From an interview in today’s SKY magazine (UK):
Pukey
The studios have made more money off Tom Cruise’s mug then they’ve ever paid him. He’s worth it.
I dislike Tom Cruise intensely.
The quote doesn’t surprise me.
I’d take John Cusack over him any day.
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.
Tom Cruise is a Cancer. For every Cancer, one of the three most important things in life is money.
Personally, I’ve never seen the appeal of Tom Cruise. Give me Kevin Spacey or Jude Law any day. :drools:
Hell, I’M a Cancer, and while money is nice, it isn’t THAT important.
The line for John Cusack starts behind me, Nocturne. 
I love John Cusack.
I can’t freaking stand Tom Cruise.
What an arrogant prick.
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.
Oops, quoted the wrong thing. Meant to quote Guinastasia.
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.
He’s right. What’s the problem?
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.
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.
<sarcasm>A movie star being arrogant? Never.</sarcasm>
Studi
Let’s ship this off Cafe Society!
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.
Yeah, you can say THAT again.
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.
Golly, not only do the stars run our lives, but they manage to do it alliteratively.