Right now, Paramount Pictures needs Tom Cruise. The Viacom-owned studio is dangerously low on the film industry’s most-coveted commodity: profitable franchises. Their list of controlled properties includes two recently failed franchise re-boots (Jack Ryan, Terminator), a couple of franchises stuck in development hell (Beverly Hills Cop, G.I. Joe, Tom Raider) and a pair of modestly budgeted comedies (Zoolander, Anchorman). That really leaves them with just Star Trek, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Transformers and Mission Impossible as significant players moving forward, but almost all of them have question marks. Can Star Trek ever turn the corner and become one of the mega film franchises instead of just a middle tier player? Will TMNT stall after its second installment? How concerning is it that the last Transformers movie was the lowest grossing in franchise history at the domestic box office (and by a very wide margin)? What does that signal for the shared cinematic universe they’re currently planning for Transformers sequels and spin-offs?

Mission Impossible is unquestionably solid, though. With the one-two punch of Ghost Protocol in 2011 and Rogue Nation in theaters now, the franchise is trending upwards, both in box office returns and critical acclaim. Paramount essentially has its own Fast & Furious now, i.e., a franchise finally hitting its creative and financial stride right after most observers had given up on it. It’s one of Paramount’s few sure things.

640_cruise_MI5It’s quite the turnaround for Tom Cruise, who also produces all of the Mission Impossible movies, working hard to get all of them done on time and on-budget. Back in 2006, Paramount wanted out of the Tom Cruise business. The man with the dazzling smile and infectious laugh had, through a couple of public relations disasters in 2005, turned into the man with the insane smile and laugh which lasted just a bit longer than it should. We want to like our movie stars, and it had always been easy to ignore Cruise’s Scientology associations. However, now here he was refusing to shut up about it and picking fights with Matt Lauer and Brooke Shields for seemingly no good reason, and threatening Comedy Central if they reran South Park’s “Trapped in the Closet” episode.

So, Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone canceled Paramount’s 14-year-relationship with Cruise’s production company, Cruise/Wagner, and told The Wall Street Journal (via CNN), “As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal. His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount.”

rs_560x415-140522095309-rememberwhentomcat560To some degree, Cruise has yet to fully recover. Outside of the Mission Impossible movies, his films don’t make the kind of money they used to, and studios are left wondering whether or not intended-franchise starters like Edge of Tomorrow and Jack Reacher made enough to justify sequels, regardless of how well they did internationally. However, a lot has changed in movies since 2006, particularly once Iron Man came out in 2008. Cruise’s ever so slightly faded star might be attributable to changing viewer habits as much as the fallout from his Scientology meltdown. Things could be shifting again since the growing backlash against the CGI spectacle of comic book movies makes Cruise’s brand of practical but insane stunts seem more like the work of an actual superhero than anything The Avengers have green-screened into existence (though now there’s a backlash against the CGI backlash).

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.

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.

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 got the same deal for Mission Impossible 3 with Paramount giving him $1.80 per every DVD sold (assuming the DVD retailed for $15). Better yet, Cruise was the only gross participant on the movie meaning he didn’t have to pay anyone their share like he did with John Woo on MI:2. Unfortunately, Mission Impossible 3 ended up costing $180 million to make, and grossed considerably less than MI:2, just $397 million worldwide. Still, Cruise had his lucrative contract, and in the end Sumner Redstone realized Cruise was now making more from the Mission Impossible franchise than Paramount. The fact that he was also undergoing a public relations meltdown which hurt the studio’s MI3 promotions made the decision to part ways that much easier.

mission_impossible-ghost-burjAnd then a couple of years later Cruise disappeared under prosthetics and make-up in Tropic Thunder and forced us to love him again, moving away from PR disasters to the point that not even Alex Gibney’s damning documentary Going Clear is sticking to Cruise on the promotional tour for Rogue Nation. Now, we just want to see what crazy stunt Cruise will do next, and Paramount probably misses the days when DVD sales used to be so important.  There were plans to use Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol as a means of handing the franchise off to Jeremy Renner.  Yeah, that didn’t happen (nor did that really work out for Renner with The Bourne Legacy).  Now, nearly 40 percent of the North American audience said they turned out for Rogue Nation this weekend just to see Tom Cruise, an insane number for any actor in a big movie these days.  Those type of numbers are surely very acceptable to Paramount now.

Source: Slate

Advertisements

Posted by Kelly Konda

Grew up obsessing over movies and TV shows. Worked in a video store. Minored in film at college because my college didn't offer a film major. Worked in academia for a while. Have been freelance writing and running this blog since 2013.

10 Comments

  1. Audiences/consumers are remarkably forgiving and/or ignorant at times. A lot of people don’t care that Tom Cruise is promoting a infamously destructive cult or that Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the biggest misogynists in Hollywood etc.

    Personally, I can’t stand those two actors and their off-screen lives which harm other people. I think there deserve much worse than what happened to Paul Reubens and Fred Willard.

    Anyway, maybe “stars” should be more interested in the financial arrangements of films. With that, they might actually try harder to make a film succeed.

    I still can’t forgive Tom Cruise for making Jim Phelps the villain.

    Reply

    1. Leonardo DiCaprio is a misogynist?
      I am pretty sure that most of the audience are like me: They don’t care about the gossip. Oh, the gossip does have an audience, but said audience are mainly those who have nothing better to do than to watch afternoon TV. They are not necessarily the ones which mainly buy the tickets, though.

      The scientology nonsense did make headlines, though, mostly because scientology has a very negative view on Germany. Supposedly because we are Nazis. In reality because our government refuses to give scientology the status of the church or a non-profit organisation (which would include massive tax-write-downs) and instead invests into programs which are designed to warn people from the dangers of scientology. Interestingly though Cruise does his very best to please the fans whenever he is in Germany.

      Either way, I am still sore about the Jim Phelps thing, too. Plus, MI was for me always a story about a team, not about Tom Cruise. This said…I did enjoy the last one. But then, it was very funny and had a larger emphasis on the team aspect than number one (never watched two or three). It is still not MI, but if you see it as something else, it works.

      Reply

      1. Yeah. He, Toby Maguire and a whole bunch of other creeps formed the subtly-named “Pussy Posse”. http://jezebel.com/leos-pussy-posse-in-2014-a-power-ranking-1563487359

        I wouldn’t call it “scientology nonsense”. Time Magazine did call it the “thriving cult of greed and power” and it has been linked to numerous deaths and broken families: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thriving_Cult_of_Greed_and_Power

      2. I actually didn’t mean scientology when I spoke about nonsense (I am well aware that it is a cult…the German media is very set on pointing the fact out), I was referring to the nonsense Tom Cruise is saying whenever he talks about them.

        So you issue is that a bunch of actors acted like idiots when they were young? That hardly makes them misogynist (and I really wished the word wouldn’t be used so nilly willy).

      3. I’d hardly give them a free pass because they are “young”. Also, they aren’t that young – they are in their 30s.

        The term is overused but it is fitting in this case. It is a group of males with only Sara Gilbert as a female member who go around doing the pick up artist thing and various assaults.

      4. If I understood that article correctly the whole group is a thing of the past, of a period when they were young talents. Some reached true success, some didn’t. It doesn’t sound like the group is still together now.

  2. Paramount had any reason to think Cruise could rebound, the deal would have been cut. If you consider that Paramount was reportedly offering them some $2 million a year, down from $10 million, it’s not hard to read the implicit message.

    Reply

    1. Agreed. It’s a bottom line business, and Cruise had out-negotiated Paramount to that point. His PR meltdown gave them an opening to win back some leverage, but he wouldn’t come back on such a lowballed salary. Obviously, he then set up shop at United Artists and tried his hand at being a studio chief for a while, which didn’t go so well. Now, after Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation all is forgiven, and no damning Alex Gibney documentary is going to change anything apparently.

      Reply

  3. […] system still paid off beautifully on occasion (The Nutty Professor, The Rock, Mission Impossible, although Cruise out-negotiated Paramount to the point that they eventually had to cut ties with him), but other times it either blew up in their faces (Cable Guy, Striptease, Tin Cup) or delivered […]

    Reply

  4. […] Cruise was so good at it he ended up making more off of the Mission Impossible movies than Paramount, and when Paramount walked away from him following his Scientology meltdown he spent his next couple of years as a studio head of the relaunched United Artists label. That didn’t work out, but ever since then he has been a highly controlling uber-producer on all of his starring vehicles, delivering  them on time and on budget and putting in relentless hours of promotion. This is partially why Universal’s decision to cast him in The Mummy made no sense. Their goal (to launch a new horror-leaning cinematic universe centering on revived versions of the old movie monsters) and his goal (to make a standard Tom Cruise movie with a barely-there plot stringing together a series of highly choreographed stunts) were always destined to clash. However, if Universal did grant him contractual control of the movie than nothing he reportedly did was particularly out of bounds, like: […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s