Paramount cuts ties with Tom Cruise
08-28-06 | 08:19 AM
#101
DVD Talk Legend
From an article in today's NY TIMES:
Movie industry executives may be forgiven for thinking that the Viacom chairman was mad to let Tom Cruise go after a 14-year relationship simply because Mr. Cruise seemed a little off balance. After all, the movies made by Viacom's Paramount Pictures studio and the actor's production company earned more than $2.5 billion at the box office.
Yet, if you ask economists and other academics that study the movie industry, Mr. Redstone's decision was, in financial terms, spot on. The best reason to get rid of Mr. Cruise or, for that matter, Mel Gibson, or Lindsay Lohan, is not their occasional aberrant behavior. They, like most marquee names in Hollywood, are simply not worth the expense.
"Who knows what went through Mr. Redstone's mind?" said Jehoshua Eliashberg, a professor of marketing, operations and information management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. "But one can't discard that the reason is that it doesn't make economic sense to pay him all this money."
Mr. Eliashberg is part of a growing cadre of academics studying how movies are made, financed and distributed. Most are finding that the studio's assumption that big stars will increase a movie's bottom line is simply wrong.
"There is no statistical correlation between stars and success," said S. Abraham Ravid, a professor of economics and finance at Rutgers University, who, in a 1999 study of almost 200 films released between 1991 and 1993, found that once one considered other factors influencing the success of a film, a star had no impact on its rate of return.
And actually, if you look at the list of top-grossing movies of all time, most were not "star-driven". (Although I wonder if the POTC franchise may be the current exception.)
When I think back on which films with Tom Cruise I've actually gone to a theater to see, all the recent ones were selected not because he was in them, but because of the director and subject matter (Spielberg, Mann).
Hollywood has always lived by the bottom line, and there is no reason to believe that this decision was motivated by anything else.
Movie industry executives may be forgiven for thinking that the Viacom chairman was mad to let Tom Cruise go after a 14-year relationship simply because Mr. Cruise seemed a little off balance. After all, the movies made by Viacom's Paramount Pictures studio and the actor's production company earned more than $2.5 billion at the box office.
Yet, if you ask economists and other academics that study the movie industry, Mr. Redstone's decision was, in financial terms, spot on. The best reason to get rid of Mr. Cruise or, for that matter, Mel Gibson, or Lindsay Lohan, is not their occasional aberrant behavior. They, like most marquee names in Hollywood, are simply not worth the expense.
"Who knows what went through Mr. Redstone's mind?" said Jehoshua Eliashberg, a professor of marketing, operations and information management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. "But one can't discard that the reason is that it doesn't make economic sense to pay him all this money."
Mr. Eliashberg is part of a growing cadre of academics studying how movies are made, financed and distributed. Most are finding that the studio's assumption that big stars will increase a movie's bottom line is simply wrong.
"There is no statistical correlation between stars and success," said S. Abraham Ravid, a professor of economics and finance at Rutgers University, who, in a 1999 study of almost 200 films released between 1991 and 1993, found that once one considered other factors influencing the success of a film, a star had no impact on its rate of return.
And actually, if you look at the list of top-grossing movies of all time, most were not "star-driven". (Although I wonder if the POTC franchise may be the current exception.)
When I think back on which films with Tom Cruise I've actually gone to a theater to see, all the recent ones were selected not because he was in them, but because of the director and subject matter (Spielberg, Mann).
Hollywood has always lived by the bottom line, and there is no reason to believe that this decision was motivated by anything else.
08-29-06 | 01:34 AM
#102
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Good post marty. There's no doubt money was the reason. The deal Tom had with Cruise was beyond the realm of sane. To get a huge paycheck for each film, plus a large percentage of the box office, and on top of that half of DVD profits)reportedly, is just beyond idiotic.
That man is still
! 
That man is still
!
08-29-06 | 02:24 AM
#103
DVD Talk Limited Edition
I'm one of the many that believe that the decision was made purely because of the bottom line. Redstone seems to believe, as many others do, that Cruise's personality has harmed his box office appeal, thus making the bottom line less appealing. Who knows? Maybe Redstone wanted to let Cruise go but didn't want anybody else rushing to pick him up, so he took a nasty swipe at him while Tom was on the way out.
Bottom line is that the studios are realling hurting these days (partially because of the DVD cash cow drying up). A lot of lopsided development deals are being renegotiated or not extended. Cruise, the actor, was not let go. Cruise, the overpriced production company, was.
That being said, he is one crazy fucker.
Bottom line is that the studios are realling hurting these days (partially because of the DVD cash cow drying up). A lot of lopsided development deals are being renegotiated or not extended. Cruise, the actor, was not let go. Cruise, the overpriced production company, was.
That being said, he is one crazy fucker.
