Tom cruise quote - arrogance?

[pukey]

From an interview in today's SKY magazine (UK):

Stars like you earn colossal amounts of money; do you think salaries are fair?

I get paid because I'm worth it and they should pay me that much. But then I've never done work for money.

Pukey

[Danimal]

The studios have made more money off Tom Cruise's mug then they've ever paid him. He's worth it.

[Nocturne]

I dislike Tom Cruise intensely.

The quote doesn't surprise me.

I'd take John Cusack over him any day.

[pldennison]

Tom Cruise is probably the single most bankable male star in the world right now. He can open a movie for big bucks in any country. He can afford to be arrogant. Look at the way, despite the fact that it was a long movie with a huge ensemble cast, ads for Magnolia played up the fact that Cruise was in it. He puts asses in seats, and that's all that counts in Hollywood.

[IceQueen]

Tom Cruise is a Cancer. For every Cancer, one of the three most important things in life is money.

[Kayeby]

Personally, I've never seen the appeal of Tom Cruise. Give me Kevin Spacey or Jude Law any day. :drools:

[Guinastasia]

Hell, I'M a Cancer, and while money is nice, it isn't THAT important.

[BiblioCat]

Originally posted by Nocturne
I'd take John Cusack over him any day.

The line for John Cusack starts behind me, Nocturne.
I love John Cusack.

I can't freaking stand Tom Cruise.
What an arrogant prick.

[IceQueen]

Originally posted by Kayeby
Personally, I've never seen the appeal of Tom Cruise. Give me Kevin Spacey or Jude Law any day. :drools:

Barring heavy planetary afflictions, the three most important things for every Cancer woman are:
- Marriage
- Motherhood
- Money

But not necessarily in that order.

P.S. Sorry about hijacking.

[IceQueen]

Oops, quoted the wrong thing. Meant to quote Guinastasia.

[Soup]

There's not many answers you COULD give to that question without sounding arrogant (or foolish).

Perhaps the question should be answered along the lines of: "The market determines the level of salaries in this business. I've just been very fortunate."

Feel free to use that next time, Tom. No charge.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by pukey
From an interview in today's SKY magazine (UK):

He's right. What's the problem?

[astorian]

There's no law that says the OP has to like Tom Cruise. Go ahead and hate him, if it makes you feel better. But Cruise's take is absolutely correct.

If it seems "obscene" that Cruise will get $25 million for his next picture... well, what do you suppose would happen to that money if the studios didn't give it to Tom? Think it would go to feed widows and orphans? NO! It would be in the pocket of Jeffrey Katzenberg (or some other producer)!

And is Cruise holding Katzenberg's children hostage, to get that money? Hardly. Katzenberg pays Cruise $25 million because he thinks/hopes it makes good business sense. If, say, "Mission Impossible 3" earns $300 million world wide, Cruise's salary will seem like a bargain.

[Cyn]

I don't know if TC is trying to be truthful, flip or arrogant. I never thought he was all that, just a decent-looking kid, then just a tiny little man with a memorable face. I only really liked him in Magnolia as the meglomaniac: what an over-the-top performance! Of late, I do see him being justified to a bundle of money---he's public property, his life, divorce all over the media.

[Studi]

<sarcasm>A movie star being arrogant? Never.</sarcasm>

Studi

[Czarcasm]

Let's ship this off Cafe Society!

[Jack Batty]

Originally posted by astorian
There's no law that says the OP has to like Tom Cruise. Go ahead and hate him, if it makes you feel better. But Cruise's take is absolutely correct.

His ascertain that he gets paid what he is judged to be worth (by the studios) is absolutely correct. I think the issue is that some may be questioning his sincerity about not working for the money.

I can say that if someone were willing to pay me a million dollars for every post I submitted, I'd still be doing something I enjoy, but I’d damn well be doing it for the money!

Big stars who live in Taj Mahal-like mansions and own their own islands who say they aren't in it for the money always seem a little disingenuous to me.

[Ukulele Ike]

Originally posted by IceQueen
Tom Cruise is a Cancer.

Yeah, you can say THAT again.

[astro]

Originally posted by pukey
From an interview in today's SKY magazine (UK):

Pukey

In response to the incredibly arrogant, ignorant and condescending question of "How the hell are you worth the crazy money they pay you?" his statement was accurate to the point and the model of restraint.

He is not a salaried or hourly employee. He earns his keep and his check based on the direct calculations of what some of the shrewdest businessmen on the planet choose to pay him.

[Finagle]

Originally posted by IceQueen

Barring heavy planetary afflictions, the three most important things for every Cancer woman are:
- Marriage
- Motherhood
- Money

But not necessarily in that order.

[/b]

Golly, not only do the stars run our lives, but they manage to do it alliteratively.

[Oblong]

I don't see what John Cusack has to do with anything. He's not a leading man. His name above the title doesn't do anything for the studios. Whether he's a better actor, better looking, nicer guy, etc. is irrelevant to the question. Which actor brings more fannies to the seats?

There are only 2 other actors with Cruise's bankability, Tom Hanks and Harrison Ford.

They are worth every penny they get.

[Jack Batty]

... And they do it for the money!

[Guinastasia]

I'm just saying the guy doesn't impress me-way too bland.

[Otto]

Cruise

But then I've never done work for money.

Oh right, Tom. And I suppose you made Endless Love, Risky Business, Losin' It, Cocktail, The Firm, Days of Thunder and the two Mission: Impossible movies for their artistic qualities? Tom Cruise is perhaps the most overrated and overpaid actor in film history. Yes, he's inprobably good-looking, but can't we just have a picture of him in the corner of the screen and let someone who can act well consistently have his parts?

[warmgun]

I'd like to jump in here for a moment.
I've had lunch with TC and a, to remain unamed, publisher from Dallas and I can tell you he is anything but a prick. More like a kid in a candy store. Very polite, very personable. But he's human. If you had people sticking mikes in your face everywhere you went asking you the same stupid questions, you would eventually say something that would rub some people wrong. Out of all the millions of words Tom has been quoted on, you chose the ones that made him sound like a prick. If I had everything on tape that you said for the last 10 yrs I bet I could make you sound like a jerk, too.
A pet peeve of mine is people somehow thinking that people in the movie industry should (fill in your thinking here). They are not public services, they are not community standard setters. They are corporations. Corporations act in their own best self-intrest. That intrest is to make money. Not art. To that end, they calculate how much an individual can bring to a theater and offer to pay him/her accordingly. (see astorian's last post here)
John Cusack is a fine actor, maybe better than Tom, but, bottom line, he can't fill seats like Tom can. Like it or not that's a fact of life!

[don't ask]

Originally posted by Jack Batty
I can say that if someone were willing to pay me a million dollars for every post I submitted, I'd still be doing something I enjoy, but I’d damn well be doing it for the money!

$2.5 Billion dollars. You rich arrogant bastard.

[warmgun]

And since Otto slipped under me, I'd like to add that actors don't control artistic quality, the director does.
Great movies have been make on much more flimsey premises than the ones you menyioned.

[warmgun]

Um..."mentioned".

[Otto]

Out of all the millions of words Tom has been quoted on, you chose the ones that made him sound like a prick.

Oh, I'd say he's said other things which make him sound like a prick. "I'll sue someone who I think said I'm gay because being thought of as gay might hurt my image as a macho action star" leap to mind. That's not a direct quote but then I don't have a copy of Tom's filing in front of me.

And since Otto slipped under me, I'd like to add that actors don't control artistic quality, the director does.
Great movies have been make on much more flimsey premises than the ones you...mentioned.

Of course actors contribute and perhaps even control artistic quality. But that's not the point I was making. Cruise claimed that he's never done work for money. I took that to mean that he's never taken a role in a movie just for a paycheck, and I don't believe it.

[puk]

Originally posted by pukey
But then I've never done work for money.

I'd say he means he never held down a REAL job like the rest of us.

(OK, maybe not)

[Peta Tzunami]

Let's see, other possible answers:

Stars like you earn colossal amounts of money; do you think salaries are fair?

"Absolutely not. I think Hollywood way over-compensates. I'd like to be making the SAG minimum or just above for what I do--afterall, I'm just a pretty face."

"Fair? Do you have any idea how much taxes come out of those colossal salaries?!"

"No, please pay me less."

Imagine, if you will, that your job was only guaranteed for 6 or 12 months, and then you were looking for work again? And, if you're last job didn't go so hot--it's not like the only way a potential future employer will know is by talking to HR at your old company. A Hollywood flop gets plastered all over the news all around the world. People can look up the box office like checking their own bank balance and see if your last project didn't make the dinero and so goes your salary...

Are the salaries excessive? Perhaps. Ok, probably--just like sports-salaries that are in the stratosphere, but as mentioned before, salaries are based on bankability and filling theater seats. If you can guarantee to make a studio back their expense and then some, you can earn colossal salaries.

As far as doing it for the money, I suspect what he means is that he never took a real stinko project just because they offered him big money. You might criticize some of his movies as crap, but imagine what he's turned down. Probably not one of us has any idea just how many scripts get passed his way. Furthermore, he can now afford to pick and choose projects, so it's not about money...$2.1, $2.2 billion--what's the diff when you're talking amounts that high. He can pick the one he wants to do and have fun with, and it doesn't have to be a money issue...

Besides, it's such a double-standard that people criticize those in artistic fields for earning a living at "art"...the minute they start earning good money for doing something creative that they love doing, everyone seems to decide they have the right to call them "sell outs."

Have to say, that for me personally, no matter how humble or honest I like to try and stay, I'd never turn down a raise from my boss--even if I didn't feel I 'earned' it, and I doubt any of you would either--let alone announce to the world you didn't deserve your salary!

[warmgun]

Originally posted by Otto
Oh, I'd say he's said other things which make him sound like a prick. "I'll sue someone who I think said I'm gay because being thought of as gay might hurt my image as a macho action star" leap to mind. That's not a direct quote but then I don't have a copy of Tom's filing in front of me.

Hey, I didn't say that was the only thing he has said that came off prick-ish - just that the OP chose a prick-ish sounding quote. As an actor, I don't think he's that great, and there are certainly better, many better. But as a human, I find he is a great guy. So he's cute - you gonna hold that against him? Too many people lose site of the fact that 'news' (and entertianment news) is entertainment. They want controvercy. It goes to ratings and their saleries.

And since Otto slipped under me, I'd like to add that actors don't control artistic quality, the director does.
Great movies have been make on much more flimsey premises than the ones you...mentioned.

Originally posted by Otto
Of course actors contribute and perhaps even control artistic quality. [/b]

This, of course, is completely false.

[Otto]

warmgun

Hey, I didn't say that was the only thing he has said that came off prick-ish - just that the OP chose a prick-ish sounding quote.

Well, yeah, you kinda did say that.

Out of all the millions of words Tom has been quoted on, you chose the ones that made him sound like a prick.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Otto
Of course actors contribute and perhaps even control artistic quality.
------------------------------------------------------------

This, of course, is completely false.

Performers don't contribute to the quality of their own performances and the productions in which those performances appear? Are you seriously suggesting this?

[Enderw24]

Many people say both athletes and movie stars are overpaid.

Ironically, 50 years ago both groups were barely scraping by. Slave labor would be an accurate description of their situation. We look back on those times and feel pity on the brilliant players and actors of yesteryear who could barely make ends meet but would be multi millionaires today. And we look at the multi-millionaires of today with scorn. Why is that?

The thing that I find humorous is the fundemental difference between high priced actors and athletes: ticket prices. It's almost as if the cause and effect are reversed for the two. An athlete is paid based on ability and then ticket prices are set accordingly. But ticket prices stay the same at a movie and WE decide if the actor is good or not...thus justifying their price increase by the studios.

It's strange, actually. If ticket prices went up like sports tickets did, studios would go bankrupt.

[warmgun]

Originally posted by Otto
Well, yeah, you kinda did say that.

No, I didn't. The 'from' is understood (...you chose <from> the ones...).

Performers don't contribute to the quality of their own performances and the productions in which those performances appear? Are you seriously suggesting this?

So now you are saying they contribute to their own performances rather than the artistic quality of the film?
Still, the answer is no. They contribute to their own performances but the director has the final say as to how they will perform a scene. It's the directors job. That's why studios hire them. They are like conductors. Can you imagine how a symphony would sound if each musician played a piece any ol' way he or she wanted?
And as for the 'Artistic Quality' of a film this involves, (in no particular order), the: Producer, Director, Cinematographer, Editor, Screenwriter, etc...
Actors do not control the artistic quality of a film unless they are also the director.
They can affect it with bad acting and to a lesser degree with good acting.

[Jack Batty]

warmgun, I think you're making it too black and white.

A director generally won't tell an actor, "ok raise your right eyebrow on this beat, and curl your lip after you say that, and give me that little tic you do at the end." He'll just say, "play this scene as a psychotic."

That's an over-simplification, but I think you get the picture (so to speak).

He trusts the actor - his fellow artist - to contribute to the artistic value of the scene. While the director has final say on the mood of how a scene should be played, and it what goes in the final cut, the actors are very much contributing to the artistic qualities of a film.

[Zebra]

Originally posted by warmgun
And since Otto slipped under me, I'd like to add that actors don't control artistic quality, the director does.
Great movies have been make on much more flimsey premises than the ones you menyioned.

I think Tom has been PRODUCING most of his own flicks lately and he (Tom) hand picks the director and oversees the development of the script.


Tom stars in Tom Cruise movies. John Cusack stars in John Cusack movies. Tom couldn't do what John does and John couldn't do what Tom does. (John as Maverick or Ethan Hunt? or Tom as any Cusack character?)

[Tretiak]

Originally posted by Enderw24
Many people say both athletes and movie stars are overpaid.

Ironically, 50 years ago both groups were barely scraping by. Slave labor would be an accurate description of their situation. We look back on those times and feel pity on the brilliant players and actors of yesteryear who could barely make ends meet but would be multi millionaires today. And we look at the multi-millionaires of today with scorn. Why is that?

The thing that I find humorous is the fundemental difference between high priced actors and athletes: ticket prices. It's almost as if the cause and effect are reversed for the two. An athlete is paid based on ability and then ticket prices are set accordingly. But ticket prices stay the same at a movie and WE decide if the actor is good or not...thus justifying their price increase by the studios.

It's strange, actually. If ticket prices went up like sports tickets did, studios would go bankrupt.

While you are absolutely correct about how athletes and actors were basically made slaves of their respective systems (in Hollywood it was known as "the Studio System" and it took Olivia De Haviland to break that deal up; In baseball it was the reserve clause).

However there is really is no difference between ticket prices and salaries. Ticket prices are determined strictly by what people are willing to pay. Ticket prices are not determined by what athlete's or actors are paid but are determined by how much more revenue they bring the steam/studio. There are some fundamental differences. Movies play at several venues competeing against other movies, generally meaning there is rarely a shortage of avaiable tickets and increased demand can be met accordingly. However, pro sports generally have limited numbers of available seats, so if demand goes up (say by signing a margquee player), the only real option is to raise ticket prices.

A interesting question is why are more popluar movies prices the same on the ir opening weeke d as movies that have been out for a month or so?

As for the OP. Tom Cruise makes a movie and it grosses $150. If without Cruis it makes $100 million then I would sya Cruis is worth a cool $50 million for that movie. But given the risk and such I guess $25 million is fair.

[Enderw24]

Tretiak, to further that discussion on Tom Cruise's worth, did you know that he's in the Guiness Book of World Records? He has starred in five consecutive movies that have grossed over $100 million in the theatres, which no one else has ever done. So either he really is an actor worthy of the money he's making, or he's just another schmo who happens to be insanely lucky in picking good movies to star in.

[stolichnaya]

Tretiak

Tom Cruise makes a movie and it grosses $150. If without Cruis it makes $100 million then I would sya Cruis is worth a cool $50 million for that movie. But given the risk and such I guess $25 million is fair.

Well, no. First, please tell me why it's a good business decision to pay TC fifty million if you assume that he will add fifty million to the gross. That's the same return for you with fifty million more in risk. You'd never do that, especially if you were a smart wealthy movie executive.

Second, you are talking about "gross". You even said the word. Gross means before cost of goods sold. The theater takes a biiiiig slice of the screen gross. I think it's close to half. Advertising costs come out of that gross number as well. So if a movie grosses $150, it may have netted $75, and that's being generous. The difference in net in the two movies you describe is 25 million. Now it doesn't start to look like such a good deal for the studios.

The conventional wisdom is that stars like Cruise "open" a picture. They are responsible for a bangup first weekend, and then the movie floats on its merits (or sinks under the lack thereof) after that. If Cruise in a typical Cruise picture can get ten million people to come out and plunk down eight bucks, he is worth about 25 million. More specialized minds than ours have done the math.

To further muddy the waters, Cruise in particular is very popular overseas. With many big-budget films, the studios don't really make dollar one until they start distributing the thing worldwide. More influence for Cruise, more justification for his paycheck.

[warmgun]

Originally posted by Jack Batty
warmgun, I think you're making it too black and white.

A director generally won't tell an actor, "ok raise your right eyebrow on this beat, and curl your lip after you say that, and give me that little tic you do at the end." He'll just say, "play this scene as a psychotic."

That's an over-simplification, but I think you get the picture (so to speak).

He trusts the actor - his fellow artist - to contribute to the artistic value of the scene. While the director has final say on the mood of how a scene should be played, and it what goes in the final cut, the actors are very much contributing to the artistic qualities of a film.

Jack Batty, I think you are over-simplifiing.

This is the last I have to say on this beaten-dead-horse subject:
Of course I'm being black and white. Otherwise, given the state of affairs in Hollywood, we would have to take every picture's convaluted deal into account.
If a director tells an actor to, "play this scene like a psychotic", then he is not trusting his "fellow artist", he is directing! And, yes, sometimes they do say, "Curl your lip."
The point of all this was to point out (refute) the statement that actors control the artistic content of a movie.
Contribute - yes, control -no.
If an actor is directing or producing as well as acting, then they are no longer 'actors' in the context of this discussion.

[Oblong]

The theater takes a biiiiig slice of the screen gross.

That's not true. The theater pays the studio, distributor, or whoever they got the right to play the movie from, as much, if not more, than the price of the ticket. Many times they lose money on ticket sales because the studio slice is so big. The theaters get charged a fee, usually 7 or 8 bucks for each person who watches the movie.

That's why popcorn and candy costs an arm and a leg. If you go to the movie and don't buy anything, then the theater gets nothing from you.

So those figures quoted are what the studios, or distributors, get. The cost of goods sold is in production, advertising, and salary.

[stolichnaya]

Thanks for the correction- and I was being a little sanctimonious there, too. ::chagrin::

[Oblong]

Thanks for not getting all hot and bothered by it like others would.

Moral is, when you complain about the high ticket prices, yell at the studios, not the person taking your ticket. They get none of it.

If you think they make too much, then don't go. I only go to the movies now if I'm 99% certain that I will like the movie. I don't go because of an actor.

[Otto]

The point of all this was to point out (refute) the statement that actors control the artistic content of a movie.
Contribute - yes, control -no.

Which might be why I said "Of course actors contribute and perhaps even control artistic quality." There weren't even any missing words that had to be "understood." Yes, directors make artistic choices. So do actors, and set designers, and cinematographers, and sound designers, and costumers, etc. But the prettiest sets or costumes or most realistic sound effects in the world aren't going to help you a bit if the actor delivers his or her lines in a lifeless monotone or declaiming like a loon.

Anyhow, to drag this kicking and screaming back to the topic, yes, Cruise's quote was arrogant.

[warmgun]

[quote]Originally posted by Otto

Anyhow, to drag this kicking and screaming back to the topic, yes, Cruise's quote was arrogant.

IYHO

[warmgun]

Didn't mean for my last post to sound so harsh.
Peace, Otto.

[Tretiak]

stolichnaya:

I realize all that, i was just trying to make a very simple point about Tom Cruise being worth his marginal revenue product. Peace.

[stolichnaya]

Back atcha, Tretiak. God what a love fest this new forum is...

[lieu]

I've never understood the appeal of tom cruise. He was okay in that early movie where he was a pimp butt ever since then he's just played tom cruise. Always the same. Predictable and boring. Pretty boring wife too, if you ask me.

He does make money and for the life of me I can't understand it. Top Gun sucked! Why do people continue to go see his movies? Boycott the arrogant bastard. And boycott rosie too for gushing over an already too vain crappy actor. Yeah, I think the quote was arrogant but it's exactly what I'd expect from the spoiled little twit.