Tweet
Gossip/Celebrity News
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - It used to be that no one messed with Tom Cruise. Now the media are having a field day. Why are they beating up on him? Because they can.
The energetic superstar used to be invulnerable. He was represented by Hollywood's most powerful talent firm, Creative Artists Agency. His production company, headed by ex-CAA agent Paula Wagner, is housed at Paramount Pictures, where studio chief Sherry Lansing would lavish her biggest budgets on his movies. He was married to Nicole Kidman, one of Hollywood's smartest actresses. And his press was handled by the head of Hollywood's most powerful PR firm, PMK-HBH's Pat Kingsley, who kept the press from talking about Scientology.
Anyone who has ever dealt with Kingsley knows that going up against her takes guts and the full backing of your organization. That's because she's willing to use her entire arsenal to protect her most powerful clients. With the bat of an eyelash, she'd withdraw the cooperation of her agency's other stars, refuse to cooperate on other stories or ban a publication from getting another star interview. (It took Premiere magazine several years to work itself back into her good graces after one tough "Mission: Impossible 2" story.)
Kingsley controlled the select magazine covers Cruise would do for each picture, the friendly interviewers he was most comfortable with, the photographers who shot him to look his best. Knowing that he didn't have much to say, she controlled his image, preserving his mystique as a movie star. Her PR philosophy has always been, "Less is more." Keep the fans guessing. Hold the star in abeyance. Keep everyone lining up clamoring for more.
So what changed? As Cruise heads toward 43, he's getting to that age when a star is not always sure what his appeal is. His domestic box office numbers have been down, masked by continuing strong foreign box office appeal. And he remains such a powerful client -- representing so many millions of dollars a year -- that CAA can't say no to him. Still, Paramount, which is now in transition under new chairman Brad Grey, refused to greenlight "Mission: Impossible 3" until it could bring down the budget -- and Cruise's share of the first-dollar grosses -- to a level that would permit the studio to make some of its considerable outlay back. (Everyone knows that Steven Spielberg and Cruise will take home the lion's share of the grosses on Paramount/DreamWorks' upcoming "War of the Worlds." That's a loss leader, a given.)
Cruise and Pitt have much in common. They're both charismatic 40ish movie stars at the top of their game with a bigger following overseas than domestic and a predominantly female fan base. They can cherry-pick the best projects and directors. (As his three Oscar nominations attest, Cruise boasts a better rep as an actor.) They're both in recovery from busted marriages to famous actresses -- Pitt to Jennifer Aniston and Cruise to Kidman -- which always is a sensitive time for a male movie star. Kevin Costner's career, for one, never fully bounced back from fan backlash after he left his wife and broke up the family.
The question is, will all the bad publicity adversely affect Cruise's career? Although Cruise has not been promoting "War of the Worlds" effectively, the Spielberg/H.G. Wells/Cruise combo is not likely to be negatively impacted by its star's PR debacle. But "M:I-3," where Cruise controls a budget that could approach $200 million, is a different story.
Paramount sources say Grey is gravely concerned about the fate of this franchise. According to Paramount insiders, Grey insisted on cutting the budget and building in some protection against budget overruns. Cruise also trimmed his hefty profit-sharing arrangement.
The energetic superstar used to be invulnerable. He was represented by Hollywood's most powerful talent firm, Creative Artists Agency. His production company, headed by ex-CAA agent Paula Wagner, is housed at Paramount Pictures, where studio chief Sherry Lansing would lavish her biggest budgets on his movies. He was married to Nicole Kidman, one of Hollywood's smartest actresses. And his press was handled by the head of Hollywood's most powerful PR firm, PMK-HBH's Pat Kingsley, who kept the press from talking about Scientology.
Anyone who has ever dealt with Kingsley knows that going up against her takes guts and the full backing of your organization. That's because she's willing to use her entire arsenal to protect her most powerful clients. With the bat of an eyelash, she'd withdraw the cooperation of her agency's other stars, refuse to cooperate on other stories or ban a publication from getting another star interview. (It took Premiere magazine several years to work itself back into her good graces after one tough "Mission: Impossible 2" story.)
Kingsley controlled the select magazine covers Cruise would do for each picture, the friendly interviewers he was most comfortable with, the photographers who shot him to look his best. Knowing that he didn't have much to say, she controlled his image, preserving his mystique as a movie star. Her PR philosophy has always been, "Less is more." Keep the fans guessing. Hold the star in abeyance. Keep everyone lining up clamoring for more.
So what changed? As Cruise heads toward 43, he's getting to that age when a star is not always sure what his appeal is. His domestic box office numbers have been down, masked by continuing strong foreign box office appeal. And he remains such a powerful client -- representing so many millions of dollars a year -- that CAA can't say no to him. Still, Paramount, which is now in transition under new chairman Brad Grey, refused to greenlight "Mission: Impossible 3" until it could bring down the budget -- and Cruise's share of the first-dollar grosses -- to a level that would permit the studio to make some of its considerable outlay back. (Everyone knows that Steven Spielberg and Cruise will take home the lion's share of the grosses on Paramount/DreamWorks' upcoming "War of the Worlds." That's a loss leader, a given.)
Cruise and Pitt have much in common. They're both charismatic 40ish movie stars at the top of their game with a bigger following overseas than domestic and a predominantly female fan base. They can cherry-pick the best projects and directors. (As his three Oscar nominations attest, Cruise boasts a better rep as an actor.) They're both in recovery from busted marriages to famous actresses -- Pitt to Jennifer Aniston and Cruise to Kidman -- which always is a sensitive time for a male movie star. Kevin Costner's career, for one, never fully bounced back from fan backlash after he left his wife and broke up the family.
The question is, will all the bad publicity adversely affect Cruise's career? Although Cruise has not been promoting "War of the Worlds" effectively, the Spielberg/H.G. Wells/Cruise combo is not likely to be negatively impacted by its star's PR debacle. But "M:I-3," where Cruise controls a budget that could approach $200 million, is a different story.
Paramount sources say Grey is gravely concerned about the fate of this franchise. According to Paramount insiders, Grey insisted on cutting the budget and building in some protection against budget overruns. Cruise also trimmed his hefty profit-sharing arrangement.
Comment