Paramount Pictures and Tom Cruise have parted company and it would seem the split is anything but amicable, with both sides claiming they instigated the parting. So who, if anyone, is telling the truth? Let’s have a look at the evidence.
Over the past year or so Cruise has come under fire from the media, for several reasons, most notably acting like a fool while professing his love for Katie Holmes on Oprah and being out spoken about the use of certain prescription drugs. This, Paramount have claimed, has affected his pulling power at the box office and caused them some embarrassment as well. While if can’t really be disputed that Cruise hasn’t done his public image a lot of good, just how much has if affected his star pulling power? Not a lot in my opinion. Lets remember we’re talking about Hollywood here, I don’t think a few red faces is going to put a major movie studio off, only money will do that. And in the embarrassment stakes Cruise definitely takes second place to Mel Gibson.
If you look at Paramount’s most successful films since the year 2001 that didn’t star Tom Cruise, you see an interesting pattern -
2001 Lara Croft: Tomb Raider No15
2002 The Sum Of All Fears No24
2003 How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days No29
2004 Lemony Snicket’s No18
2005 The Longest Yard No12
Paramount haven’t had a top ten box office hit without Tom since 2000 when What Women Want came in at No4 (and the top film that year? Mission Impossible II.) What makes Paramount’s case even funnier is that War of the Worlds a film they pointed to as having its box office takings affected by Cruise) had a worldwide gross of almost $600m, making it Paramount’s biggest hit (based on money taken) since 1997 and Titanic. Even the ‘failure’ Mission Impossible III will almost certainly finish the year in the ten biggest earners.
It seems Paramount needed Cruise far more than Cruise needed them. A major studio needs to score a top 10 hit and without Cruise Paramount have failed to do that.
So what what’s the answer to that question in the title? Probably neither, but then it is Hollywood after all so you can hardly expect honesty. What it probably comes down to is that they couldn’t agree on a new deal and now both want to claim it was their decision. It’s like when you break up with a girlfriend – would you rather be the dumped or the dumper?
I can’t see this affecting Cruise’s career very much; although he may do a smaller film next (possibly the remake of The Eye.) Paramount on the other hand need to find themselves a major star and a vehicle for him that will be a box office smash if they want to continue to be taken seriously as a major studio.
