restore the fortunes of UA, which was once known for films like Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz and Annie Hall, but has recently limped along on profits from the Bond films.
Tom Cruise remains one of the biggest box-office draws in Hollywood history; films he starred in, including Mission: impossible and Collateral, generated more than $2.5bn for Paramount during his 14 years at the studio. Sloan knows that, and it looks like Redstone has suddenly remembered it too.
Leah
Mar 6, 2007 at 10:13 am
Sorry Bumblee bee didn’t see that you had already posted it. Looks like our Tom has had the last laugh.
Watch this space.
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 6, 2007 at 11:11 am
“Jeanette”, if he wasn’t employed by Paramount then who did he get his money from???? The tooth fairy???
Also, TC IS NOT the biggest star in Hollywood. Since he jumped on board the crazy train in 2005 he has bombed at the box office.
Johnny Depp is the hottest thing in Hollywood. War of the Worlds, and MI3 together grossed 367,781,000
Pirates Black Pearl and DMC grossed
845,892,000
Oscar buzz has already started for 2007, and Lions for Lambs has not been mentioned at all, by anyone in the biz.
SORRY!!!!!
Leah
Mar 6, 2007 at 11:26 am
Loser-aesque, Johnny Depp is the biggest star in Hollwood???? what a joke, what are you on, heroin, ha ha ha ha ah ahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! You are a funny one, do you read fortune magazine, he wasn’t even in the top top 5 hollywoood stars!
Did you hear any one talking about dream girls or last king of scotland at the beginning of last year’s Oscar Buzz?
Redstone told people that Cruise was not an employee of Paramount you loser.It was a Cruise/wagner Production partnership which was severed.
You are one pathetic creature! If you are for real!
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 6, 2007 at 11:51 am
You’re quoting numbers from Fortune magazine, I’m quoting BOX OFFICE NUMBERS, which proves who the public likes and pays money to go see, and who THEY DON’T
big difference.
Which makes Johnny Depp one of the biggest stars in Hollywood
Whatever you want to call it honey, HE GOT KICKED TO THE CURB
PERIOD!!!!!
He/she/they NO LONGER RECEIVE MONEY
so call it what you want
bumblebee
Mar 6, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Actually, applying that logic - Daniel Radcliffe is the biggest movie star right now. That is, if you don´t take into account that he plays a popular franchise boy. Same as Johnny with the Pirates theme, let´s see how big a draw Johnny is, when he doesn´t play a pirate, shall we? After all, outside of the Indiana Jones and Star Wars franchises, Harrison Ford pretty much bombed in the box office. Check out the box office for his simply based on his name alone films. Also compare Brad Pitt and George Clooney´s BO. Don´t even come close to Cruise. If you think an actor is over if they make less than 300 million domestics, then tell those stars to retire. MI 3 made 398 worldwide, Batman begins made 371.
But something entirely different: Libra, why are you here? Do you get a kick out of wasting your time on a has-been? If that´s so sure for you, why even pay attention anymore? But why should his fans care how much money he makes, some fans are choosing actors as favorites because of their movies and not because of their private life or how much money they make. Don´t like Cruise? Don´t pay attention to him. So hard to do?
who gives a shit
Mar 6, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I gotta side with Libraesque here though, not on everything she said but if Cruise was calling it quits because he didn´t like the offer from Paramount, than you gotta wonder why Paramount offered such a bad deal in the first place. I think they wanted to cut him loose because he was reaching too deep into their pockets. Also heard that Cruise, Streep and Redford all agreed to take a paycut for “Lions” making it cost a mere 35 million rather than the usual 100 m or short of that, if Cruise was still so big, why does MGM not wanna pay him his usual fee?
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 6, 2007 at 3:07 pm
My point is the public did make a statement based on his private life, they boycotted MI3 like crazy.
And #18, you’re absolutely right, they wanted him out, so they tried to re-negotiate the deal from something like 17 mil. to 3!!!!!!
It will be interesting to see how Cruise and his monumental ego will handle this first project. All I’ve gotta say is I hope for Streep and Redfords sake TC doesn’t have anything going on in his personal life when the movie comes out, otherwise the entire project as well as the stars will be completely overshadowed, just like WOTW and MI3
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 6, 2007 at 3:08 pm
btw, Bumble, Leah and Anna, are any of you $cientologists?
who gives a shit
Mar 6, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Well, I´d say with the low budget now they should be okay, MI 3 did still make more than 130 after all - despite boycott. I like Cruise, the actor, but I think he needs to shut up about his private life. I guess he´ll have some good restart as a producer now, but his golden days as Hollywoods biggest star are pretty much over. He´s still successful, but no more than the rest of A-list now. He hasn´t made more than 150m since the 90ies. WotW and MI 3 made actually more than the other ones in this decade but they were franchises. It depends on how many theaters will show Lions for Lambs, if it´s 3000, then I guess they make still close to 100m but I doubt Cruise will ever make a 180-230 million movie again. Unless he leaves Scientology and puts that lid back on his private life. Bathing in the attention really didn´t help his case.
libraesque
Mar 6, 2007 at 3:45 pm
#21….word
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 6, 2007 at 4:39 pm
bumble, do you feel like a jackass since you pointed out that Johnny Depp is in a franchise movie…..and yet TC WAS too with MI3
Leah
Mar 6, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Libraesque and who gives a shit(miapocca) , if his days are over, why is Redstone courting him? You think Depp is the biggest star because irates did well, My foot, that movie did well because of the script, Depp admitted himself that he lives in Spain and most of the time people do not recognise him. Biggest star, that movie did not ride on Depp, it is like saying Titanic rode on Dicaprio and Winslet.
Cruise took a pay cut for Lions because it is a UA project and he will be taking the proceeds home anyway togather with other UA project.
I am surprised you did not say Brad is the biggest star because he is atleast bigger than Depp though pathetic these days.
Fortune releases Actors calibre based on Latest movie, magazine appearance on the top 25 mags (not rags like life and style and US weekly but News week, time vanity fair etc). Box office performance, recognition in 150 countries etc, and say what you will with all that has passed, Cruise topped, richest star list, most famous star, most influencial and most bankable star and still reigns. Forbes magazine and the financial times are never wrong.
Leah
Mar 6, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Here is the article, you cow!
Forbes Picks Tom Cruise As No. 1 Star
LOS ANGELES
Never mind the couch-jumping and the
depression-dismissing. Tom Cruise is the world’s No. 1 star, according to Forbes’ annual “Celebrity 100 Power List,” which ranks famous folks based on earnings and buzz.
The less-than-scientific ranking tracks the highest-paid stars from the worlds of television, film, music and sports, said editor Lea Goldman.
“It’s what kind of currency does the star’s name have,” she said. “It’s increasingly important how they are perceived both in industry circles and commercial circles, and this list represents who has cachet in both arenas.”
Cruise is the only celebrity to top the list twice, she said. He was also No. 1 in 2001.
“He’s one of the few guaranteed bankable stars,” Goldman said.
“No one in Hollywood can negotiate the kind of salary he gets.”
With an estimated income of $67 million last year, Cruise wasn’t the top money-earner, but his couch-hopping antics on “Oprah,” his dismissive comments about Brooke Shields’ postpartum depression and whirlwind romance with Katie Holmes made him one of the most talked-about stars of the year. He ranked 10th on last year’s list.
Perennial Forbes-list favorite Oprah Winfrey, who claimed the No. 1 spot last year, dropped to No. 3 in the latest rankings. The $225 million she pulled in, according to Forbes, should ease the pain.
Winfrey’s windfall pales next to Steven Spielberg’s take of $332 million. The director-producer was the year’s highest-paid celebrity. He ranks sixth on Forbes’ list.
Satellite radio star and self-proclaimed “king of all media,” Howard Stern, was the second highest-paid celebrity, with $302 million. He placed seventh on the list, up 20 spots from last year.
Tiger Woods, who pulled in $90 million in earnings, ranked fifth, besting fellow golfer Phil Mickelson, who placed 18th.
Rapper 50 Cent never made Forbes’ list before but this year he captured eighth place thanks to his top-selling ringtones, G-Unit clothing line and record sales of more than 20 million. No other rapper made the list.
“There’s a lot of fluctuation,” Goldman said. “It has to do with what (celebrities) are doing and how much they’re getting paid for it.”
International concerts helped earn the Rolling Stones and U2 top positions on the list. The veteran rockers ranked second and fourth, respectively.
The cast of “The Sopranos,” which earned a total of $52 million for their seventh season, placed ninth. Author Dan Brown, whose mega-bestseller “The Da Vinci Code” sold a staggering 61 million copies and inspired the year’s most anticipated and controversial film, rounded out the top 10.
Brad Pitt, who ranked 11th last year, dropped to 20th place, despite his high-profile relationship and resulting offspring with Angelina Jolie.
Jolie, not surprisingly, made the list, too, tying for 35th place — with Pitt’s ex, Jennifer Aniston.
Mel Gibson, who topped the list in 2004 and ranked third last year, didn’t make it this time. Neither did Madonna, who ranked eighth last year.
Lance Armstrong, Will Ferrell, Julia Roberts and Lindsay Lohan all placed prominently last year but dropped off the latest list.
New to the “Celebrity 100″: pop psychologist Phil McGraw (22), tart-tongued “American Idol” judge Simon Cowell (29), actor Kiefer Sutherland (68) and ubiquitous TV and radio personality Ryan Seacrest (88).
Nothing in Hollywood is complete without Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie.
Hilton was No. 56 and Richie No. 95.
Leah
Mar 6, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I like Johnny Depp, but Girl you wer way off the mark!
Like Anna said, there is only one Tom Cruise, no other actor comes close to him and Redstone has woken up to this fact. It is easy to say he fallen but fall as he may, he is too way up that no amount of fall can bring any star even closer to him to threated his position at the Top.
43????? LOL. I doubt, may be retarded, definitely retarded.
Leah
Mar 6, 2007 at 5:55 pm
#21, seen the box office this weekend, guess who is on top? Travolta a scientoligist with 38 Million. Zodiac was predicted as No 1, where is it? No 2 taking home a paltry 13 $ mil. Cruise is a genius, he will make that money and more, and I predict in five years time he will be the richest person in Hollywood with UA.
Warning:I predicted Redstone would swallow his wordS, didn’t know it would be this soon!
libraesque
Mar 6, 2007 at 6:20 pm
who cares where he ends up on list, THE PUBLIC HATES HIM,
and YES thank god there is only one Tom Cruise, one is more that enough
Leah ARE YOU A SCIENTOLOGIST, just answer the question
bumblebee
Mar 7, 2007 at 8:02 am
Libra, no I don´t feel like a jackass because I was talking about star clout outside of franchises. Depp´s latest non-pirates movie made 10 million = worldwide! Cruise on the other hand made even with the likes of Vanilla Sky and Collateral more than 100 in domestics. MI 3 was a disappointment to the box office, sure… but it wasn´t so successful because, ok boycott but he removed a lot of reasons for people to boycott him. He apologized, kept shut about the Cos, married Katie and the world now knows that Suri does exist and is not some phantom. To many, she looks alot like Tomkat, believe it or not, this “there is no baby” is no more and now Katie returns to work which was also a reason why people hated him because they thought he would Katie forbid to return to work. On top of that was MI 2 one of the most despised films in movie history, a horrible flick that most likely put many off to see any possible follow up to that stinker. MI 3 is doing well on DVD now though, it was still in the Top 5 even 2 months after it´s release. War of the Worlds didn´t bomb, it was the most successful Cruise movie so far.
If Cruise is over, then Redstone wouldn´t feel the need to make nice. He´s an Hollywood insider, if HE makes nice, you can bet on him having his very good reasons.
And no, I´m not a Scientologist, I´m just a Cruise fan. I couldn´t care less about that cult.
Anna
Mar 7, 2007 at 11:37 am
Libraesque, why do you think Redstone is trying to win back Tom cruise? Because he is a falling star and he feels sorry for him? Beause he (Redstone) run out of friends to play golf and snooker with? Ahhhhhh better still he needs a liver transplant and only TC has a matching one!!!!
This is not the first time he has sent out an olive branch. Believe me, like you he wished TC was over and did his best to put a final nail in the coffin. Like they say, a true star never dies. Our Tom is onto bigger things and Redstone should take his tacky apologies elsewhere. Maybe he should raise Johnny Depp’s profile, you seem to think he is the next best thing at 45.
* still dancing*
Angel
Mar 7, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Tom is the biggest of all time and will certainly live long with the title, nobody can put it like him now with the internet download, youtube etc
Depp was big in one franchise, period
he looks more like a product now
his other movies flop.
Pitt is fade, that’s why he ain’t a movie star, more a tabloid star.
Cruise, Bogart, Wayne, are the top three movie stars. Acting is very good of course, not mutually exclusive :)
cheers for Tom, he is a strong man.
libraesque
Mar 7, 2007 at 3:21 pm
WOW, I wonder how TC would feel to know his fan base is COMPLETELY illiterate
“Pitt is fade”, not quite sure what that means but you must have missed the fact that the movie he starred in Babel was NOMINATED FOR AN OSCAR
And Anna, Redstone isn’t trying to “win” him back, he said he wanted to be friends, that he would work with him again, but NOT ANY TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE, why did you leave that part out????
ONCE AGAIN I have to say Redstone is NOT “swallowing his words”
He has NEVER at any point said I want him back, I made a mistake.
Leah
Mar 7, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Libraesque, denial tastes bitter. Ha ha ha!!!!!
I agree, though I would rather not attack stars that I do not like (unlike some people I know who spend so much time on sites of people they hate)that ‘Brad Pitt is on the fade’, even Forbes Magazine mentioned this and so have many people. Which is so sad because he was a pretty cool guy.
Babel was nominated for an oscar strictly for the picture and Innaritu’s direction not Brad Pitt’s performance, though it wasn’t bad. How do you explain his movie opening at #22 at the box office if he is such a star? He has morphed into Brangelina brand and no longer has a separate identity. Even his hair is Angelina’s hair color and has not been seen with his former friends in a long time.
But that is his business, am no longer his fan. So i would rather not comment on him. I have not visited his site in ages though after Troy, I could not get enough of him.
Am Tom Cruise’s fan and whatever part Redstone ‘left out’ according to you, why make that statement any way, and twice moreover? Like Anna pointed out has he run out of friends? No
My guess is as good as anyone’s with a shred of common sense, he has realised that ‘there is only one Tom Cruise’ and he does not even have a close second or heir apparent!
Tsk tsk tough!
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 7, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I don’t see anywhere in the Forbes article that Brad is on the fade, can you reference that please??
And we probably shouldn’t talk about Oscars, since your hero has never won one
Leah
Mar 7, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Hee… hee… how many oscars does Brad have? Tom is a great actor, no need for oscars to show that.
Libraesque are you Penny and Nicki from babyrazzi? You sound the same and are using the same computer at the same time?
Just a question I could be wrong but I checked your IP and they are similar and they are also the same as a number of ‘different’ posters on dlisted and justjared
Correct me if am wrong, it could be that you use a public computer frequented by bloggers. Cheers.
If am right, then you are a loyal brangelina fan but also a troubled soul.
Jeanette Jones
Mar 8, 2007 at 8:52 am
Poor poor naive Libraesque. Her comments show she does not read Business Journals or follow forbes Lists of Influential people - probably just reads the gossip columns and gullibly believes everything they say!
And to defend her weak cause, she is writing under different pseudonyms so as to make out that there are others who think as stupidly as she does.
Go Tom!!!! I was thrilled to read Redstone’s comments!!!
Jeanette
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 8, 2007 at 10:40 am
No, I’m not anyone but me, I have never used another screen name except Libraesque because I don’t need to. If you apply the theory that I have to make up names to make a point than that can also be said for Leah, Anna, etc…you all must be one person right? Because I notice you all suffer with poor spelling and grammar, and after not posting for a day, you all come back and post at exactly the same time………
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 8, 2007 at 10:41 am
And Leah, why are you avoiding my questions on the other thread????
Ana
Mar 8, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Libraesque, do not accuse all of us of your dastardly habits. I am Anna or Ana but if you have anything against my spelling, you are gonna have to bear with it since yours is not any better.
My question still remains, what are you doing on this site if you hate Tomkat so much? It is not like the usual blogs where you may find different threads for different stars, this one is actually dedicated to Tomkat and you hate them so what is your problem?
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 8, 2007 at 4:51 pm
OH
WOW, so you don’t even know how to spell your own name.
And you don’t want to go there with me sister regarding spelling, don’t embarrass yourself, you fool.
What am I doing on this site? It’s a public site, it’s about TC & KH. It’s called having a discussion, but I can hardly call what goes on here a discussion since the minute I ask a tough question, you crackpots run away and don’t answer.
SO, let me ask again for the 17th time (although I know none of you will actually answer)
Why did TC walk out on Nicole K after 10 years of marriage, and right after she had supposedly miscarried his first biological child, saying only “she knows why”???
Why did Katie, a strict Catholic, have a bastard baby when she was engaged for a year?
Just answer the question Ana or Anna, or Leah. It’s called having a discussion
bumblebee
Mar 8, 2007 at 7:21 pm
libra, you shouldn´t judge others not answering your questions if you don´t do it yourself.
You never answered why you defend Brangelina against “made up” tabloid claims and yet use tabloid claims (same sources) regarding TomKat.
Redstone never had to say he´s made a mistake, because he didn´t choose to get rid of Tom. He wasn´t even part of the negotiations while they were still going, Brad Grey and Tom Freston were. If he was so right, why change his story now and say he didn´t like the explosion over the mix-up - after previously claiming he did? He said “he was always a great friend and I look forward to being his friend again” - does that sound like a guy who´s through with his “friend”? Though I give you that Redstone never actually said he fired him, but rather always mentioned they (Paramount) didn´t want to renew the deal. That wasn´t “fired”, the old deal expired. If you have a limited time contract and it runs out, then don´t agree on the new terms for a new contract with the same people it doesn´t mean you´re fired, it means your deal expired. Paramount wanted to cut costs and put restrictions on their production units, Tom and Paula didn´t agree and went to set up shop with a studio that would give them more creative freedom which they found in MGM. They have now the power to greenlight their own projects which they never had while with Paramount. I´d call that a progress where creative freedom is concerned. Why can´t you just admit that?
Any comment on that, I´m just asking because you keep avoiding the question. But it is kinda funny how you retreat to attack others for their spelling when they make a point you can´t seem to counter with other than personal attacks on their grammar issues. You have yourself made an awful lot of spelling errors in these pages and a lot of your fellow critics do. You never seem to have a problem with the spelling of those that agree with you. Highly hypocritical. And since you seem to not know the definition of the word hypocrite: it´s a person who commits the same actions for which he/she judges others. It´s not a word for liar. Might wanna get that straight if you keep playing teacher around here because you keep confusing that.
RE the Oscars, you were the one to bring up Brad Pitt and “his” Oscar nomination for Babel, which wasn´t even his as an actor in the first place. So why spin now who started that? Tom was nominated three times, Pitt once. Tom won three Golden Globes and was nominated 6 times, Pitt won one and was nominated three times. So, what´s your point here anyway? And how come with TC it´s “doesn´t matter the numbers, the PUBLIC HATES HIM” and yet his numbers speak for a bigger success than Pitt, who flopped with his movie, despite Oscar nominated. After all, it´s the PUBLIC that counts right? Well, nobody was interested in that pic starring Pitt. So, really does the PUBLIC (which stayed away) really like him better than a guy who made 400 million despite a worldwide boycott going against him? Nobody boycotted “Ocean´s Twelve” but it made less than MI 3. Many actors today would kill to draw that big an audience and yet TC did while boycotts were happening. Go figure.
He may have lost many fans but his remaining fanbase is still big enough to keep him in business. MI 3 was boycotted because Viacom violated freedom of speech (”Trapped in the closet” ban) that´s a big reason why they were boycotted. That epi has been shown now. Plus, the franchise is kinda dying out (or was because nobody really liked the second part and even the first was a disappointment for fans of the TV series). Hardly some flick to judge by whether or not TC has fallen down for good now. Let´s see how well or bad his next couple of movies do to determine his future networth, shall we? He´s anything but over or MI 3 wouldn´t have made even half of what it actually did. If the world really hated him, then nobody would have watched that movie and nobody would have rented/bought it on DVD, making it the top rental/sell in the trilogy.
Hey, just keep on laughing about that but I think that TC will have the last laugh here. In the end, the bloggers are a minority of the movie going public and most ppl out there in the real world don´t even care about gossip that much.
bumblebee
Mar 8, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Who says that Katie was a “devout” catholic, do you know that for a fact? Why did TC (former catholic) convert to Scientology after his first wife Mimi introduced him to them? Maybe interest. Why did Brad convert to Angelina´s religion? I guess the same reason.
They had a bastard child because they said they wanted Suri to be at the wedding and Katie didn´t want to walk down the aisle with a huge belly. Is this really any of your business to judge them for? Maybe it happened just like with Brangelina and the baby wasn´t planned but simply happened.
And again, what makes Brangelina any less of media w h o r e s than TomKat if they share the same amount of “screen” time in the tabloids?
Janina
Mar 8, 2007 at 10:08 pm
God bless you Tom and Katie.
Miapocca
Mar 9, 2007 at 10:18 am
Leah #24:
Please note that I am just now entering this conversation. Please do not address me since i goal on a public forum is not converse with such demented fools as yourself who think that everyone is everyone else.
It seems to suprise you that people have differing opinion from your wone..this is not a cult and you have no right what so ever to make people believe the same as you so
I find such blinding idol worship ignorant and foolish. I rarely assocaite with imbecile and I will not subject myself to doign so even in cyberspace.
I do not know what your obession is with me other than that you are a scientologist assigned with teh task of policing and monitoring those who work to expose them
I am for once thankful this cults that you deligently prey on imbeciles like yourself who lack criticla thinking skills.
I have not read your posts apart form #24 since it mentions me, and I dont intend to read your posts, however be aware that id you pick on me any form , you give me the righ to attack you, a fellow blogger, which I do not usually resort to.
Now please go back to sea org and clean up suri vomit like you were ordered by your master midget..the audacity of you to even use the name Miapocca…………………
My apologies to other bloggers, but I resent those who cannot simply state their opinion but have to resort to attacking others to prove a point……
this is MIAPOCCA…I go by no other name than that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ps: I really cannot be bothered with spellcheck esp addressing such an ignorant bitch!!!!!!!!!
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 9, 2007 at 1:02 pm
!!!!!!!!!!!
libraesque
Mar 9, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Wow, bumble, where to begin
Why do you INSIST on bringing up B & A on this thread
STOP!!
And I’m seriously NOT going to re-post the Redstone VF interview for the 3rd time
Nothing EXPIRED you twit, when it came time to re-negotiate they lowballed him to get him out. Call it what you want, THEY WANTED HIM GONE, because his erratic behavior cost the studio millions.
Would you like to comment on TC sending his $cientology goons to intimidate Brad Grey when he didn’t get his way re: the contract. That sure as hell doesn’t sound like someone who was planning on quitting before he got shitcanned
And you’re seriously KIDDING about the SOuthPark tie in right???
Also I don’t know where you get 400 mil for MI3
Domestically it grossed 133, 501,348
ANd I NEVER said anything about Brad Pitt winning Oscars dumbass, why do you make shit up???
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 9, 2007 at 1:25 pm
OH MY GOD
you are kidding….How do I know Katie was Catholic??? The whole world knows she’s Catholic, she’s quoted in interviews, along with the fact that she would remain a virgin til marriage
ANd if you honestly think that someone who was raised in a Catholic family all her life is suddenly going to decide to have a bastard baby and break her parents hearts, well you’re more delusional than I thought
hahahahahahahahahaha You didn’nt actually say they wanted their 7 month old baby at their wedding did you????
ahahahahahahahahahahahaha WHat would be the reason for that??
I can just hear it now. Suri is 15 and someone at school is teasing her cuz she’s a bastard. Katie says “Well honey, mommy decided she wanted you to be at the wedding in all your bastard glory, so even though she had a year to get married so you wouldn’t be a bastard, she decided against it. Oh yea, and I didn’t wanna look fat, cuz being skinny at your wedding is MUCH MORE important that having a legitimate kid!!!
hahahahahahahahaha. God you’re PATHETIC, but always good for a laugh. Keep those “explainations” coming!!!!!!
Ana
Mar 9, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Bumble bee, AMEN!!!!!!! am still dancing and singing ‘…go Bumblee…go bumblee’ give the bitch what she deserves.
Loser-esque, I have not yet heard your explanation for your sexuality or mis-sexuality!And why Babel bombed!
Whatever MI3 grossed home or abroad, it beat Oceans 13 HANDS DOWN! So whose fans are running a mile???? Mr pussy whipped (not my words, seems to be ‘his’ new name around the internet and mags)
You are the one who first brought up your loser Pitt not us remember!
Yipeeeeee…., this is fun! Bumblebee, I wish I could meet you in person and you teach me how to slag off losers. Never mind am learning!!!!
At first I wanted Loser-esque to leave the site, but now, I could pay her to stay on! This is so much fun. I can see her foaming at the mouth.
Hee…hee…
Am actually dancing in my chair with excitement.
Hope all the spellings are correct Loser-gal!
*stands up and dances*
bumblebee
Mar 10, 2007 at 6:33 am
I don´t keep my explanations (take a look in your dictionary honey, since you´re the grammar guru you can´t really afford to make spelling errors here, don´t you think?) because you´re a waste of space. I could print Redstones latest interview as you continue to print the Vanity Fair interview but it doesn´t change that he lied, either then or now.
who gives a shit
Mar 10, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Why does he have to be the biggest? He´s still in biz, that´s good enough. Redstone isn´t kissing anyones butt, he simply said he would work with him again, and why shouldn´t he? Tom is still among the big stars, but no longer the biggest and no longer worth his former insane asking price. Gosh, you guys are all crazy here! ;-))
It´s no secret that Tom has made a jerk of himself for too long to be forgotten that fast. MI 3 opened #1 with 47 million and yet fell nearly 20 million short of expectations based on the simple fact that it opened in nearly double as many theaters than the previous Mission and yet it made 80 million less, despite tickets being double as expensive. That´s NOT a good sign!
And before anyone comes after me for saying that (Leah, Ana, bumble etc) or my spelling (Libraesque), I am a middle-grounder here. Cruise movie fan who doesn´t worship the ground he´s walking on but I don´t hate him either. Yeah, it´s possible.
Ok, back to lurking. You guys can keep one entertained, that´s for sure! ;-)
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 12, 2007 at 12:19 pm
48…exactly.
But being rabid pro-TC and Scientology here on this board, these people will never acknowledge FACTS. Like whoever said the John Travolta movie made more money than Zodiac, well, yeah, o.k., but ya didn’t happen to mention it opened in over twice as many theatres.
Bumble, I love how you avoided commenting on my post re: Katie and the wedding. Don’t think it goes un-noticed that you have no response! Nobody in their right mind would EVER believe that KH chose to have a bastard child JUST SO that 7 month old child could attend her wedding? The more likely scenario is going to be Suri asking her mother when she’s old enough “Mom, why didn’t you get married before you had me?” And according to you her answer will be….because she didn’t want to be fat!!!!!
And btw #48, the reason I mention peoples grammar and spelling is, the way you write is a direct reflection on your intelligence, and more than likely, your education level. How you present yourself online determines whether people decide you know what you’re talking about or not. Take for instance #5’s post. She had EIGHT errors, which ON TOP OF the idiotic content of her posts, leads me to believe she is not a very bright girl, most likely a teenager, who lives in the Midwest
bumblebee
Mar 12, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Or maybe not everyone has english as their first language. The internet is, after all, international. Ever thought about that?? You DO know that there is life outside the USA, right??
I gave you an answer re the wedding already. It was a DIRECT quote from Katie that she didn´t want to walk down the aisle like that, and both of them said they wanted their daughter to attend the wedding. Like it or not, that´s NOT “according to ME” it´s according to THEM. Get used to it. You´ve never proven any of YOUR claims with any more backup then most here … just “I read it somewhere”… doesn´t make it a fact either! You know for somebody who hates TC with such a passion you do a GREAT job copying the very style you hate so much “mine is the only opinion that counts” — What makes you think that this makes you any better than him? And you do buy an awful lot of rumors… rumors that have been dismissed by everyone involved. Which doesn´t really make YOUR case any more believable, despite your better english skills.
libraesque
Mar 12, 2007 at 2:46 pm
O.k., can you post the link, or just paste her quote?????
I find it REALLY hard to believe that any decent young Catholic woman with any morals at all would have a bastard child just so she could be thin on her wedding day.
That would pretty much mean that Katie went from being the sweet, admirable Katie Holmes that everyone loved, who was quoted as wanting to remain a virgin til marriage, to a low class, immoral skank, which all seemed to be achieved under TC’s influence!!!!
Her parents must be SO proud
libraesque
Mar 12, 2007 at 2:57 pm
OH MY GOD, I just found the quote!!!!
SO,…she is a whore
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 12, 2007 at 3:21 pm
OH SHOOT!!
here’s another quote I found:
The better you get to know Holmes, the more her confident smart-ass side begins to surface. When I mention that nearly every article on her exclaims how mature she is, she cocks her eyebrow and quips in her best diva accent, “Oh, yes, I’m very mature. I really should be hanging out with 40-year-olds.”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahahahahaha
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 12, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Okay, I just read something else….she started dating TC on April 18……..Wow, golly gee wiz what a coinky dink that’s the exact day they “had their baby”
what a joke this all is!!!
bumblebee
Mar 13, 2007 at 4:47 pm
WOW, you JUST found out??
Well, good morning (especially since they both never made a secret out of any of that).
LOL ;-))))))) I knew you were an ignorant tabloid brainwashee but this takes the cake! ROTFL
bumblebee
Mar 13, 2007 at 4:52 pm
By the way, how come that you sometimes spell your name libraesque and then LIBRAESQUE??? If you want anyone to believe that you use only one username, you should stick to one version as you have to type it in only once for the programme to recognize you. That is if you aren´t switching between more names. LOL.
bumblebee
Mar 13, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Come on, bite in the bone I just threw at you! LOL
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 13, 2007 at 5:49 pm
that I just found out what, that KH is an immoral whore? That she went from self proclaimed virgin, and positive role model, to an unwed mother with a bastard baby?????
bumble I hate to break it to ya, but a screen name being in all caps and not in all caps doesn’t make it a different screen name.
Tell me the truth, you’re in, like , 9th grade, right???
And are you kidding? I don’t give a good god damn if you believe me or not!! When I “talk” on these boards I want everyone to know it’s me, I don’t EVER need to hide behind numerous screen names, that’s for pussies
LIBRAESQUE
Mar 14, 2007 at 4:46 pm
#48….Babel bombed?????? You are aware that it was nominated for an Oscar right, dipshit. ANd WHY do you people CONSTANTLY compare BP & TC, this is about TC
My sexuality has nothing to do with anything
delta
Mar 21, 2007 at 3:30 am
nice site
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: