• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

TOP GUN: MAVERICK starring Tom Cruise (2020)
4 4

465 posts in this topic

On 5/14/2022 at 12:00 PM, Straw-Man said:

lar, you were looking for “boor,” unless hog is what you had in mind.  
 

i, too, have issues with his personal life, but dayum i would’ve missed some great flicks if i went with a boycott.  

Well, I knew it wasn't bore! lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

‘Top Gun: Maverick’: Jerry Bruckheimer Says Single Phone Call From Tom Cruise to Paramount Ignited Sequel

Quote

The prolific producer behind the original Top Gun attempted to get a sequel off the ground once the Tony Scott-helmed and Tom Cruise-led film became 1986’s biggest worldwide hit with $357 million in box office. But development never seemed to take off, and attention soon turned to other projects. Two-plus decades later, Bruckheimer and Scott recommitted themselves to the idea until Scott’s tragic death in 2012. While development slowed down a bit, Bruckheimer remained intent on bringing the sequel to fruition, and in 2017, the stars aligned as Cruise’s Oblivion director, Joseph Kosinski, wowed everyone with his pitch for Top Gun: Maverick.

 

"Joe [Kosinski] had a lookbook, a poster and the title, Top Gun: Maverick, and then he told Tom the journey of the character and the story he wanted to tell. Tom then looked at him, pulled out his phone and called the head of Paramount at that time and said, ‘I want to make another Top Gun.’ And that was it,” Bruckheimer tells The Hollywood Reporter.

Wow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 9:36 AM, bentbryan said:

Now that is star power 

Nah - never forget that Cruise's true star power moment came 15+ years ago.

Viacom's Sumner Redstone fired him from Paramount Studios after the Oprah couch-jumping, which Redstone claimed cost Mission Impossible 3 "$100+ million dollars" in box office receipts.

So Cruise turns arounds and effectively buys United Artists.

The man bought a controlling interest in an entire movie studio to be able to continue making movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 9:36 AM, bentbryan said:

Now that is star power 

Yeah, like him or hate him I'd have to say he is probably the most bankable star right now, and has been for many years/decades.  I'm trying to think of someone else right now that has his track record for hits and there isn't many that come to mind.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 2:36 PM, media_junkie said:

Yeah, like him or hate him I'd have to say he is probably the most bankable star right now, and has been for many years/decades.  I'm trying to think of someone else right now that has his track record for hits and there isn't many that come to mind.  

He's creepy AF but he makes great movies.  I would see anything that guy is in.  He could badmouth me on screen for 2 hours and I'd still recommend it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 3:36 PM, media_junkie said:

Yeah, like him or hate him I'd have to say he is probably the most bankable star right now, and has been for many years/decades.  I'm trying to think of someone else right now that has his track record for hits and there isn't many that come to mind.  

 

On 5/22/2022 at 7:54 AM, Chicago Boy said:

He's creepy AF but he makes great movies.  I would see anything that guy is in.  He could badmouth me on screen for 2 hours and I'd still recommend it 

That's the star power he brings. No matter his personal life (short of doing something truly criminal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 8:11 AM, Chicago Boy said:

I have his original signed contract from The Outsiders (1982?).  Never thought it was really worth much but if I ever met him I'd give it back to him if he wanted it

I had just added these two to my digital collection recently. When you watch the Making Of video and and it talks about all the stars that flew in to audition for roles, it is like a who's who of big actors.

01theoutsiders.thumb.PNG.30775542f360a38538fcab8bd7379dbb.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 11:37 AM, Gatsby77 said:

Nah - never forget that Cruise's true star power moment came 15+ years ago.

Viacom's Sumner Redstone fired him from Paramount Studios after the Oprah couch-jumping, which Redstone claimed cost Mission Impossible 3 "$100+ million dollars" in box office receipts.

So Cruise turns arounds and effectively buys United Artists.

The man bought a controlling interest in an entire movie studio to be able to continue making movies.

Sometimes it is better to research a topic than just going with some rag's headlines.

Why Paramount Walked Away From Tom Cruise in 2006

Quote

But Cruise’s “recent conduct” is not really why Paramount cut ties with the biggest movie star in the world in ’06. Not according to economist Jay Epstein. No, what really ended that relationship is that Cruise out-negotiated Paramount:

 

When Paramount decided to reinvent its TV series Mission: Impossible as a movie, Cruise not only starred in it, but he (along with partner Paula Wagner) produced it. In return for deferring his salary, he negotiated a deal for himself almost without parallel in Hollywood. To begin with, he got 22 percent of the gross revenues received by the studio on the theatrical release and the television licensing.

 

Nobody in Hollywood ever really gets “gross revenue” because the studio accountants funnel the money through various entities to work around any gross revenue obligations. Well, Cruise wouldn’t stand for that.

Quote

He insisted on—and received—”100 percent accounting,” which means that the studio, after deducting the out-of-pocket manufacturing and distribution expenses, paid Cruise his 22 percent share of the total receipts. As a result, Cruise earned more than $70 million on Mission: Impossible, and he opened the door for stars to become full partners with the studio in the so-called back-end.

Quote

For Mission Impossible 2, Cruise’s cut of the theatrical gross increased to 30% and he also got 12% of the total video/DVD receipts with no expenses deducted by Paramount.

 

If Mission: Impossible sold $320 million worth of DVDs and videos (which it did), Cruise’s cut would be $38.4 million. In return for this amazing deal, Cruise agreed to pay the only other gross participant, the director John Woo, out of his share. As with Mission: Impossible, Cruise’s company produced the film, and Cruise, who proved to be a relentlessly focused producer, brought Mission: Impossible II in on budget. The movie went on to be an even bigger success than the original, earning more than a half-billion dollars at the box office and selling over 20 million DVDs. Cruise’s share amounted to $92 million—and he was now the key element in Paramount’s most profitable franchise.

Cruise had bent Paramount over a barrel at a sensitive time in its box office lifecycle. So once the studio started recovering, it needed to get out from this groundbreaking deal he had cut. To include he had access to 100% of Paramount's accounting records associated with all his movies. So the studio accounting practices couldn't play games and convey it had lost money due to 'unforeseen expenses'.

His behavior was the excuse to break the deal. Because otherwise Paramount was locked in to this contract across all its Cruise films.

Edited by Bosco685
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 9:21 AM, Bosco685 said:

Sometimes it is better to research a topic than just going with some rag's headlines.

Why Paramount Walked Away From Tom Cruise in 2006

Cruise had bent Paramount over a barrel at a sensitive time in its box office lifecycle. So once the studio started recovering, it needed to get out from this groundbreaking deal he had cut. To include he had access to 100% of Paramount's accounting records associated with all his movies. So the studio accounting practices couldn't play games and convey it had lost money due to 'unforeseen expenses'.

His behavior was the excuse to break the deal. Because otherwise Paramount was locked in to this contract across all its Cruise films.

"Some rag"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115628557000642662

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 9:30 AM, Bosco685 said:

You just read the details why Paramount broke the deal with Cruise.

No matter how much you escalate to Mike. That fact is staying right there. (:

You're focusing on the part of my statement, tho.

It's not about Cruise being fired by Paramount (which he was, for whichever reason you believe. Please forgive me for not reading a blog post from "We Minored in Film" nearly a decade later). 

It's that - even today, in the era of diminished star power, there are still 10-12 actors who can get a $150+ million action or sci-fi blockbuster greenlit "with a phone call."

There are, however, *maybe* 2-3 with the resources and power to literally buy a controlling stake in a major movie studio.

Tom Cruise did just that when he effectively bought United Artists.

This is qualitatively different from owning a small production company - like DiCaprio's Appian Way or Nolan's Syncopy or Pitt's Plan B.

Call me when any of them actually buys a controlling stake in Lionsgate or even STX.

Cruise's star power, financial resources and Hollywood cache are nearly unrivaled. Full stop.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 9:59 AM, Gatsby77 said:

You're focusing on the part of my statement, tho.

It's not about Cruise being fired by Paramount (which he was, for whichever reason you believe. Please forgive me for not reading a blog post from "We Minored in Film" nearly a decade later). 

It's that - even today, in the era of diminished star power, there are still 10-12 actors who can get a $150+ million action or sci-fi blockbuster greenlit "with a phone call."

There are, however, *maybe* 2-3 with the resources and power to literally buy a controlling stake in a major movie studio.

Tom Cruise did just that when he effectively bought United Artists.

This is qualitatively different from owning a small production company - like DiCaprio's Appian Way or Nolan's Syncopy or Pitt's Plan B.

Call me when any of them actually buys a controlling stake in Lionsgate or even STX.

Cruise's star power, financial resources and Hollywood cache are nearly unrivaled. Full stop.

 

You actually are so passionate about the misinformation you took for fact you want to debate it? It really is okay to read for yourself. Seriously. To include the groundbreaking terms he forced on Paramount to produce the Mission Impossible films. Which he still produces. So what are you missing? Other than you misspoke, and didn't realize the producer terms he forced Paramount to commit to.

Why Paramount Walked Away From Tom Cruise in 2006

Quote

But Cruise’s “recent conduct” is not really why Paramount cut ties with the biggest movie star in the world in ’06. Not according to economist Jay Epstein. No, what really ended that relationship is that Cruise out-negotiated Paramount:

 

When Paramount decided to reinvent its TV series Mission: Impossible as a movie, Cruise not only starred in it, but he (along with partner Paula Wagner) produced it. In return for deferring his salary, he negotiated a deal for himself almost without parallel in Hollywood. To begin with, he got 22 percent of the gross revenues received by the studio on the theatrical release and the television licensing.

 

Nobody in Hollywood ever really gets “gross revenue” because the studio accountants funnel the money through various entities to work around any gross revenue obligations. Well, Cruise wouldn’t stand for that.

Quote

He insisted on—and received—”100 percent accounting,” which means that the studio, after deducting the out-of-pocket manufacturing and distribution expenses, paid Cruise his 22 percent share of the total receipts. As a result, Cruise earned more than $70 million on Mission: Impossible, and he opened the door for stars to become full partners with the studio in the so-called back-end.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 10:09 AM, Bosco685 said:

You actually are so passionate about the misinformation you took for fact you want to debate it? It really is okay to read for yourself. Seriously. To include the groundbreaking terms he forced on Paramount to produce the Mission Impossible films. Which he still produces. So what are you missing? Other than you misspoke, and didn't realize the producer terms he forced Paramount to commit to.

Why Paramount Walked Away From Tom Cruise in 2006

 

Again - not the point.

Tom Cruise, after being fired by Paramount, bought a controlling stake in a legacy studio, United Artists - to continue starring in movies.

That's f---kn star power.

That's something Will Smith isn't close to being able to do, in the wake of his (multiple) lost roles from the slap.

But...per contemporary reporting by the New York Times, it was ultimately unclear whether Cruise was fired or quit: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/business/media/23cruise.html  The result was the same - At the least, Paramount "declined to renew his deal" after MI:3 - which led Cruise to buying United Artists.

Also - Cruise's deal with Paramount for the Mission Impossible films wasn't nearly as "groundbreaking" as that 2015 article implies.

1) First-dollar gross points have been a thing since at least since the '70s. See Alec Guinness with Star Wars and Donald Sutherland with Animal House (a deal he turned down).

2) The article's also missing the obvious - Paramount only fired (ahem - "parted ways with") Cruise after Mission Impossible III grossly underperformed theatrically. They were well aware of the terms of the deal when they made it with him.

But DVD revenue wouldn't have mattered nearly as much to the studio had the film performed as expected - i.e., as well or better than MI:2. So now the studio's in a situation where a toxic (at the time) star largely kills the studio theatrical gross but still stands to profit on DVD sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 5:10 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Again - not the point.

Tom Cruise, after being fired by Paramount, bought a controlling stake in a legacy studio, United Artists - to continue starring in movies.

That's f---kn star power.

That's something Will Smith isn't close to being able to do, in the wake of his (multiple) lost roles from the slap.

But...per contemporary reporting by the New York Times, it was ultimately unclear whether Cruise was fired or quit: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/business/media/23cruise.html  The result was the same - At the least, Paramount "declined to renew his deal" after MI:3 - which led Cruise to buying United Artists.

Also - Cruise's deal with Paramount for the Mission Impossible films wasn't nearly as "groundbreaking" as that 2015 article implies.

1) First-dollar gross points have been a thing since at least since the '70s. See Alec Guinness with Star Wars and Donald Sutherland with Animal House (a deal he turned down).

2) The article's also missing the obvious - Paramount only fired (ahem - "parted ways with") Cruise after Mission Impossible III grossly underperformed theatrically. They were well aware of the terms of the deal when they made it with him.

But DVD revenue wouldn't have mattered nearly as much to the studio had the film performed as expected - i.e., as well or better than MI:2. So now the studio's in a situation where a toxic (at the time) star largely kills the studio theatrical gross but still stands to profit on DVD sales.

I have a feeling you didn't read the source of the article. That's unfortunate.

SLATE: Tom Cruise Inc. - The numbers behind his celebrity. (2005)

Quote

What is entirely lost in the fog of media gossip, however, is the entrepreneurial role that Tom Cruise has carved out for himself in the New Hollywood with the Mission: Impossible franchise. When Paramount decided to reinvent its TV series Mission: Impossible as a movie, Cruise not only starred in it, but he (along with partner Paula Wagner) produced it. In return for deferring his salary, he negotiated a deal for himself almost without parallel in Hollywood.

 

To begin with, he got 22 percent of the gross revenues received by the studio on the theatrical release and the television licensing. The more radical part of the deal involved the video earnings (the deal was negotiated before DVDs became omnipresent). As videos became a cash cow for Hollywood in the 1970s, each studio employed a royalty system in which one of its divisions, the home-entertainment arm, would collect the total receipts from videos and pay another one of its divisions, the movie studio, a 20 percent royalty. This royalty became the “gross” number that the studios reported to their partners and participants. The justification for this system was that, unlike other rights, such as television licenses, which require virtually no sales expenses, videos have to be manufactured, packaged, warehoused, distributed, and marketed. So, the home-entertainment arm keeps 80 percent of the proceeds to pay these costs. The stars, directors, writers, investors, actors, guilds, pension funds, and other gross participants get their share of just the 20 percent royalty.  If a star were entitled to 10 percent of the video gross, he would get 10 percent of the royalty, which, remember, is only one-fifth of the real gross.

Quote

But not Cruise. He insisted on—and received—”100 percent accounting,” which means that the studio, after deducting the out-of-pocket manufacturing and distribution expenses, paid Cruise his 22 percent share of the total receipts. As a result, Cruise earned more than $70 million on Mission: Impossible, and he opened the door for stars to become full partners with the studio in the so-called back-end.

 

By 2000, the profits from DVDs had begun to alter Hollywood’s profit landscape, and since it was now too complicated to track all the expenses, Cruise revised the deal with Paramount. His cut of the gross was increased to 30 percent, and, for purposes of calculating his share of the DVDs, the royalty was doubled to 40 percent. So, he would get 12 percent of the total video/DVD receipts with no expenses deducted by Paramount (technically). If Mission: Impossible sold $320 million worth of DVDs and videos (which it did), Cruise’s cut would be $38.4 million. In return for this amazing deal, Cruise agreed to pay the only other gross participant, the director John Woo, out of his share. As with Mission: Impossible, Cruise’s company produced the film, and Cruise, who proved to be a relentlessly focused producer, brought Mission: Impossible II in on budget. The movie went on to be an even bigger success than the original, earning more than a half-billion dollars at the box office and selling over 20 million DVDs. Cruise’s share amounted to $92 million—and he was now the key element in Paramount’s most profitable franchise.

Quote

In light of such a success, Mission: Impossible III was a foregone conclusion, and Paramount agreed on the same deal with Cruise. For Paramount, the economics were irresistible. According to an internal analysis by Paramount, each DVD, which retails for about $15 wholesale, costs the company only $4.10 to manufacture, distribute, and market. Another 45 cents goes for residuals payments to the guilds, unions, and pension plans, leaving the studio with slightly over $10. So, even after giving Cruise his cut of $1.80 per DVD, Paramount stood to make more than $8 per unit.

 

By 2004, DVDs were bringing into the studios’ coffers more than twice as much money as movies, and there was every reason to assume that Mission: Impossible III would sell more DVDs than its predecessor. By June of 2004, Paramount had arranged a German tax shelter that would supply $12 million and an equity investor, Melrose Partners, that would put up to 20 percent of the budget. They had also leased space at Babelsberg Film Studios in Berlin. At this point, however, director Joe Carnahan withdrew for “creative reasons,” and the movie had to be put on hold while an acceptable replacement was found, -script changes were made, and a new budget was developed. In the interim, at Paramount’s urging, Cruise signed on for another Paramount movie, The War of the Worlds. Meanwhile, the budget of Mission: Impossible III had increased to $180 million, and, in what is almost a ritual in Hollywood these days, the new Paramount studio chief, Brad Grey, asked for a renegotiation. He decided he could safely confront and play “hardball” with Tom Cruise, as the game was described by another Viacom executive, because Cruise and Paula Wagner had already signaled that they were willing to shave costs to get the project in production.

Though it also shows before releasing Mission Impossible III (2006), Paramount started trying to get out of the deal with Cruise when it realized all the money it was giving up to him (2004-2005 timeframe). Right around when the Chairman of Paramount tried to blame his behavior. Crazy, right?

The article clearly supports the original simple statement made that got you going.

On 5/21/2022 at 9:36 AM, bentbryan said:

Now that is star power 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
4 4