NEW YORK - It’s Tom Cruise vs. Sumner Redstone in a case of you’re fired-I quit at Hollywood’s highest level.

On one side is the chairman of Viacom, Inc., which owns Paramount Pictures.

On the other is the industry’s biggest and most bankable star, whose last seven films have each generated over $100 million.

Redstone said Tuesday that Paramount would sever its long and profitable relationship with Cruise/Wagner Productions, Cruise’s company with producing partner Paula Wagner. Redstone told the Wall Street Journal that Cruise’s “recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount.”

But Wagner told The Associated Press that agents for Cruise/Wagner Productions stopped negotiating with Paramount over a week ago and since secured independent financing, effectively taking any contract-renewal deal off the table.

“For some reason, Paramount has chosen to negotiate in the press,” Wagner said, calling Redstone’s announcement “surprising.”

“It’s not really the most businesslike approach,” she said. “We’ve had virtually no dealings with Mr. Redstone.”

Paramount referred all calls on the matter to Viacom. Viacom spokesman Carl Folta had no comment late Tuesday.

“As much as we like him personally,” Redstone is quoted as saying, “we thought it was wrong to renew his deal.” He then cited Cruise’s “recent conduct” as the reason.

In the past year or so, Cruise couch-hopped on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show while proclaiming his love for Katie Holmes, criticized the use of antidepressants and claimed that postpartum depression doesn’t exist. He also got into an angry exchange with Matt Lauer on the “Today” show while defending his opinions.

With “War of the Worlds” and “Mission: Impossible 3,” Cruise helped earn nearly $1 billion for Paramount this year alone, Wagner said. Cruise/Wagner Productions brought “M:I3” director J.J. Abrams to the studio, she said, which recently inked a five-year arrangement with Abrams.

She and Cruise had been considering independent financing for their company “for a long time,” she said.

“For us, this is a very new and exciting direction. We look forward to working with all the studios.”

-AP

— In June 2006 Cruise took the No.1 spot on Forbes magazine’s annual list of the world’s 100 most powerful stars. In the last 10 years all but one of his movies have grossed more than $200 million worldwide. His top-grossing movie was ”War of the Worlds” (2005), which topped $590 million around the world.

— In May 2006, a USA/Today poll showed his public approval rating had slipped to 35 percent. Many of those polled cited his blunt criticism of actress Brooke Shield’s treatment for depression and of psychiatry in general.

— In 2005, he became the butt of jokes for a manic, couch-hopping TV appearance declaring his love for girlfriend Katie Holmes on the Oprah Winfrey show.

— Hollywood’s highest accolade — an Oscar — has eluded Cruise, despite three acting nominations for his roles in “Magnolia”, “Jerry Maguire” and “Born on the Fourth of July.”

— As a teenager, Cruise planned on becoming a Roman Catholic priest. In 1990 he converted to the controversial Church of Scientology, becoming one of its most high profile advocates, and credited it with helping him overcome dyslexia and finding “inner peace.”

— Twice married — to actresses Mimi Rogers and Nicole Kidman — Cruise is currently engaged to actress Katie Holmes, with whom he had his first biological child, Suri, in April 2006.

-msnbc

Dammit Aaron you beat me to this.

Wonder when his kid is gonna turn up finally. And the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot, etc.

__________________
I'M GONNA GET THE GUINNESS BOOK OF RECORDS TO RECOGNISE ME AS THE NUMBER ONE CUNT KICKER-IN IN THE WORLD

haha

i got it 13 minutes after AP posted it.

Seriously, though, isn't this news insane. I can't believe they kicked his ass out for real. Looks like he really pissed some people off (not too shocking, no?)...

__________________
I'M GONNA GET THE GUINNESS BOOK OF RECORDS TO RECOGNISE ME AS THE NUMBER ONE CUNT KICKER-IN IN THE WORLD

so whats it got to do with mel gibson?

it is sort of shocking to me. not that they cited his "recent behavior" as reason. but the fact that it was tom cruise. i mean tom cruise used to be TOM CRUISE. and hollywood dropped him. just like that. guess hollywood is a rough town...

i think jakey is being groomed to be the "next" tom cruise.

I KNOW, it's kinda weird. I remember when he did "Top Gun," it was like he was the most famous actor alive. Not so much now...

__________________
I'M GONNA GET THE GUINNESS BOOK OF RECORDS TO RECOGNISE ME AS THE NUMBER ONE CUNT KICKER-IN IN THE WORLD

but either way. crazy or not. i don't think that tom cruise is going away just because paramount dropped him. he has enough money and leverage in just his own name to still be around for a while.

COMMENTARY
By Jon Bonné
MSNBC
Updated: 2:46 p.m. CT Aug 23, 2006


Tom Cruise's impressively bitter split with Paramount has most everyone asking just one question: Which was it, the money or the crazy?

In a juicy smackdown between two massive egos, Cruise — arguably the world's biggest movie star, certainly the most well-paid — was summarily sent packing by his longtime studio. No less a figure than Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone, who in sheer influence can be considered the media-mogul equivalent of Cruise, aired this beef in the most public of ways.

“It's nothing to do with his acting ability, he's a terrific actor,” Redstone told the Wall Street Journal. “But we don't think that someone who effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue should be on the lot.”


Even a recluse who makes wallpaper from “Top Gun” posters could easily parse Redstone. It wasn't just that Cruise can't get a moment in the spotlight without a Scientology joke being floated. It wasn't that his romance to Katie (make that Kate) Holmes was so shamelessly public, so seemingly contrived at times, that nearly everyone smelled a rat amid the five-carat diamonds.


Even on the spectrum of eccentricity, there is such a thing as going too far. As Redstone told it, Paramount felt that Oprah couch-jumping, picking fights with “glib” Matt Lauer about Ritalin and having the former Mr. Mapother generally appearing in public like an adrenalin-infused neurotic couldn't possibly be helping them sell movie tickets. Even if Cruise managed to personally egg the door of every single American, he'd still be big in Japan, and yet while “Mission: Impossible III” didn't completely tank, it was lukewarm even at the global box office. True, $393 million is nothing to sneer at — but when your marquee star has a lucrative development deal, a 20 percent cut of box office and a hefty portion of DVD revenue, it does start to look like chump change.

So what's really up? Let's consider five theories:

1) It really was about the money. Certainly, numbers don't lie, and if the second “M:I” film grossed $545 million around the world, Redstone's calculation that Cruise cost the studio $100-150 million is a matter of simple arithmetic. You have to believe that a third-time franchise would score as big as a previous sequel, but we'll get to that in a moment. It's not just a matter of losing the money, because if Paramount really thought this was a minor downturn that could be righted, Redstone would have found a way to make a deal.

Cruise and moviemaking partner Paula Wagner have scored the studio $2.5 billion since they walked onto the lot in 1992, and if 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. A $8 million cut is a pretty hard smackdown.)

2) “M:I:III”? Yeah, right. It's easy to pin this on Cruise overall, but when he had the right project, there was money to be made. “War of the Worlds”? Add Steven Spielberg, a decent script (we're ignoring the tripods-catch-a-fatal-cold thing) and some killer effects, and nearly $590 million global box office materializes. No matter how big the blockbuster, a third-time sequel doesn't exactly scream “must see” unless it involves Mr. T and a theme song by Survivor. OK, not even then. Of course, “War” was released nearly a year before “M:I:III,” and the timing there is crucial. The couch-jumping and Brooke Shields catfight all emerged as “War” was being released, but it was still sort of funny and at least halfway interesting at that point. The really unsettling part of Cruise's behavior didn't come until we'd all had several months to watch Katie's pregnancy, hear tales of familial infighting, and finally watch (or not watch) as the mysterious Suri was birthed, possibly in silent fashion. All of which takes us to ...

3) It was about Cruise Control on the fritz. Maybe it was about the money, but that doesn't mean Redstone shouldn't be taken at face value: that Cruise had grown too erratic to keep around. Even Paramount's officially sanctioned promos for “M:I:III,” with the speedboats and the motorcycles and the skydives, were all about The Intensity, which is Cruise's defining attribute. But The Intensity doesn't look so good when you pair it with the other half of Cruise's high-octane personality, which bared itself not only during the Oprah and Lauer episodes, but even at what should have been innocuous meet-and-greets. And the assumption that The Intensity has become so universal that it has become a full-on gossip pastime to poke holes in the official Cruise hagiography. Studios like stability, and despite Cruise's moneymaking potential, The Intensity does not lend itself to stability. The Intensity instead lends itself to red-carpet tonsil hockey and one of the more bizarre childbirths in Hollywood, which ... again, studio not so happy. Then add in the Scientology issues. Then add Tom dumping uberpublicist Pat Kingsley for his sister Lee Anne De Vette, and later dumping sis for pro Paul Bloch. Could it be that someone did the math and realized that without a good handler, Cruise's behavior could be as unpredictable as Mel Gibson on a moonlit night in Malibu? Would you want to be Sumner Redstone, taking this pile of fun to your shareholders? Yeah, didn't think so.

4) Stick a fork in. Cruise is done. And wouldn't Cruise-haters love to think so. On balance, this has been about as bizarre a year for him as any movie star could dream up. Do you think that he's still feeling, as he did a year ago amid his post-engagement buzz, that this is “a great time” in his life? The assumption was always that Cruise's off-screen antics were irrelevant so long as he put butts in seats. By Redstone's calculation, he's no longer doing that — at least not to the point that he can justify his absolutely-top-of-the-heap salary demands. It might take a full two hands to count the number of uncynical Cruise supporters still out there, but even the most casual observer has to conclude that something truly unusual is going on in Cruiseville. Shake your underwear and turn up the Bob Seger as loud as you like: At some point, a 44-year-old man has to act his age, and The Intensity needs to evolve. It hasn't, and it shows no signs of stopping, even with fatherhood revisted upon Cruise. Once you're a punchline, it's hard to go back short of a display of humility that would do Robert Downey Jr. proud.

5) Other deals are in the offing. If you believe Cruise's side of the story, as told to the Journal, he's got a hedge-fund posse ready to pay for his grand cinematic adventures. We'll have to see whether Cruise/Wagner will end up funding their own blockbusters and sell distribution to the highest bidder, or will aim for something more modest. Certainly, studios have little appetite for the actor-take-all sort of deal they signed with Cruise long ago and wouldn't re-up. But that doesn't mean there aren't deals to be cut. Can Cruise live with making a mere mortal's salary, something comparable to, say, George Clooney? Can he be convinced to try a role without falling back on The Intensity? Can he, in fact, handle the truth?

I'm hoping this is the end of Cruise... but it doesnt look like it... DAMN! Im so sick of this madman

I like how he said he had other deals. Like he's gonna admit he got fired.

__________________
I'M GONNA GET THE GUINNESS BOOK OF RECORDS TO RECOGNISE ME AS THE NUMBER ONE CUNT KICKER-IN IN THE WORLD

I would like to jump on my couch now.

You all are a bunch of jealous, ignorant, lonely and stupid people, except the ones in favor of Tom Cruise. He is a very successful actor who has been making movies for years that we all enjoy. Every actor has a bad movie once in a while, but he continues to make box office hits. What he does in his personal life is his business and no one else's. Why don't you focus your opinions on the starving children in the world or the victims in the Middle East or even our own citizens of the U.S. who are walking the streets!! To pick on a successful actor who has finally found love and happiness is just pathetic. This is America....the land of freedom of speech. We're all entitled to our opinions, but we all don't have to agree with them... Put your jealousy and boredom into good energy and leave Tom alone. I hope he continues to make movies for many more years to come...with or without Paramount!!

there's too much irony in your post for me to even begin to address it.

so you just need to shut up.

He might be nuts. I really don't like Katie Holmes.

But I've liked his movies, and don't really care about his personal life or beliefs. He's not hurting anyone. This is just lame.

LMAO MADMAN !! I LOVE IT

Tom Cruise is a nut-case. His behaviour on Oprah's show proved that. I could've let that go, but when he made such nasty remarks about Brooke Shields, I was like, 'Dude, shut the hell up!' Sumner Redstone did us a favour. I hope we won't be seeing Psycho-Cruise anywhere soon!

his behaviour actually did harm the ticket sales for war of the worlds. all the publicity was about him and katie, very little was said about the film. it would have sold much better if they weren't together, or weren't being so ridiculous