I bet he's wishing Dan Brown had written the script now.
I live behind the times. Story was published MAY 10th, not APRIL 10th.
Please correct my error if you see the need. ;-)
There's no way that MI:III will actually lose money. Paramount will make millions, but they will be able to re-claim a dominant position over Cruise. That's what this is about.
Tom'll be called in fr a meeting and after he, his agents, lawyers etc say their piece, the PP leadership will say: "Tom, you're a Dixie Chick. Just STFU." and the meeting will then end.
Wow, couldn't see this coming. Way to stay up to date on public sentiment. This guy has been damaged goods for, what 2 years now?
And the fact that a three-quel to a remake of a TV show doesn't get great box office should be a lesson to the lazy asses in the entertainment industry.
Too bad, so sad.
People don't want to see TC jumping up and down anymore.
Sequels are not my thing anyway. Usually, they don't live up to the first. I saw the first MI -- it was ok, but that was enough for me. I would be happier if, instead of sequels and remakes (particularly the trend of bringing lousy tv shows to the screen), Hollywood would come up with something original. Seldom does.
A $50 million opening weekend is a "failure"?
}:-)4
Do you suppose it has to do with a "Tom Cruise is a nutcase" reaction? I mean, hell -- Tom and Katie and Their Strange Pregnancy" are one of the three or four current trainwrecks on recurrent display at every supermarket checkout stand. Who'd want to go watch that guy in a movie?
I'm not a big Tom Cruise fan - but is this a case of 'pile on because Cruise is a what job'? I mean, the money's not great, but it doesn't seem to be a crash - it's just mediocre. They'll make it up in the weeks to come and DVD sales? And by now, Hollywood marketers have got to realize the DVD sales are where they make their (razor thin) margins anyway.
Good News continues from Hollywierd.
I could care less about that nutjob Cruise and the M:I movies. But, I do hope the original tv-series makes it out on dvd, in season-sets. THAT I will purchase. The first-season with Steven Hill, and the remaining seasons with Peter Graves.
Spending 200 million on second sequel based on a moderately successful sixties televison series starring a cad juiced on scientology is a business model the studio might want to re-examine.
So Fox has us, FR, down to a one line excerpt now? D'ya really think that I'll 'leave' FR ta go read some loser crAP? Cruz is a cannibal. DC is a freekin' novel.
He should never have killed off Jim Phelps in the first film.
Cruise has destroyed his career by revealing himself as a controller.
Most women hate controlling men, and more than that, he's weird. The mental picture of him abusiing a young girl like Katie Holmes leaves a bad taste.
I think a lot of women just aren't going to see his movie because he seems mean.
As well it should. They allowed $150 mil to be spent making the third movie in a franchise whose previous two averaged $200 mil in domestic gross. One of the reasons Hollywood likes sequels is they have an idea of what the max audience is and can therefore control spending to make sure the movie is profitable (no matter how much money a movie makes some spend happy idiot can always make sure it loses money). They should have never spent more than $100 mil making a movie with a probable audience of $200 mil, it had pretty much the same opening weekend as the first two so it's looking like it shuld top out around the same, if they were being sequel smart they could have garaunteed profitability, but they weren't being sequel smart and now somebody has to get fired.
All of this makes me wonder if a Jewish vs. Scientologist jihad is brewing in Hollyweird.