Tom Cruise: Lots Of Years, Lots Of Starring Roles, Double Your Money Back

Cafe Society
1

Tom Cruise’s latest flick, Edge of Tomorrow, recently grossed more than double its budget, having just passed Top Gun on the all-time list.

If he’d had no other starring roles from 1986 to 2014, that’d be kind of interesting. Thing is, he was top-billed in, like, twenty-three films during those years – every one of which grossed more than double its budget.

Has anyone else been a top-billed movie star that many times, over that long a span, headlining flicks that rake back in more than twice their budget each time?

Look at his contemporaries: Kevin Costner was profitable in Bull Durham and JFK and Dances With Wolves – but it wasn’t long before history was repeating itself as a farce, since he couldn’t break even playing baseball in For Love Of The Game, or going back to the JFK well with Thirteen Days, or heading back to the Old West in Wyatt Earp. He couldn’t break even with Swing Vote, either. Not to mention The Postman. Or…

…look, Costner’s not the point; Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford, et cetera: they failed to break even that many times straight over that many years; and not Stallone, and not Schwarzenegger; and not Redford, and not Newman either; Clint Eastwood? No. John Wayne? Nope. Reasonable people can disagree over whether Sean Connery or Daniel Craig makes for a better James Bond, but this ain’t that.

George Clooney hit it big starring in Ocean’s 11, and then failed to break even with Solaris. So he came back for Ocean’s 12, and then failed to break even heading up The Good German. So he came back for Ocean’s 13, and then failed to break even in Leatherheads; movie star, yes; return on investment, no.

Heck, forget the white guys for a second: Denzel Washington fails to break even once in a while, and Will Smith likewise, and Samuel L. Jackson too, and Jamie Foxx, and Eddie Murphy, and – dang, this has the makings of a long list. Angelina Jolie is headlining a smash hit as we speak, but her Life Or Something Like It days ain’t that far behind her. Charlize Theron? No way. Julia Roberts? Nuh-uh. Meryl Streep? Sandra Bullock? Someone? Anyone?

Warren Beatty had his Ishtar. Bruce Willis had his Hudson Hawk. Tom Hanks had his Bonfire Of The Vanities. Daniel Day-Lewis? Nine. Liam Neeson? Gun Shy. Mike Myers? The Love Guru. Johnny Depp? Michael Douglas? Jim Carrey? Hugh Jackman? Woody Allen? Russell Crowe? Adam Sandler? How much time have you got?

(Best I can come up with is Jackie Chan, but not because his schtick didn’t get old; after The Tuxedo grossed a disappointing $104 million on a $60 million budget, and Shanghai Knights likewise stalled out at $88 million from $50 million, he failed to break even with The Medallion and Around The World In 80 Days. I just have a hard time figuring out how his earliest top-billed roles did, is all.)

2

Rock of Ages?
Lion for Lambs?

Those are quibbles, though…even before the thread I thought he was the most bankable star in history, and my family and I recently watched a dozen or so of his movies over the space of a few months. Even though he mostly plays the same character, he’s still compelling to watch.

3

He wasn’t top-billed in those, so I’m not counting 'em against him. Same reason I’m not counting Rain Man or The Color Of Money in his favor; I’m not even giving him an arguable point for Interview With The Vampire.

4

And he was well compensated for all the movies he’s done. He’s been paid more for his work in Hollywood pictures than anyone else. Yeah, Jerry Seinfeld is richer, but he made his money from television. Shah Rukh Khan is also richer, but he made his money from Bollywood movies:

http://magazine.foxnews.com/celebrity/and-worlds-10-richest-actors-possibly-are

5

That’s the thing about Tom Cruise - I *want *to dislike him, but I’ve never not enjoyed a performance he’s given.

6

I don’t even want to dislike him, I like him just fine. Not a fan of his religion, but then, not a fan of any religion, so there’s that. He’s never been associated with any actual repulsive behaviour that I’m aware of. Well, there was the Brooke Shields thing, but he apologized to her personally about that, so I’m OK with it.

7

There is so much more as to what determines if a movie will be profitable or not, than the leading man.

Maybe he has the knack of only signing on to good projects?

Perhaps he knows what to look for in terms of writers, directors, and producers?

8

I, for one, have no problem disliking Tom Cruise. He’s smarmy and annoying. That being said, there’s nothing really offensive about the guy either – I wouldn’t boycott a Tom Cruise movie just because he’s in it. (Instead, I boycott most of his movies because they suck.)

But it’s indeed curious that his only real box office stinker was Rock of Ages which like you said he wasn’t even top-billed in. One thing I did notice, which is probably significant, is that he’s only averaged one movie per year since the start of his career – so he’s had far fewer chances for starring in a major turkey.

9

Like I said, though, compare him to disproportionate Academy Award heavy hitters like Warren Beatty and Daniel Day-Lewis: fewer movies over the same span, and still they can’t break even as top-billed leading men in a smaller string of films.

10

Huh? Quallity films often have niche markets and do not have a high ROI. Good actors often take on smaller projects because they like the screenwriter or director and enjoy a chance to stretch.

That is like saying McDonald’s has the knack of only using quality beef in its hamburgers. After all, that must be why they do so well–they only use the finest ingredients.

11

Legend made my teeth ache. But yeah, even if I can never see him as the character but always as “Tom Cruise”, in general I’ll enjoy the movie. Then again, I usually only watch movies (whether he’s in them or not) because I expect to enjoy them, they’re sort of pre-filtered.

12

Kind of a cheap shot to edit out the sentence that put that in context, and then slam me for it.

When I say good, I mean financially sound, as in a good return on the investment.

Either way, although there are some surprises on how well films do in the box office, there have to be people in Hollywood who are better at picking out which projects have more of a chance to make a high return.

Evaluating the other people involved in the project is undoubtedly part of this.

13

I agree. And the McDonald’s comparison isn’t accurate because, while his movies are mostly blockbusters, even blockbusters are not guaranteed to make a fortune or even break even; many of them don’t. Cruise always seems to pick interesting films to star in and while his performances are never outstanding they never detract from the film either. Him being involved generally means the film is worth watching, as long as you like action/sci-fi movies.

14

Well, look, the year Day-Lewis did a well-received biopic about a man confined to a wheelchair, Cruise beat him out for the Golden Globe with his well-received biopic about a man confined to a wheelchair. Day-Lewis takes the occasional break from top billing to get nominated as an unlikeable dick in Gangs of New York; Cruise takes a break likewise, to win playing an unlikeable dick in Magnolia. Day-Lewis got his first and only Comedy/Musical nomination for the aforementioned Nine, which failed to break even; Cruise of course won one for Jerry Maguire, which did great.

Cruise does his share of award-bait drama like The Last Samurai, and Day-Lewis does his share of comedic dreck like Stars And Bars; neither of 'em is all or nothing.

15

Except that even if a movie’s gross doubles its budget, it’s still not guaranteed to be profitable. (For one thing, does that budget include marketing expense, which is a lot today.)

16

Still, to the extent that I’m maybe setting too low a bar for Cruise, it’s even more remarkable that all the other folks I mentioned can’t even clear that too-low bar of doubling the budget – or even the comically lower bar of a breaking-even streak while he’s up there at two and ten and twenty and et cetera.

17

Up until After Earth flopped last year, Will Smith was arguably even a safer bet than Cruise. From 1995 until 2013, every single film he starred in was a massive hit:

Bad Boys
Independence Day
Men in Black
Enemy of the State
Wild Wild West
The Legend of Bagger Vance
Ali
Men in Black II
Bad Boys II
I, Robot
Shark Tale
Hitch
The Pursuit of Happyness
I Am Legend
Hancock
Seven Pounds
Men in Black 3

18

He is good because I don’t think he has ever “cruised” through a role(sorry). I just watch “Oblivion” for the first time last night, and didn’t see one scene where it looked like he was phoning it in.

19

Nothing personal, I was not trying to “slam” you for anything.

This is more in line of what I was trying to say. Cruise is good at picking projects that have mass appeal, solid financial backing, big marketing budgets, and play to his strengths as a box office draw. He seems to choose things that will make a good financial return, and not things that may be artistically interesting. Many other actors switch between large and small projects and therefore do not have the string of hit (profitable) movies.

The closest parallel to Tom Cruise’s film choices would be Will Smith’s as OneCentStamp notes. One could argue that Smith takes more chances.

20

This is an interesting perspective to read. I like Tom Cruise just fine. He’s a decent actor, and he’s pretty smart about choosing parts and movies. He’s good at picking roles that fit him well and movies that turn out pretty well. He also picks good directors to work with.

However, it seems that the common consensus is that he’s no longer a box office winner. When I googled “Tom Cruise box office”, the top 5 choices that Google automatically puts out are history, flops, bomb, poison, failure.

His movies do make their money back overseas. There will be a Jack Reacher sequel, because even though it didn’t succeed in the US, it made enough money in foreign markets.

It seems that Will Smith is often held as the last real movie star. There have been a lot of articles about how movie stars don’t matter anymore for film success. Here’s one article that talks about it, and I could find many others. But Will Smith would often be mentioned as the one exception. Here’s one articleabout how despite After Earth not succeeding, he’s the last “old school movie star.”

But when I was looking up articles about box office,I found this article in Vulture from last year, ranking the most valuable stars. It seems very thorough, taking into account domestic box office, foreign box office, studio value, likeability, Oscars, critics’ scores, Twitter mentions, and tabloid score. Will Smith is number 6, because After Earth hurt him and he fell down in ratings. Tom Cruise is number 14, with the subheadline “Americans may be wary of him, but Cruise’s movies still clean up overseas.” It also says he has one of the lowest likability scores on the list.