• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why Tom Cruise still matters

Captaindemotion

Admiral
Admiral
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tom-cruise-warner-bros-245261

Says the above rather interesting article. It lists the reasons why he's making a bit of a comeback.

One: Need. Movie stars are an increasingly rare breed, and new ones aren't solidifying. Cruise still delivers internationally, as evidenced by the $186 million foreign gross for Knight and Day, and he has the added benefit of looking (and playing) younger than his years. He's also hardworking, reliable and invested. "When you have somebody with that good a track record, there's always the potential for the audience to support that person they've had a long relationship with," says Paramount's Rob Moore, who sees the new Jack Reacher character in One Shot as another Cruise franchise.
Two: Goodwill. "He's good at wooing people," says one studio exec. "He makes it a priority to meet the next generation of execs and is one of the few actors who goes out of his way to shake people's hands to get back in their good books." According to insiders, one person Cruise has gotten close to is Skydance Productions president David Ellison, who is co-financing both Protocol and One Shot and shares Cruise's love of airplanes and flying.
Three: Adaptability. Cruise and his CAA agents have proved to be flexible on dealmaking, meaning he's working cheaper at times -- sources say he's getting just $5 million for Ages -- and structuring deals to lower upfront fees in exchange for backend participation that has greater upside in success.
Four: Commitment. Cruise has always understood what a movie star is and how he’s supposed to behave, and he’s been tireless in playing that role. Excepting the chaotic missteps of 2005-06, he’s always been a smart public figure “willing to do the job of being a movie star,” as one producer puts it. Unlike Russell Crowe or Jim Carrey, who rarely attempt to mend breaks with their fans, Cruise, like friend Will Smith, is a constant, enthusiastic campaigner for his own stardom. That accessibility to the wider world translates to tens of millions in ticket sales.

In addition to the forthcoming fourth Mission: Impossible movie, and the musical Rock Of Ages, Cruise has the Lee Child/ Jack Reacher adaptation One Shot and is currently circling two sci-fi epics, one by Joseph Kosinski, one by Doug Liman.

The article concludes:

Cruise is not as big a star as he once was. But his approval ratings among filmgoers seem to have turned a corner, even if he has softer- than-desired traction with the under- 25 demo and some portion of the female audience. "Anecdotally, the polarization you once heard isn't here anymore," says a Hollywood marketing consultant. And his overseas prowess remains strong -- the rest of the world still loves Maverick.

So what do you all think? I personally think that rumours of the Cruiser's demise have been greatly exaggerated. I couldn't give a flying f*ck if he worships mushrooms that grow in Katie's fermented poops. He can still cut it on the big screen and he's one of the few great modern movie stars. I recently saw Valkyrie, but for all its mixed reviews, I found it gripping and Cruise totally held his own among the heavyweight European cast.

I happen to think that he's totally miscast for Jack Reacher, one of my favourite pulp fiction characters. But with direction and scripting by Chris McQuarrie and a cast that includes Robert Duvall, Richard Jenkins, Rosamund Pike and (in a rare acting role) Warner Herzog, One Shot should still be an entertaining movie. And the new MI movie looks to be building on the strengths of the third one, the best to date.
 
Tom Cruise a good actor and all his extra-curricular activities don't seem to impact his acting. That's why he's still relevant.

I loved Valkyrie.
 
I'll watch him if and when he gets into a good movie. He's a good enough actor that he won't screw up a movie just by his very presence, and in some roles he can be surprisingly good.
 
I am looking forward to MI:4-Ghost Protocol but I'm 35, not the demo he allegedly struggles with. I liked Valkyrie and his support role in Tropic Thunder. Both post couch jumping incident.
 
Cruise's antics (the couch jumping, the railing against psychology, etc.) hurt his career some because they made him seem unlikeable. The bigger problem for him is that movie stars aren't what they used to be across the board.
 
I wish he did more movies like Magnolia or to a lesser extent Vanilla Sky. For all his Cruise-isms, he's still a pretty talented and underrated actor in my book.
 
I think he's okay overall, but only when he's really 'in character', and not 'Tom Cruise Being Some Character'. Hopefully that makes sense...

Cheers,
-CM-
 
I can't say that I own many of his films (only "Color of Money" comes to mind), but I do think he's a good actor. Though I think his involvement in the Scientology cult makes him a little wacky, he does genuinely seem to embrace his fans in a way that few celebrities of his caliber do and that's always nice.
 
Cruise is a great actor. Well, sometimes. The potential is always there, anyway, and he's lived up to it in several movies. The sheer intensity and commitment he brings to every role is remarkable. I agree with the article the OP cited about his being willing to work at being a star and living up to that image and the younger generation of actors not really understanding that it's part of their job to cultivate their image in this way if they want to keep getting the really stellar pay packets.

As far as his Scientology beliefs, I really don't care what he believes (beyond the occasional amusement value his antics have offered us all, for which we should be truly grateful).
 
I think he's okay overall, but only when he's really 'in character', and not 'Tom Cruise Being Some Character'. Hopefully that makes sense...

Cheers,
-CM-

This is how I feel. I don't like him as a person, but then, I don't think about him very much to begin with. When he's really in the character--like in Magnolia--he's great. When he's playing the "Tom Cruise image," he makes me cringe. For instance, in the film Knight and Day, he bored me silly because he was just mugging and looking cool. There's a certain smugness about him that really turns me off. When he's playing the less glamorous or less admirable characters (Collateral, Born on the Fourth of July, for example), he seems to be at his best, IMHO, anyway.
 
Theres has never been any doubt about his acting ability and I do generally enjoy his movies but as a person he comes across as weird. He will be around Hollywood for the next decade no doubt though.
 
I'm amazed Garak's radar hasn't picked this up yet. I'm a Cruise fan. The good performances outweigh the bad by a long way.
 
^ I can't actually think of any 'bad' performances by him (well, unless you count Oprah's couch or the slightly creepy 'Nic knows' when asked why they were divorcing).
 
I think the middle of last decade hurt his image, but I've certainly moved on. I think his role in Tropic Thunder helped warm people up to him again. Some of his movies seem a little too generic, but I'm not holding Tom Cruise against a Tom Cruise movie these days.

Although I've joked that he's great at playing a smarmy asshole with convincing realism. :p
 
It's quite funny how jumping on a couch was such a cardinal sin for Tom Cruise but Matthew Broderick and Rebecca Gayheart can kill people with their cars and it's no big deal.

Love him or hate him, Cruise is still one of the hardest-working individuals in the business and actually seeks out creativity and talent. Look at all the directors he's worked with -- Oliver Stone, Steven Spielberg, Cameron Crowe, Michael Mann, Brian De Palma, Edward Zwick, Ron Howard, Paul Thomas Anderson, Bryan Singer, Robert Redford, etc. Each Mission: Impossible movie lets the director do his own thing and put his own stamp on it. Even his worst movies were directed by Ridley Scott (Legend) and Roger Donaldson (Cocktail).

When Sylvester Stallone was at the height of his popularity, he would usually work with no-name directors he could control on the set.
 
^ Ditto Clint Eastwood. As you say, Cruise's choice in directors is impeccable. While he's also happy to work alongside show-stealing actors like Paul Newman, Robert Duvall, Jon Voight, Jamie Foxx, Dustin Hoffman, Tim Robbins, Philip Seymour Hoffman...
 
I don't like him as a person

Can I ask why? I always find these kinds of comments about celebrities odd because it's kind of hard to make that kind of judgment unless you've actually met someone personally.

Of course if you have met Tom Cruise then it would be fun to know some details!
 
Agreed that Tom Cruise has a remarkable movie star charm, a tireless intensity in his acting, and uncanny street-smarts when it comes to image management. Even at the height of his post-couch-jumping backlash, I loved Mission Impossible III and I liked him quite a bit in War of the Worlds. (The movie was terrible but that's mostly Dakota Fanning's fault.) I also really liked Knight & Day, mostly because it was a psychotic parody of the arrogant Tom Cruise persona.

While he's certainly not as big as he was 15-20 years ago, he's retained his popularity a lot better than most other leading men of that era have. Mel Gibson keeps shooting himself in the foot with racist & anti-semitic remarks. Harrison Ford is now a grumpy old man. Bruce Willis is, by most accounts, an asshole and a diva who is kinda difficult to work with and openly hostile towards the press. No one knows what to do with Tom Hanks because he's not cute anymore. Michael Keaton has transitioned into generic, forgettable supporting roles. Then there's Richard Gere, who puts me to sleep at the best of times.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top