Cruise Control

(Image swiped from http://www.tomcruiseisnuts.com/)

The story about Paramount dumping Tom Cruise's production company seems to be overreported. It's so full of "he said/she said" nonsense of the "you can't fire me--I quit" ilk. Of course, since his co-producer is his publicist, she leapt to his defense and bared her teeth. The press seems split on this one. While it may be unusual for Sumner Redstone himself to alert the press, and the WSJ at that, instead of Variety, I think it was a brilliant move.

Paramount overstated the dollar amount of its last contract with Cruise's production company at least threefold ($10 million vs. $3 million), and offered Cruise a piddly $2 million renewal, which his folks refused. It can be argued that Cruise as an actor starred in movies that made Paramount tons of money. It can also be argued that MI3 came in way below expectations, and his company produced a string of flops. But the reason Redstone cited was Cruise's unacceptable off-screen behavior.

Few actors besides Cruise have been held in such high regard in Hollywood. But his last film, "Mission: Impossible III," while raking in close to $400 million worldwide, did not do as well as hoped. And, in Hollywood, you are often only as good as your last picture.

Redstone said a key reason Viacom's film studio, Paramount Pictures, did not renew its deal with the actor was his off-screen behavior.

Redstone told the Wall Street Journal: "He's a terrific actor. But we don't think someone who effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue should be on the lot."

Wow. But you know, I think Cruise is a jerk. He's become a pop culture punchline over the past year. He dumped his gorgeous wife, hooked up with Katie Holmes, who was not much more than half his age, got her pregnant, made a total fool of himself on talk shows, promised to marry Katie, but only after she'd lost her post-pregnancy weight, and months later still hasn't done so. He's also kept his daughter in hiding as if she'd shatter at the sight of sunshine.

Oh, and Katie as well has pretty much been in hiding, although her overzealous Scientologist wacko fiance has insisted she be called "Kate" now, because it sounds more mature for a woman who's had a baby. In today's world, that would make a bunch of teenagers "mature" by his reckoning. Stupid is more like it. The only difference in this case is that money's not an issue for Cruise and Holmes, like it would be for a 14 year old from East Orange or Camden. I've overheard far too many conversations on NJ Transit trains in which the teenage father refers to "my baby's mother" instead of his ex-girlfriend by name. That's really sad.

On the PR front, whatever happened to simply posing with the kid as you leave the hospital with her, the way Matthew Broderick and Sarah Jessica Parker did with their kid? The press snapped their photos then went away and left them alone. That's the proper way to handle it.

I wouldn't want someone on my payroll whose behavior is, frankly, erratic and bizarre. Let some other company deal with him. That's exactly what Paramount did. Maybe Cruise and his publicist really do have a deal in the works with a couple of venture capitalists. Maybe they don't.

But the fact remains that Redstone beat them to the punch, and now that his publicist has refused to refute the $10 million former contract with Paramount, it does leave them behind the eight ball, so to speak. They couldn't possibly accept a deal for less than Paramount offered them as a renewal, at $2 million, but they'd look really bad if they accepted much less than the $10 million they didn't refute was the worth of their former contract. It's been pointed out, but is worth reiterating, that Paramount's contract was not with "Cruise Control" as an actor, but as a producer.

Good riddance, Mr. Cruise. I haven't seen a movie of yours since "Risky Business," and I caught that on cable one rainy Saturday afternoon.

Film historian David Thomson said he thought Cruise was having career troubles based on his age and the loss of his boyish screen charm.

And with Cruise gone, Viacom could sign younger stars at a cheaper rate, he said.

"The crucial thing was that 'Mission: Impossible III" did significantly worse than the first two films in the series. I think Paramount judged that as a sign of Cruise's waning appeal."

Amen.