Will Tom Cruise's behavior hurt Mission Impossible 3?

buttmunch · March 21st, 2006, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Tom Cruise has a big problem. You might say, yeah, I’d like some of those problems: He’s considered the top movie star in the world (by someone, not sure who, but OK, it’s the conventional wisdom); he’s got millions and millions of dollars; he was married to Nicole Kidman; he’s having a baby with the girl from "Dawson’s Creek." Sounds good to the Average Joe.

That’s what Cruise has to count on now: that the typical moviegoer has ignored every public encounter with Cruise in the last year, and that they really just want to see his new installment of "Mission Impossible."

The $200 million-plus popcorn adventure is being released on May 5, and as an added bonus, Cruise’s baby with Katie Holmes is due on or about that day.

It’s the ultimate tie-in, and an amazing achievement considering that one year ago today, Cruise and Holmes did not even know each other.

Do you remember all those times the late wild-man producer Don Simpson used to say Cruise was a genius? He may have been right.

But back to Cruise’s problem: he’s got to sell "M: I3." So far, there’s only a short teaser trailer to go by, and the American version relies heavily on recent Oscar-winner Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain.

Hoffman looks good, but Cruise’s role seems vague. The only interesting thing about him is that he has a romantic interest who looks a little like … Holmes.

In the last few days, Cruise has hit a major speed bump in the "M: I3" campaign. Whether it’s true or not, the public now believes that he somehow convinced Comedy Central to pull an episode of "South Park" that mocked him and Scientology.

This comes on the heels of another and similar case of Cruise censorship that swept through the press: that Cruise got the producers of the film "Thank You for Smoking" to clip out Holmes’ sex scene montage before the movie was shown at Sundance.

Whether it’s true or not, Holmes has been completely absent from the "Smoking" publicity, avoiding all the premieres and press junkets.

Add all of this to the last year of Cruise-iana: his jumping around on Oprah’s couch, the fight with Matt Lauer over the history of psychiatry, the fact that Holmes — in signing with Cruise "personal" notes to new Scientology inductees — appears to have been in some way co-opted by Cruise.

The stories are pervasive, and not just in the supermarket tabloids. Michael Jackson can tell you that when you’re a punch line on a sitcom, the party is over.

Last fall, on one of those ABC comedies, one of the characters zinged by another by referring to Cruise as "scary." OK, that’s scary, if you’re about to release a $200 million movie.

Aside from the two previous "Mission: Impossible" movies and "War of the Worlds," Cruise has not been much of a box-office blockbuster.

"War," to set it aside, had the added advantage of being a Steven Spielberg movie with incredible special effects. It took in around $230 million, the same as the "Mission: Impossible" movies.

But regular Cruise dramas have had middling results. "Collateral," "The Last Samurai" and "Vanilla Sky" were each $100 million movies. Of course, you have to remember that Cruise likely got $20 million off the gross on those. That doesn’t leave much of a profit margin.

So "M: I3" suddenly takes on a new importance. Sometime in the next nine days, a PR machine is going to have to rev up. Cruise will be forced to come into full view and submit himself to a lot of questions posed by strangers. You may recall that last year, one of those strangers, quite rudely, squirted him in the face with a water pistol. Cruise responded angrily.

The episode revealed a small tear in his armor. And that was just three weeks after "Oprah," and a few days before the fight with Lauer (my guess is we won’t be seeing a "Mission: Impossible" segment on the "Today" show.)

If the "South Park" business and the missing "Smoking" clip are just the beginning, then either Cruise has to learn to find a new way to deal with the public while he’s out promoting "M: I3," or Hoffman is going to find himself doing more publicity than ever this spring.

foxnews.com

Hahahahahaahaha...Tomthumb is going down! Karma is a bitch, baby!

CherryDarling · March 21st, 2006, 11:51 AM

MI-3 is gonna tank....ta ta Tom Terrific!

hello · March 21st, 2006, 11:52 AM

MJ is getting his guest room ready!

moomies · March 21st, 2006, 11:52 AM

I really can't understand what good it will do TomKat to have the baby on the exact same day the movie will be released. Is that supposed to somehow make the "average" movie goers want to see it? I think that a lot of ppl (who are not so ignorant to the fact Tommy boy is just a little too crazy, arrogant, controlling etc) will just be really peeved that the birth was unnaturally planned this way. Like when you are preggers, your doc might give you a due date but it's not always that you give birth on that exact day.
I think we the gossipers need to spread the knowledge to those who are not aware that Tommy got the SP episode cancelled and that the sex scene of Katie's edited out from the movie and all other crazy stuff he's done in the past from dissing Brook Sheilds to calling Matt Lauer glib and jumping up and down on Oprah's couch proclaiming "love". I think that pretty much sums it up.

ps. Calendargurl had a link to a boycott IM:3 petition. It's in one of the threads on this forum, if you are interested!

buttmunch · March 21st, 2006, 11:53 AM

And to think they went to all that trouble picking out the perfect pillow. They could have the baby on the red carpet at the premier and I don't think it'll make one bit of difference. Then again, we shouldn't underestimate the gullability of the movie-going public just yet.

Bellatheball · March 21st, 2006, 12:09 PM

Did anyone here watch Dancing with the Stars? Bruno told the winner, Drew Lachey, that he was as reliable as Tom Cruise at the box office. Did anyone catch Drew's reaction? It was like he wasn't sure if that was a compliment or not. Even my husband (who pays no attention to celeb gossip) caught it. Hopefully Tom's craziness isn't lost on the Average American and this movie will tank because of it.

buttmunch · March 21st, 2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Do I need to feel bad for Philip Seymour Hoffman (whom I adore) if the movie tanks because of Tiny Tom? Or does he get paid what he gets paid regardless? Is it just the movie makers who suffer if a movie tanks? (Aside from an actor's reputation, that is).

The lovely, wonderful Philip Seymour probably got a paycheck. The people who will suffer from this movie tanking are the producers and Tom Cruise. He takes major points on the gross, though, so the producers will get hurt the most. And although that sucks for them, it will make other producers think twice before getting involved with Tom Thumb.

LynnieD · March 21st, 2006, 01:19 PM

Question: Will Tom Cruise's behavior hurt Mission Impossible 3?

Answer: If there is a god

Teceth · March 21st, 2006, 01:56 PM

If Titty-baby Tom really thought the baby was going to be born on the same day as his movie opened, he have Katie abort so he wouldn't be upstaged. He is such a fuckclown.

limey · March 21st, 2006, 02:06 PM

When did Tom and Katie announce that she was pregnant? I've totally lost track of the details of this pregnancy! I was under the impression that they announced it in or around May of last year, maybe I'm wrong. If I'm right, that's a pretty long pregnancy! LOL

I thought I read somewhere just a few days ago that she was going to give birth in the next few weeks. But like I said, the whole sad saga has become a twisted mess to me.

sluce · March 21st, 2006, 02:22 PM

I went to the movies this past weekend and saw the trailer. While it was showing people in the audience were booing and yelling Tom's a freak. It was funny! I just hope the public does stay away from anything related to Tom but I fear the group that will go see MI:3, teenage boys, won't care. They just want to see the stunts and the violence.

darksithbunny · March 21st, 2006, 03:10 PM

It's gonna blow. Just like Tom. opps.

A*O · March 21st, 2006, 03:32 PM

They announced the pregnancy last October, but were very careful not to divulge how far along she was, nor the due date. Most people think it's due around now. If she does spawn earlier than May she will disappear from public view to "rest" and then magically reappear for the MI3 premier with her "new" baby (which will probably be around 6 weeks old by then).

What the Poison Dwarf does not seem to understand is that when you concoct a whole web of deceit and lies, sooner or later you are going to get caught out - badly. Every single article we read about TomKat (and not just in the gossmags, in the mainstream press too) is openly mocking of this whole charade. Nobody on the planet can seriously believe the spin that Tom and his people are desperately trying to put on it. If MI3 does tank then I doubt Tom will care very much - he's not exactly banking on it to pay off the car loan is he. Whether he ever works again is another matter.

Lani · March 21st, 2006, 04:39 PM

The only reason War of the Worlds did as well as it did after the revealing of Tom Cruise the hyper posessive scientologist condesending freak is because its a Speilburg movie.

With Mission Impossible, most people were saying to being with 'why?', then the Tom thing happens and the stories of him taking Scarlett to see the top heads of Scientology and Katie and all that shit came out. Cant see the franchise having enough of a hold on its fans to have them bush off all the hoopla thats been created away from the movie itself.

GoldDust77 · March 21st, 2006, 04:58 PM

I thought they announced the pregnancy in August or September. Then in October, was when that picture was printed in magazines of her in a satin top, and she already had a "big belly" and a "protruding belly-button". In that October picture, she looked to already be quite far along--4 or 5 months along. (Notice i put pregnancy-related words in quotation marks--that is because I DO NOT BELIEVE FOR ONE SECOND THAT KATIE HOLMES IS PREGNANT. They are pulling a HUGE scam on the American public.) So, this "May duedate" timeline doesn't add up--which doesn't surprise me, since she really isn't pregnant. What this really means is that sometime in late April or very early May, Katie will be whisked away into hiding, they will, in a top-secret fashion, get the baby they are adopting (which is probably born to a poor Scientologist woman), bring it home, and then announce that Katie gave birth to their newly-adopted child, and of course proceed to show it off to the press, and pose as the world's happiest family.

Anyway, remember when they first announced the pregnancy, people were all like, "She'll probably *conveniently* be due around the time that Mission Impossible 3 comes out."