Famed lightning rod Tom Cruise strikes again on actors strike
Tom Cruise finds himself trapped between a rock and a hard place, wherein both the rock and the hard place are existential threats to the entertainment industry
Aux Features Tom Cruise
Tom Cruise may be the last remaining genuine movie star, but he may also be the most divisive. The man is a lightning rod for entertainment discourse: he’s been hailed as the savior of cinema for championing the theatrical experience and scorned as a prominent longtime cultist with a history of odd behavior. Cruise has only become more inscrutable in recent years, doing less press and bigger stunts. His one, true public passion is protecting the cinema, and that puts him in a precarious position amid the current Hollywood strikes.
With SAG-AFTRA in the first week of what will likely be a prolonged battle with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), Cruise finds himself trapped between a rock and a hard place, wherein both the rock and the hard place are existential threats to the entertainment industry as we know it. On the one hand, movies as a business are in critical danger, particularly after the pandemic did serious financial damage to theaters everywhere. On the other hand, acting as a profession is at risk, with the majority of working actors struggling to make a living, their jobs jeopardized by the looming specter of artificial intelligence.
So how does the Savior of Cinema—so deemed by one of its patron saints, Steven Spielberg—deal with a crisis from all corners? As we’ve seen so far, there’s been an attempt to play both sides. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Cruise participated in a negotiating session between SAG-AFTRA and AMPTP in June, the highest-profile member of the union to do so. Cruise reportedly joined to throw his support behind SAG-AFTRA’s concerns regarding A.I. as well as to advocate on behalf of stunt performers (a segment of the guild famously near and dear to his heart).
However, he also apparently advocated for the guild to allow performers to promote their movies, a task which qualifies as struck work amid a work stoppage. The conversation was “uncomfortable,” according to a THR source, but Cruise (whose film Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One premiered just before the strike was called) had his own concerns about the “fragile state of movie theaters.” Per a recent Variety report, guild leadership “countered by asking Cruise to join the picket lines, noting that having one of the world’s biggest movie stars visibly in its corner would send a strong message to the studios.” Cruise allegedly wouldn’t commit to walking the line, “but offered to assist in other ways.” No promotional waiver has been granted. (Cruise’s team did not immediately respond to The A.V. Club’s request for comment.)
Tom Cruise is everywhere and nowhere
And so Cruise finds himself as a lightning rod once again, this time in an entirely new context. SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher, presumably in the room when Cruise joined the negotiations, made an example out of him, apparently unprompted, in an interview with Variety. “Remember, Tom Cruise and top people make their own deals,” she said. “That’s not who we are striking for. We’re striking for the journeyman.”
Better Call Saul star Bob Odenkirk, double striking as a member of both the Writers Guild of America and SAG-AFTRA, responded to a question from The Wrap about general “actors” who wanted a waiver for promotion while he walked the picket line. (Cruise wasn’t named, but he’s the only actor currently making headlines for doing so.) “Don’t,” was Odenkirk’s advice. “It’s a strike. Strike. You lose. We lose. Everybody loses. That’s tough shit.”
Odenkirk is one of many stars who’s been out on the line since the WGA began striking in May. Now that SAG-AFTRA is on strike, there will likely be even more famous faces populating the picket line. As yet, though, no one of Cruise’s caliber has joined the picket. A-Listers have certainly supported the strike, but mostly from afar: big names like Meryl Streep and Jennifer Lawrence joined hundreds of other actors in encouraging leadership to walk away if a deal couldn’t be reached; the cast of Oppenheimer left their own premiere; George Clooney released a brief but approving statement.
Yet because of his waiver request—and perhaps because he’s recently been elevated to cinema’s most ardent protector—Cruise is the one catching the most heat for not showing up in person. “Tom cruise doesn’t care about this shit because he’s in that top 1% and rich af,” wrote one commenter, while another similarly posted, “his net worth is probably like a billion lol of course he doesn’t care.” Then there’s another line of thinking as to why Cruise wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) show up: “It would be chaotic the streets would be swarmed with people,” one commenter tweeted. “It would be about him not about the strike, not worth it.” Writer and A.V. Club contributor Richard Newby mused, “I wonder if the reason why we haven’t seen many (any?) A-list actors on the picket line is because it would further the incorrect assumption that this is about the already wealthy actors and not about those living paycheck to paycheck. Curious if their visibility would be helpful.”
To address one set of complaints, it’s clear that caring too little is not the issue. If there’s one thing we know Tom Cruise cares about, it’s movies, and helping SAG-AFTRA succeed in their aims is the best way for him to support movies at this time. As far as swarming the picket line goes, visibility is clearly what SAG-AFTRA is after. They wouldn’t have asked Cruise to join the line if they didn’t feel his presence could be helpful. And while the public’s assumptions about the relative wealth and glamor associated with acting is one of the major PR hurdles of a Hollywood strike, the priority, ultimately, is getting through not to the average audience member but to the execs behind AMPTP. And what would sway those businessmen more than a solid box office bet like Tom Cruise?
Still, it’s hard to imagine Cruise on the picket line. Not because he doesn’t care, and not because it would cause a riot or create (yet more) wealth discourse, but because it’s hard to imagine Tom Cruise moving amongst mere mortals these days. Much as his co-stars might try to insist that he’s just an ordinary guy, in this stage of his career he’s only become more unknowable and less human. He’s done no in-depth interviews in a decade, putting in the requisite appearances on chat shows and junkets before disappearing from the public eye. When he does reappear, it’s often to do death-defying stunts that regular people can barely comprehend, like accepting an MTV Movie Award while flying a plane. To walk amongst the jobbing actors on the picket line—let alone the average citizen of Los Angeles—would mark a serious shift in how Cruise conducts his public life.
Cruise’s strategic silence has become a double-edged sword in the wake of the strike. In a way, it has served as image rehabilitation. Dodging questions about his involvement with Scientology has been “massaged into something like a sacrificial duty to audiences,” writes The New York Times’ Caity Weaver: “He goes away so that audiences may experience the thrill of his reappearance, and delight in the promise of movie magic he heralds.” Yet in the context of the strike, his silence becomes problematic. It allows audiences to project upon him the worst intentions (“he doesn’t care”) and isolates him from his union, which wants him to use his platform to speak up on his behalf. Perhaps he’ll “assist in other ways” that will become clear in time. Perhaps, if the strike goes on long enough, he’ll even concede to marching on the picket line. Until then, he’ll likely remain a lightning rod, at the center of every conversation without actually being part of the conversation at all.
196 Comments
Yeah, there is no way a A-List celeb should be on the picket line. It would just turn everything into about them and the general populace is not smart enough to differentiate them out there helping the ones that really need help or them being there to help themselves.The promotion waiver is interesting though because of royalties for some of these non-A-List actors are tied to it. So they are getting hurt more if a movie coming out soon does not get the proper promotion from them but they are not allowed to. It does not really hurt studios due to their tax write-offs on the losses.
I respect that Cruise at least tried to use his status in the industry as both actor and producer to mediate a resolution. That’s potentially much more valuable than walking the street with Odenkirk.
If you look at Instagram, B or C List celebrities are posting pics of themselves with bottom of the A List celebrities who showed up for a couple of hours to say they were there. The picket line became a photo-op.
The A-listers should enroll some of the makeup designers (who also aren’t working, even if they’re not on strike) to disguise them so that they can still be on the picket line (every individual body on the line makes the line stronger) without drawing undue attention.
Join OUR discussion here, Tom Cruise!
Top 25 Times Tom Cruise Joined an AV Club Discussion
I got a Collateral notification for this?!
You’re an otter. Wearing a suit.
Listen here, you:
Yo homie! Is that my briefcase?
1. ———
Today. He’s going by the name “Battybrain.” Go figure.
Maverick sucked*. I don’t know why he’s being heralded as the savior of movie theaters when the two movies premiering this weekend have been gobbling up the majority of headline space for the past weeks (months?).*That’s right, I said it. It was boring and when it wasn’t boring it was cheesy.
How does Tom Cruise still get so much attention? Is it literally that he made a sequel to the dumbest movie of 1986, so we’re going to ignore the cult stuff and pretend his face naturally looks like that?
It’s like the fifth highest grossing movie of the entire past decade. And you’re mystified why he gets attention?
Not mystified. Irritated.
It was also genuinely a good action movie. Hella good even, epic class really, and funny and with heart.Doesn’t whitewash the cult shit or anything, just credit where it’s due.
And his most recent movie is currently underperforming in theaters so maybe he’s not the movie messiah people say he is and we can take a break from the endless thinkpieces about him?
“The last remaining guenuine movie star?”Oh, dear. What a crisis. The AVClub just won’t stop it with this guy.
Did you not make it to the end of the first sentence, or did you read the article and somehow thing they were saying THAT was the crisis? Either way, you’re not equipped for this conversation.
If he isn’t, who is?(That’s not a rhetorical question; I’ve had the comment box open for 15 minutes trying to think of a viable candidate, and I’m drawing a blank.)
Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio
Don’t waste your time. David Miscavige has joined the chat.
Samuel L. Jackson, Matthew McConaughey, DiCaprio, Damon, Denzel Washington, Hugh JAckman, Tom Hanks, Joaquin Phoneix, Keanu Reeves, Nicholas Cage, Eddie Murphy, Morgan Freeman, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Al Pacino, Oscar Issac, Liam Neeson, Robert DiNiro, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Christian Bale, Chris Evans, Timothee Chalamet, Robert Downey Jr., Ryan Gosling, Chris Hemsworth, Henry Cavill, I would argue Joel Edgerton, etc., etc. The guys who show up at the Oscars.
Literally none of them will dependably open a movie that isn’t part of some other cinematic universe. Brad Pitt or Keanu Reeves are about the closest, and even they’ve had some big misses. Except for The Mummy, Cruise has had a pretty amazing track record the last ten years.
That’s a fine list of actors, ranging between good and all-time great. But that’s different from Movie Star. How many of them, these days, could get casual Schmoes off their couches and into a cinema on name recognition alone, in large enough numbers to bust blocks? I never heard anyone say, “Wanna see a movie? Timothee Chalamet’s got a new one out”, and the older generation names aren’t the draw they once were. In fact, stars in general aren’t – it’s all about the franchise recognition. How many faces do they have to stuff a Fast & Furious movie with nowadays?
Everyone is showing up for Oppenheimer and they can’t wait to see Murphy. Blindy Peakers has made him a mega star. Cruise can’t play anyone but himself (whoever that is), and a little goes a long way. All of the rest can easily write their own tickets. Under no circumstances is Cruise the only “movie star.” There isn’t even any logic in that. Seriously. He’s a one-trick pony and most everyone knows it. line up a serious drama with Colin Farrel or Hemsworth or Tom Hiddleston or Gosling as leads opposed to Cruise (in another series of stunts) and ask a female audience who’ll they’ll pay money to see. It won’t be Cruise.
I put it to you that the main draw for Oppenheimer isn’t Murphy (who has been excellent in everything I’ve seen him in btw, all the way back to 28 Days Later), but Christopher Nolan.I suspect that you and I are working from different definitions of “movie star”, and that mine is more out-of-date than yours. Mine involves movies being built around the star, the way your Missions Impossible and your Edges of Tomorrow are.As for Cruise’s limitations, I disagree with the one-trick pony categorisation, but I will concede that he has only been doing the one trick for quite a few of his more recent movies.
I guess we do have different definitions of “movie star.” And that’s ok. I respect yours.
The bigger thing here is that Cruise, intentionally or not, has cultivated the idea around himself that he IS the movie star, not “a” movie star. What Peon probably failed to remember/realise, is that not only is Cruise basically the only actor out there who does his own extremely dangerous stunts (and pushes his co-stars to do the same, when they ordinarily wouldn’t), but he’s also the guy who paid for an entire cruise ship so he could keep filming going, and got incredibly upset when some people took advantage of that, and caused filming to have to stop. Steven Spielberg HIMSELF said that Cruise saved cinemas, and it’s no joke. Cinemas were very much in dire financial straights before Top Gun, and that film was a very much-needed shot in the arm for them.There’s also the fact that he got access to actual, real fighter jets for his Top Gun film, and got his cast to jump into these supersonic hunks of metal, and got a film made out of it that was enjoyable.No one else in Hollywood has anything CLOSE to that in their history, and Cruise did that in only a 2-3 year period, in a time when CGI and green screen has essentially taken over blockbuster films, and it was financially successful.Don’t write him off simply because he plays a single role (and Magnolia exists), because unlike The Rock, his work is more than just as an actor.
There’s also the point that while most other big names also have fingers in the TV, music, fancy-booze-brand, or other pies, movies are all Tom does.
I’m sorry – I don’t care. He isn’t the first actor who comes to mind when one thinks of a “movie star” unless he actually has a movie playing in the theatres. That could be because he refuses to engage with his public. I’m just not interested in the subject any longer because, to me, he’s just another actor with a brand. He’s not some kind of hero; he does stunts. Stunt actors do stunts. If you’re a stan, that’s great. I’m not part of the stan club. I don’t think he’s paricularly special.
Careful, your disdain is showing.Your not-so-carefully constructed facade of ignorance and apathy is falling apart at the seams, as you seethe.Just remember, Tom Cruise will be remembered for far longer than you.:)
Lol, I couldn’t be further from seething. More like apathy. Cruise used to be somewhat interesting, but his reclusive nature suggests to me that he proably isn’t. I’m just not into celebrity worship. It’s a job.
While I don’t entirely disagree, I think you are forgetting some of his earlier roles.“Born on the 4th of July”, “Magnolia”, “Eyes Wide Shut”, “War of the Worlds”, “Minority Report” are examples of him working with a true visionary director and being used because they wanted what HE had for a role in their films. Is that where he is now? Obviously not, but really every MOVIE STAR seems to bring whatever “something” they have to each of their roles. When they don’t (or play against type) it is a risk reward situation. You like say… Tom Cruise in “Tropic Thunder”.All the actors you listed are 1-3 decades younger than him, yet he’s still somehow in your conversation.
I can’t honestly say the last time I heard anyone say they were going to see a movie for a specific actor at all, including Cruise. The closest, I think, was actually Ryan Reynolds in Free Guy. No one I know who saw Cruise’s recent movies were seeing them for him, especially since they were sequels.
Fair point, but if they ever released an M:I movie without Cruise in it, the franchise would self-destruct in five seconds.
At the other end of the franchise space, Marvel are going to great lengths to make sure the MCU itself is the only true star, now that they’ve got rid of most of the big names that built it up.
The true test would probably be Tom Cruise in a Serious Art House Drama from a director who isn’t a superstar in their own right.
So, Magnolia? PT Anderson was a name at that point, but not a huge one.
I think having to go back to 1999 says something in itself about how things have changed.
lol. Dude listed Henry Cavill and Timothee Chalamet two dudes currently struggling to become bona fide movie stars on the level of Tom Cruise. I’m no cruise stan but let’s be real here and not let hared make us think dumb shit. Henry Cavill got shitcanned from two major roles in the span of months. Meanwhile Top Gun Maverick a sequel that took over 30 years to happen made over a billion dollars off Cruise’s name alone, that is insane. That means most of the people who saw the sequel weren’t even alive for Top Gun let alone the entirety of Cruise’s heyday.
You gotta b fckin kidding me? Henry Cavill? The guy disposable enough to get shitcanned from two ongoing series one tv, one movie in the span of months?lol Timothee Chalamet is barely a movie star. He’s currently trying to become one with Dune trying to become the next big franchise, and then joining the Wonka franchise. I don’t think you understand what movie star means. Tom Cruise literally revived a dead IP from the 80’s and not only did the over 30 years after the original sequel comfortably make over a billion dollars, Top Gun is now a viable franchise with other projects lined up. None of the guys you listed could have done that or have done that.ONLY two dudes you listed are on Cruise level. Samuel L Jackson and Robert Downey Jr. The rest of your list is inane.
name another
It’s a legit take. If you want to define a movie star as someone who can dependably open a movie solely by starring in a film, Tom Cruise is about it right now.
Lol, ok David.
“David”? Gotta admit, that one went over my head.
And here’s the other thing— all the people you listed are most star in movies. But there’s something more ephemeral to the idea of a “movie star”, and it’s mostly been disappeared from the culture. I don’t know if it’s Twitter accessibility for our public figures, or the way popular culture has been divided into micro-niches, the dilution of the power of movies in general in favor of TV… maybe all of above and more… but the package of someone who is mysterious, gossip worthy, and had that almost royal status that movies stars used to have, combined with their commercial bankability…. Cruise is the closest thing we have to that whole combination.
This is probably one of the best definitions of a movie star, but it’s also not entirely reliable. You couldn’t stick Tom Cruise in Ticket to Paradise and expect it to triple its otherwise respectable $160m take starring unknowns Julia Roberts and George Clooney. And he has made plenty of movies with middling returns too. In a very real way, the image Cruise cultivates specifically reinforces this definition by only doing movies that he can more or less guarantee success at. Like how a top notch surgeon doesn’t take cases that might ruin their sterling reputation. He still clearly adds very real value to his movies (I can’t see Top Gun 2 breaking $1b without him in it), but it’s still a selective bias. I think a lot of actors these days tend to value their craft more than stars used to, and so take a more diminished profile in return for more interesting roles. Pitt and DiCaprio for example are both better actors than Cruise and had the same teenage heartthrob image that he had starting out. I’m still undecided whether it was their decision to shift focus, or if the industry just began moving in a different direction and they moved with it while Cruise stayed behind.
There’s definitely something to the idea that Cruise has become very particular about the projects he picks— he isn’t jumping onto stuff like Magnolia, Born on the Fourth of July, and Eyes Wide Shut any more. He had that phase for sure, but now he’s very much making “Tom Cruise” movies.
I think it’s largely the industry that’s moved on. The entire culture is too niche-ified to create the momentum behind a few big stars.
The Rock.And that’s it.
Even the Rock doesn’t really do it. Black Adam was a pretty serious disappointment, and that’s with it being part of the main DC universe. He’s probably the next closest thing, though, and similar to Cruise in how he cultivates his projects pretty carefully to his range.
“The last remaining genuine movie star”Excuse me, did Danny DeVito die and I didn’t hear about it?
It’s weird. Like they’re an endangered species or something.
I don’t think the writer honors anyone older that Cruise. I’d add, you don’t see bloggers gushing about 61 year old actresses.
Update: Just saw a trailer for Disneh’s Haunted Mansion and DeVito is in it. It looks good. LaKeith Stanfield (yes!) and Owen Wilson too.
Is this really your takeaway from reading the article? Or did you see his face, jump to the comments, and post your own ice cold take about how you feel about him?
Tom Cruise (and the movie Top Gun) is for men who peaked in the 80s and women who never learned to masturbate. Unless the writers of this site are all supplementing their retirement income, they have no business making us read about him.
‘making you’
Nobody is making “us” read anything.
Comment has extreme Tucker Max vibesI have no love for Cruise, but he’s currently very relevant to the entertainment industry, doubly so due to the strike interacting with his film release, so it makes sense the site would cover it and him.
Who the fuck is Tucker Max? I don’t know your friends.
“Tom Cruise (and the movie Top Gun) is for men who peaked in the 80s”Unfair, I never watched Top Gun(s)
“they have no business making us read about him.” Gun to your head, or simply no self-control?
MiFRoChi doesn’t have to answer directly to a blog post any more than any other commenter who offers an opinion relating to Cruisel. Your take has nothing to do with the “article” either, lol troll.
He has starred in some of the biggest, most memorable, and most money-making movies and franchises in the last forty years.Yes, he’s a Scientologist, but so are most of the celebrities out there. Yes, he’s weird, but not as weird as most of the celebrities out there. And unlike the racist, sexist, assholes out there in the industry and especially from his generation, he has a relatively clean image and is generally likeable.That’s why everyone still talks about him.
Yes, he’s a Scientologist, but so are most of the celebrities out there.
There’s a lot, but definitely not “most,” and they certainly aren’t as high up the food chain as he is. He’s not just some rank-and-file member, even among the celebrity class, and he’s tied to it in the public eye closer than anyone else with only Travolta getting close.
Yes, he’s weird, but not as weird as most of the celebrities out there.
Nah he’s pretty fucking weird even for a celebrity, he just has PR people with the good sense to keep him tucked away. Every peak behind the curtain has been some combination of baffling and horrifying.He’s a gigantic star because he’s fucking incredible at what he does and his charm and enthusiasm have managed to carry him through things that would sink just about anyone else, but this “he’s a pretty normal guy for a celebrity” dog don’t hunt.
John Travolta and Forrest Whitaker starred in straight up Scientology propaganda, Battlefield Earth, one of the worst movies ever made, but yet their careers weren’t ruined and no one gives them shit for that. Elizabeth Moss was born and raised into that cult and shills it harder than Tom Cruise, no one seems to care either.And how is he “pretty fucking weird” exactly? Because he jumped on a couch on Oprah? Compare that to actual weirdos like Nick Nolte, Joaquin Phoenix, or Randy Quaid? He’s a gigantic star because again, he’s generally nice and likeable and compared to a lot of celebs these days, he has a pretty squeaky-clean image and background; No (known) metoo sexual assault/harassment allegations. No drugs and alcohol issues or arrest records, and he still can sell tickets at the box office. Y’all just need to admit you have a problem and bias with Tom Cruise specifically for whatever reason and not because he’s a “weird” scientologist.
He’s close personal friends with David Miscavige. He’s one of the highest-ranking people in the organization and is by far its most prominent member. There’s nothing wrong with finding him affable or entertaining, but it’s nuts to pretend he’s just “a Scientologist” in some sort of garden-variety way.
What does any of this have to do with the points I made that there are other celebrities out there that starred in straight up Scientology propaganda which Cruise has not and never done? Or the case of Elizabeth Moss, who has been indoctrinated in it since birth?
Again, you can stop beating around the bush and just say that you don’t like Tom Cruise because he’s Tom Cruise. Because I don’t see people shitting on John Travolta or Elizabeth Moss for being high up, hardcore members of it either.
What does any of this have to do with the points I made that there are
other celebrities out there that starred in straight up Scientology
propaganda which Cruise has not and never done?
Cruise has literally appeared in Scientology recruitment videos.
you can stop beating around the bush and just say that you don’t like Tom Cruise because he’s Tom Cruise.
yeah dude there’s no possible reason anyone could dislike david miscavige’s confidant other than fickle whimsy
The dude’s charming, a great actor, and has the right idea when it comes to on-set conduct and film-making in general. He’s also extremely close friends with the leader of an incredibly dangerous cult. I’m not sure why you seem to have trouble grasping why someone might have negative feelings about that.
I don’t see people shitting on John Travolta or Elizabeth Moss for being high up, hardcore members of it either.
Both of them have gotten plenty of shit for it over the years and Travolta’s gotten about as much grief for it as Cruise has.
“Cruise has literally appeared in Scientology recruitment videos.”So have the others. For the third time now, Battlefield fucking Earth.Both of them have gotten plenty of shit for it over the years and Travolta’s gotten about as much grief for it as Cruise has.Not really and as much. Until I mentioned it, you didn’t seem to remember or care which is kinda my point.
I’m not sure why you seem to have trouble grasping why someone might have negative feelings about that.The thing i’m struggling to grasp is why you’ve spent the last two days trying to poorly real hard convince me and others on a public chat board that Tom Cruise is a bad bad man because he’s a big Scientologist? Yes it’s a stupid cult (I don’t if i’d call it dangerous because it actually hasn’t actually killed or seriously harmed anyone), but him being a part of it is a minor blemish on an otherwise good career, reputation, and personality which is why people generally still like him and why the AVClub still talks about him a lot which is the point of this discussion that you jumped into. Like I said many times to you already, you must really really hate the guy to be spending this much time trying to convince a random stranger on the internet about it.
So have the others. For the third time now, Battlefield fucking Earth.
I’m aware of Battlefield Earth. It’s one of my favorite terrible movies. You seem to be under the impression that Travolta didn’t get shit for it.And no, when I say Scientology recruitment videos I mean literal, actual “join Scientology now” videos produced by Scientology, not the sneaky backdoor that B:E was intended to be.
Until I mentioned it, you didn’t seem to remember or care which is kinda my point.
I literally mentioned Travolta in my very first reply to you.
I don’t if i’d call it dangerous because it actually hasn’t actually killed or seriously harmed anyone
Are you secretly a member or something? Because lmao this really ain’t true. They may not have gone full Jim Jones, but Lisa McPherson and Shelly Miscavige are both victims, and living in Clearwater it ain’t hard to hear stories of the violence that happens in Sea Org, or see the families broken up by it. They’re not harmless new-age kooks.
you must really really hate the guy to be spending this much time trying to convince a random stranger on the internet about it.
And you must really really love him to try to convince a random stranger on the internet that he’s a super-great dude. Either that or neither of us are actually that invested and we’re replying to replies because the little notification pops up and we like to argue on the internet. I still went to see MI7. I just think whitewashing Scientology is ridiculous, and am as confused and unmoved by your continued attempt to do it as you are about my dislike of Cruise as a person.
Where am I “loving him?” I only responded to the comment asking why Tom Cruise is a thing and I responded accordingly, logically, neutrally. It’s been you that have agressively pushing this Tom Cruise is “fucking weirdo” of a bad bad man for the most flimsiest reasons. If you’re going to deliaberately misinterpet my words and intentionally not comprehend everything i’ve been saying to spin it into this rather childish “secretly a member” and “anyone who doesn’t auto agree with my rabid hatred of Tom Cruise and Scientology is “loving him” and “whitewashing Scientology” after I called it a stupid cult twice, then just stop replying, fuck off please, and stop trying to cram your bad faith arguments and opinions down my throat with this poinless nowhere of a discussion. Go ahead and have your last word with lame and stupid childish insults.
You think “being close personal friends with the leader of a dangerous cult” is a flimsy reason to dislike a person.You’re right, there’s nothing more to discuss. You’re just an idiot.
Because he still makes successful big budget films? He is still a very bankable star? He has a big film currently in theaters? Those seem like the obvious answers.As for the cult stuff, yes, I don’t care what religion he is anymore than what kind of shampoo he uses. He is entertaining and fun to watch. Isn’t that what movies are supposed to be?
Because of how he runs.
Not even close to the worst movie of 1986 which also saw Howard the Duck, Soul Man, and Shanghai Surprise
I don’t get it either, he has been making the same movie for the last 2 decades or more. Eyes Wide Shut was the last interesting movie he ever did.
You won’t see heavy-hitting A-List Celebs walking the picket line daily because then someone might ask them a simple “Would you take less so others get more?” It’s a loaded question that gets thrown at the Studio Execs who fumble the reply… Can you imagine some of the barely literate we’ve seen talk circles about their political, religious or relationship values answering that?It’s better from a public standpoint to use the lower wage, daily background players to promote an economic system that is heavily weighted in the favor of very few, or very lucky to convince others they have outsized value.Damn I sound like a Socialist… time to re-think my value-system…
“Would you take less so others get more?” There is a lot of this, and no, no they wouldn’t. I mean When you have stars being paid $20+ million, and especially if you have multiple top tier A listers, like half the entire budget is just going to a couple of people, not to mention the back end deals they have as well. Hell I bet many of these top tier actors could take $0 upfront and just keep their standard backend deal and still walk away with millions.
The one person I would wish to keep out of the “They made how much” argument would be Keanu Reeves. He gives so much of his paycheck to hospitals and charities that I can’t begrudge the guy his paycheck.* of course some might argue the value of keeping the money with the various trade unions and lower scale actors who also made his films. But history has shown he pays it forward with them as well…
He’s also turned around and given up his paycheck for other workers in the past. Keanu’s more of a star than Cruise has ever been in my eyes for how legitimately he seems to care for other people.
Yeah I mean not all big stars are bad, but at the same time a lot of truly a listers could EASILY for go their up front check or take much much less, with the understanding it goes to other cast and crew. Ethan Hawke kind of did something like that for the first Purge movie, he took a comically small paycheck, though that was more to just get him in the movie in the first place as I don’t know that it really went to other cast and crew. part of me would like to see a bunch of A listers just refuse to work with the big studios, the ones causing this strike in the first place for a year or 2 and only work with small indie firms to kind of punish the big studios.
The monetary damage that would come from a widescale boycott of major studios would cause such harm as to never get made whole. The downstream issue is that with no product to sell to either theaters or TV, everyone loses. Fewer trades on set, fewer actors and writers… it just gets bad (think Twitter after Muck’s purge of engineers!)If the income stream dries up no matter what deal people finally come to the money just won’t be there to pay it. Taking Exec pay down to $1 still wouldn’t correct that damage.If this strike continues into the mid-fall timeframe, streamers lose content then subscribers, theaters go back to 2021 level of nothing to show, and even when they get things back on track a vast majority of the people fighting for better pay are homeless. (this doesn’t even take into account the tax revenue CA misses out on. It’s a huge line item in their yearly budget!)*I want to see a fair deal in place, but my Econ background knows this can’t go too long without major damage.
Oh I agree, I mean the studios are shooting themselves, and frankly the entire industry in the foot. And it’s not like what the actors and writers was wholly unreasonable.
A perfect example of this is Hollywood’s favorite comeback kid…Robert Downey Jr.
I’m not going to say he doesn’t deserve all his success. He cleaned himself up, got his shit together, and he put in the work. I don’t think anyone would or could argue that…but he has, reportedly, made around $435 Million from Marvel appearances alone, the vast majority of that through backend deals.
That’s great for him, clearly he’s got a great management team who negotiated incredible deals for him, but no one else got those same kinds of deals.
Evans, Ruffalo, and Paul Bettany have made as many appearances as Downey, and both Cheadle and Sam Jackson have appeared in MORE MCU projects than Downey…but Downey has still made more than all of them.
He got those back end deals because they weren’t willing to pay him up front because of his drug history. He bet on himself and won. Sandra Bullock did the same thing with Gravity. She took almost nothing up front to help get the film made, and made some 70 million on the back end. I’m sure that there are other actors who have bet on themselves in this way and lost, although I don’t know who, offhand.
Well there is that AND Marvel is pretty much known for paying their actors very little in the first place. And to be fair with RDJ, he IS the reason we have the MCU today, had Iron Man not been the huge success it was we wouldn’t have the MCU we have today for better or worse.
More of those top tier might get on board if those back-end deals keep becoming less lucrative. TV and DVD sale residuals have dried up, and from what I understand, streaming residuals are nowhere near enough to make up the difference.Someone like Cruise, though, likely makes enough at the box office that residuals are less of a concern.
I don’t even think that they really dried up, DVD sure, but personally I think it’s mainly the studios finding funny accounting methods to make a movie that makes back 100%+ of it’s film/marketing budget, still be a financial loss. I mean I am no accountant by any stretch, but saying a say $100 million dollar movie, call it $200 mill to account for market, that marketing is typically equal to eh film budget is ALSO a problem, That then goes on to make $400+ million a financial loss is pretty crazy IMO.
The back-end money from the box office is still there for the actors, but if I understand correctly, this is only one portion of their usual compensation. It’s those other sources (once again, my understanding, I’m not claiming any special knowledge) that previously often made up the larger share of their pay (DVD sales, TV residuals) that have now become far less lucrative.
But why should they take less? its not like an A lister is going to take less and the studio will decide to pay others more. they will just pocket it.
It seems to me outside looking in? Obviously I’m not an actor, but ultimately how much each actor gets paid (Outside of the predetermined rated based on what they’re credited as which in turn is dependent on how long a duration of work they do in a project is if they’re apart of the guild?*) is on a case to case basis dependent on the deals that they or their agent manage to finagle on a project to project basis.*’”SAG rates for multiple programs are put on a weekly scale, with $2,784 per week for both 1/2 Hour and 1 Hour Programs, $3,272 per week for 90 minute programs, and $3,856 per week for two hour programs. Valid through 6/30/23: 1/2 Hour Program: $2,784 / week. 1 Hour Program: $2,784 / week.”’, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.wrapbook.com/blog/essential-guide-sag-rates%23:~:text%3DSAG%2520rates%2520for%2520multiple%2520programs,1%2520Hour%2520Program%253A%2520%25242%252C784%2520%252F%2520week&ved=2ahUKEwipgPqo952AAxWGrYkEHXwxB7cQFnoECA8QBQ&usg=AOvVaw3rMl322ZtRLpnnYoWKr6Cg
They routinely take less on smaller/passion projects. Doesn’t make sense to take less on a project they’re only doing for the check especially since points are worth nothing as the studio will make sure it somehow turns out to be unprofitable.
The lovely argument for whether the points are assessed as a Net or Gross Revenue. I agree with the passion project aspect, but even those are situations where the actor has the luxury of choosing how they value their time/income.
People like Cruise get gross points.
Tom Cruise and his ilk can get points on gross.
Part of it is that some of them are involved in the talks (on either side of the table) since they potentially would have influence to bring resolution. While the workers picketing is not a great look, the part where it is hurting them is work not being carried out and some people choosing to not go to the movies during the strike. Even when you’re not going broke, you usually get pissed if you are having to spend money with no return.
Socialism is really the be-all and end-all of future humanity, the problem is we haven’t managed to iron out the inherent corruption that humans bring to anything involving control of distribution of wealth.So far we haven’t been able to evolve beyond “capitalistic market economy with socialistic elements” without it eventually ending up in a totalitarian regime.Maybe Samaritan WAS the right solution for the world in Person of Interest after all, lol.
Unions aren’t socialist, lol. They are a safety valve to avoid socialism.
I don’t recall ever saying that they were? I was just commenting on the last poster’s joke about being a socialist.
My fault for reading too quickly. I thought you were saying socialism an an end to humanity. Apologies.
Oh. God not this stupid Whataboutism/Strawman again. Literally nobody in SAG/AFTRA/WGA has asked them to take less. The A-Listers are not the problem. Unlike the C-Suite and WallStreet parasites that have attached themselves like MBA remora onto the industry, the top earning actors are the reason people buy tickets. And had you understood a single fucking thing about how that industry works and where the vast majority of money is going you’d know that.
You won’t see heavy-hitting A-List Celebs walking the picket line daily because then someone might ask them a simple “Would you take less so others get more?”A few actually do (Chadwick Boseman in 21 Bridges, Will Smith in King Richard, Jack Black in Tenacious D, Ryan Reynold in Deadpool, and Keanu Reeves in multiple films – including giving his Matrix sequel earning to costume design and SFX tea)… but the issue with that this unfairly/redirect dumps the problem from studio executives into the lap of lead actors – like how BP Oil funded a lot of “carbon footprint” initiatives that made it seem like the problem could be solve by lifestyle changes, versus any systemic change to the current energy/transportation industry.
The lead actors shouldn’t continually have to accept a pay cut just so studio executives can spend a little as they want on a movie project.
Kaitlin Olson walked past me to the line yesterday (or at least I think it was her – she was wearing a hat and sunglasses). Don’t think if she’s A-List though.
The easy and obvious answer to “would you take less so others get more” is that the studios pay these big stars the big money because they are bankable stars.
Someone upthread pointed out that Robert Downey Jr got paid $400m over the course of his run in the MCU. To be sure, that’s a lot of money; probably much more than whoever is the second-most compensated actor in the series (ScarJo? Hemsworth?). But with RDJ and these other high-profile stars as the headliners, the MCU has made $28 BILLION (as of May 3):
https://www.businessinsider.com/marvel-movies-ranked-how-much-money-at-global-box-office-2021-11
That’s 70 times what they paid Downey, and that’s just box office numbers — it doesn’t include all the tie-ins and promotions and television shows and streaming subscriptions and park rides and cruise lines and everything else. I’d wager that puts the overall value of the MCU well into the $100B club.
Stars are paid stupid amounts because they earn the studios INSANE amounts.
Pitting labor against labor is a classic anti-union tactic, and any star worth their salt who is asked this question while marching the picket line could simply say “I’m paid what I’m paid because I’m skilled, an earner, and also very very lucky to be in the position I find myself. I have a team that fights for me to get a piece of these insanely profitable ventures; for everyone else, I’m part of their team right now.”
Yeah, that is a loaded question, from a PR standpoint, I’m not sure what the best answer is. However, wouldn’t the correct answer be, “No, I shouldn’t have to take less so that others get more. The producers and the studios have more than enough to go around to all of us. If they’re able to compensate me at my rate, just imagine how much money that means they’re making off of my name alone and then everyone else who works so hard to make me look good.”
Agreed. There’s already enough people out there who believe everyone who’s ever walked past a movie set is a millionaire, so it wouldn’t help the strike to have all of the images being printed (because that will be what goes to press) be of A list stars looking they like are complaining for not being rich enough. Even if they DO say things like “this isn’t about us” that’s not what will be heard.
It’s not a loaded question. It’s a fair question that rich people don’t like being asked, because they absolutely would take even more money and pay actors nothing if they could.
Regular people extend the rich too much grace, and that needs to stop.
The nature of the question anticipates a pre-determined answer. No person is going to say they overvalue their contribution, even when others question it. And the societally correct response is to say everyone should get their worth, but the measuring stick for that lends itself towards the replacement cost of any job function. (the union jobs in this situation have a long line of people willing to work cheaply hoping to get higher on the compensation scale. It may seem like exploitation, but it’s informed consent to a degree. See Income Smoothing)It has nothing to do with class or wealth but how we calculate the monetary value of someone’s work or effort. That model has been broken for decades and the end result of this strike isn’t going to be the deal most people would hope for.
Eh I can see the point about being mobbed. “Hey look, driving along see striking actor— holy shit is that Tom Cruise” *squeeeee tires screech, hard turn, spin out, crash into pile of actors including Cruise, memorial at 11*
Tom Cruise seems like such a nice guy.But how nice can someone who is so high-ranking in a cult that ruins lives and families and is just mean and cruel be?
Because one is a carefully cultivated persona, managed by high-paid PR managers. The other is the real Tom Cruise.
Co-sign. He’s become one of those people who has been so famous for so long that it’s hard to see what’s left in there of a recognizable human (see also Will Smith). I enjoy the hell out of his work but there’s no denying he seems like movie industry AI.
More like a figment of our imagination. That cat is a smiling robot.
Very.. we can all be nice to people we want to be while being cruel to those we think deserve it. There are very few people that are universally nice.
Seems like an easy answer.
Goddam that “who” is workin hard.
Have you never met someone who was polite but actually a shithead before? They are not rare. “Nice” is not equal to “Kind”.
And where o where is your acknowledgement of Tom Cruise’s help with bringing back United Artists(Admittedly it’s now defunct but still.).‘”United Artists EntertainmentOn November 2, 2006, MGM announced that Tom Cruise and his long-time production partner Paula Wagner were resurrecting UA.[61][62] This announcement came after the duo were released from a fourteen-year production relationship at Viacom-owned Paramount Pictures.”’Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Artists
Cruise is such an interesting star. He’s genuinely great on screen. Sure, he plays one role but he plays it well. Unlike, say, the Rock, who’s one role career has just gotten more and more boring, Cruise is just so charismatic and fun. and he knows to surround himself with other great actors who he does allow to have their moments in these movies. He cares about film, about cinema, about entertaining. He’s supposedly a SUPER nice guy to just about everyone.But he’s also a wack job. He’s the most prominent member of a dangerous cult, who allows and sometimes perpetuates it’s abusive behavior, especially to the women in his life(Kidman, Holmes). If he wanted he could take down the entire organization, but instead he allows it to happen because they practically treat him like a God. It’s terrible, and it really shouldn’t be forgotten that Cruise ALLOWS this abuse. He isn’t JUST a member. He is basically the freakin’ Pope. Look at what Leah Remini, who was just a regular old celebrity member, did. Imagine what Cruise could do and chooses NOT to do.
He chose his weirdo cult over his child. Having a child you don’t have any contact with is one of those things that very clearly indicates that someone is a piece of shit on a fundamental level.
mm nah how they treat others in their lives also counts. Some people just don’t care about kids.
Can you imagine the dirt that Katie Holmes has on him? There’s no way he agreed to zero custody unless he had something major to lose.
I doubt he cared about custody. It was all about an ironclad NDA and fear when it came to came to giving up Suri. Kidman, to this day, talks more about their adopted kids, Connor and Isabella, than Cruise does, lamenting that they chose to become Scientologist’s. Now, I completely understand a celebrity protecting their children from unwanted attention. The paparazzi, rags and social media are unrelentingly invasive, but Cruise is a bizarre Scientology robot. After Siri was born he carried her around like a trophy during press events, like “look, I’m a totally normal man that can impregnate a woman and I’m now a devoted father,” with his super fake affect. Which he quickly gave up and never spoke about again because keeping his career going is his only real concern. It’s not shocking that he was asking for exemptions during a strike.
despite my issues with Scientology and the man personally, i think ‘Magnolia’ should’ve really dismissed the idea that he plays one role
Magnolia, the one where he plays a cocky, over-confident character who’s humbled by a sudden event in his life? I mean, it’s a great performance but it’s a variation on the persona he built in Top Gun, Rain Man, Cocktail, Jerry Maguire, etc.
I agree with you wholeheartedly!!! But unfortunately TC appears to consider himself a godlike figure beyond the woes of ordinary humans. His goofy smile is a facade. Who knows what bs lies behind that toothy mannequin look! The so called “good, nice guy” image (?) seems to be an act put on by an actor who is a “star”… and what a champion he is…not!
Cruise has essentially reached Michael Jackson levels of reclusiveness. For basically the last decade/decade and a half of his life, Jackson was so rich and so weird he was completely cut off from humanity. That’s Tom Cruise today. Cruise, of course, has help being kept in his bubble by his “religion.”
I’ll offer some applause when Ethan Hunt rescues a group of gaslit cultists from “The Hole.”
Have a few friends in the industry, who don’t know him, but have been on set and associated with him, and seen him associate with others.Every one of them says he’s kind, generous, and a consummate professional on set, who goes out of his way to be genuinely friendly with even the most junior of the crew – address them by name, learn about them, ask after them.One hypothesized that it’s because he’s so famous he can’t have anything resembling normal social interactions anywhere but on set. Which makes sense…but didn’t stop me from observing that being a Level VII Operating Thetan probably doesn’t help either.
If he wasn’t such a nut, he could possibly be considered the greatest actor of all time, and could probably run for president. It’s wild that his cult has such a hold on him.
Well said. I’ve been thinking about Tom Cruise a lot lately, as I just did a MI marathon. He is just so good at what he does, and it is apparent that he cares a lot about the industry. While watching the MI movies, I did notice that how well rounded and diverse the casting was, and appreciated the multifaceted women characters. It’s so hard to reconcile that with the elephant in the room.
Doesn’t a “strike” imply that you stop doing something? Because I can’t remember the last time Tom Cruise did any actual, you know, acting.
He’s on Cruise control!
I’m not very original.
Magnolia
Tropic Thunder
American Made…Edge of Tomorrow…
4rth of July
He’s not “between a rock and a hard place” in any way. He’s one of the most powerful people in Hollywood, and his public and enthusiastic support of his union would fulfill his supposed goal of helping his beloved theaters (by shortening the strike) and would support his fellow actors, stunt people, etc. There is no risk to him whatsoever – the studios aren’t going to blackball Tom Cruise for striking.
And even if they did decide to blackball Tom Cruise… it’s not like that would ruin his life.
He would be forced to dry his tears with the literal billion dollars he has.
There is risk to the perception of the unions’ argument. It wouldn’t take much for the AMPTP to redirect any and all media scrutiny of their negotiating position to the A-listers, making their presence an instant negative.Think of the usual counter-arguments to celeb climate activism if you need a preview.
They’ve already been trying that, so no. Actually having a few on the line showing support without taking the limelight off the actual people its about is possible, and something he definitely show be doing after having been asked to by the guild.
Yeah appeasing the “angry at Hollywood celebs” crowd is stupid and pointless. This is just some weird anti-labor kind of respectability politics. Cruise has all the leverage with the people who matter swaying—the studios’ management.And as you pointed out, he has been asked to join the picket lines. Like HE LITERALLY HAS THE OKAY OF THE PEOPLE STRIKING.
No one cares what a bunch of too-online rightoids have to say. Strikes are about leverage, and the only leverage that matters is against other Hollywood elites. This “What will Joe America in Anytown, OH say???” shit doesn’t matter now any more than it does when Joe America’s own job is on the line. These people are powerless in society and have no working class solidarity and will be of zero help to strikers of any kind. The people who should be the target of demands (and thus the only people strikers should be concerned with swaying) are the studio CEOs and shareholders. And Cruise has all the leverage to help the strikers.
You might be right; but there’s lots he could be doing behind the scenes (and might be, but might not be, I don’t know) that wouldn’t cause that kind of public distraction. SAG-AFTRA has a strike fund to help support its members while they can’t work, and Cruise could probably triple the size of that fund without breaking a sweat. He might be the reason a lot of people go to see his movies, but the movies still wouldn’t exist without all the other people working on them, too.
What a complete empty shell of a person. Only wants to support the strike if it means he’ll still get to promote his bullshit, and is too chickenshit to join the picket line. Odenkirk is right. You don’t get special treatment because you do your own stunts. Join the strike in earnest you complete twat.
He is such an easy celebrity to dislike. He seems to be in a perpetual mid life crisis trying to hold onto his youth with ever wilder stunts to prove he is still capable. Old age will hit his ego like a brick wall.
“advocate on behalf of stunt performers (a segment of the guild famously near and dear to his heart).” What weird assumptions this piece makes. Cruise does not and has never truly cared about stunt people, he mythologizes the craft but if he really cared he wouldn’t try to do his own stunts and let trained stuntmen do them and collect a paycheque and insist that was the proper way for it to be done. It all comes back to ego with Cruise and this is no exception.
So you’re paying a WGA member to write your comments then. He doesn’t do all his own stunts he does as many as he can, as many actors do.
At no point in my comment did I claim that he does “all” his stunts. I’d suggest you go back and read it again properly this time.
if he really cared he wouldn’t try to do his own stunts and let trained stuntmen do them and collect a paycheque and insist that was the proper way for it to be done.That’s certainly… a take.Alternatively, if he really cared about stunt people he would do have them do everything safely in front of a green screen instead of actually risking their lives.In might be in service of ego, but the results are amazing.
There’s lots of stupid things that look cool, I actually agree that the industry as a whole could do better to choose safer options across the board for stunt people so that accidents like what happened on the set of Rust become a thing of the past.
“Cruise does not and has never truly cared about stunt people, he mythologizes the craft but if he really cared he wouldn’t try to do his own stunts and let trained stuntmen do them and collect a paycheque and insist that was the proper way for it to be done.”This might be the dumbest thing I’ve read on the internet in a while, and keep in mind that this is the internet we’re talking about. The internet.
Cool.
How can a lightning rod strike again?
Isn’t that victim blaming?
If someone is swinging it around their head it could strike any number of things.
Like that old saying, “You can’t swing a lightning rod without hitting a dead cat.”
People really had varied interests back then.
“That’s not who we are striking for. We’re striking for the journeyman.” Ahh yes then they’re striking for those working for minimum wage .. just like us! /s No that means they’re striking for people with a minimum wage of (copied from a SAG AFRTA site):SAG Day Rate: $1,082 / DayMeh.. one set of richies complaining they’re not as rich as another set. Let them eat petit fours.
The minimum wage is so high because the actors working for SAG minimum don’t work very many days a year. One of the biggest talking points is that actors have to make a certain amount a year to be eligible for health insurance. That amount is $26,470 a year, and many (no-name, working) actors are reportedly having a hard time making that much.If you’re going to brag about pulling numbers from official websites, make sure you’re actually well-researched and not suffering confirmation bias to prove whatever pre-conceived point you were trying to make.
Not to mention all the time hustling to line up those few jobs.
Seriously – they don’t get paid to audition, but you gotta audition to get paid, so a high day rate for the actual working days makes perfect sense.
Plus a lot of preparation (acting classes, specialized skills, etc.) for roles isn’t paid by the studio unless it’s negotiated in the individual contract – something that’s not happening for an actor making the SAG minimum. But it can improve your chances to be cast for roles that require specialized skills or looks, so it’s an out-of-pocket (albeit hopefully tax-deductible) expense most actors end up spending.
To be specific, 87% of the members of SAG/AFTRA do not make that minimum wage to be eligible for health care. That’s about 150,000 people making poverty wages or, at best, working multiple jobs. Fuck anyone who calls working artists in the US lazy. A difficult proposition for these couch calculator critics, of course, what with their heads so firmly up their ass.
Thank you! I hastily tried to Google the number but I realized I was probably wasting my time.My favorite are the types that insist SAG actors are overpaid AND untalented. Well shit, if they’re making all that money without talent, why doesn’t everyone just become a professional actor?The lack of critical thinking skills in some people is embarrassing.
This is such an ill-informed, knee-jerk, eat the rich, bullshit take. Do you know how many days most Sag actors within a year? A handful to a few dozen, which is poverty wages regardless of how much the “day rate” is.
“Tom Cruise may be the last remaining genuine movie star”wat
I think ol’ Tom is gonna be alright.
TOP GUN: SCABERICK
I think the praise that Cruise got for Saving Cinema from a number of folks (most notably Spielberg) went to his head. Not that I think his intentions aren’t good – he genuinely seems to love the big screen movie and wants to see it thrive, has put recorded audience thank-yous in both of his recent big budget movies, and probably lobbied for the promotion exemption because he believed it would help movie theaters rather than studios. But this whole thing definitely feels like a bit of an ego trip effort by Cruise.
As for walking the picket line, I can’t imagine Cruise actually doing something in public where un-screened people might ask him a question. He’s basically invisible in public, presumably because he’s just working nearly all of the waking time and lives out of his film trailer and whatever passes for an office.
Saving Cinema From Silverman
He doesn’t seem particularly interested in saving “cinema” broadly anyway. More like saving a specific type of action movie.
Wrong, he was the main person behind “Barbenheimer”.
More specifically, it’s the Big Screen.
Say Tom, you know what would be a neato stunt to try yourself? Literal lightning rod.
lord xenu will provide. hes got nothing to worry about.
Cruise isn’t just an actor, but has also been producing his own movies for a while and can essentially dictate the terms he gets. This gives him very different stakes than the typical SAG member.
I feel like Cruise has become and stayed rich by being so meticulously inoffensive in his public persona, perhaps because his personal life is so nuts, that this “everything to everyone” instinct feels of a piece. I’d argue that it’s impossible to tell where he actually stands on any of this. For all we know, he burned out on movies in concept ten years ago but recognizes that that’s where his money comes from, and he has gotten so good at playing this game that no one has noticed.
The man literally has cult-indoctrinated slaves working for him. You expect him to be a champion of labor?
Whatever. T Cruz and his gigantic pile of money will be just fine. Prescriptions lead to street drugs Tom!
Lightning rods get struck by lightning, they don’t produce it. So they can’t strike once, let alone “again”. Were you thinking of a Tesla coil? Complete opposite thing. Anyway maybe make sure you know what all the terms in your headline mean and that it expresses a coherent thought. This doesn’t.
he’s been hailed as the savior of cinema
His one, true public passion is protecting the cinema
he’s recently been elevated to cinema’s most ardent protector
If there’s one thing we know Tom Cruise cares about, it’s movies
hard to imagine Cruise on the picket line. Not because he doesn’t careWhat is it with this PR myth that serious people mindlessly repeat without interrogating? Tom Cruise is not a champion of cinema. He does PR and stakeholder relations for his movies and that’s pretty much it.I mean, maybe he does care about the health of the theater business, or even of the actual movie-making business, but producing one forgettable blockbuster a year that makes a lot of money (which isn’t even his rate of output) is not the way to save it.Honestly, where does this bullshit come from?
He’s very much a producer (and quite frankly, by all accounts including my friend who works on the MI movies, the director with Christopher McQuarrie a sad chump.) On top of that, besides his production company, he’s owned a studio. He’s a studio lackey who still has SAG-AFTRA membership.He’s very much on the side of studios. His request for an (unjustifiable) waiver just shows where his actual loyalties lie. Yes, not promoting his movie will hurt Box Office — but that. is. the. point. And that’s true for all big and small movies. Small movies (for struck studios) get hurt too but somehow A-List/Tent Pole movies need some kind of fragility safety net? Fuck that.
His movie’s promotional tour was over and unaffected by the SAG strike. But I agree that at this point in his career he does seem more aligned with the studios’ interests than the union’s.
His promo tour isn’t over. He has specifically asked for a promo waiver this past week.
There’s also the very real issue of L.A. summer in the hottest year on record. How ANYONE is picketing is beyond this heat-stroke-susceptible fat guy.
And at Universal they trimmed the trees to cut down on shade. Literal ghouls: The Los Angeles City Controller’s office is investigating after several trees near Universal Studios property were trimmed — trees that were providing shade and relief from the blistering heat for striking members of the Writers Guild of America and SAG-AFTRA.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sag-aftra-strike-trees-trimmed-nbcuniversal-investigation
Fucking A. What a buncha jags.
Judging by this article… no, it wouldn’t be helpful. There would literally be two dozen pieces written about HIM from this site alone.
Other than TG:M and the MI movies how is he a “saviour of cinema” or “the last movie star”? Minus those examples what other major hits does he have in the last 10 years?
Fuck Tom Cruise. If the mega-wealthy leader of an abusive cult, who somehow repeatedly gets a pass for this, and is asking for a union exemption to promote his movie, is the savior of cinema? Then that version of cinema needs to die a fiery death.
The day he dies doing one of his absurd movie stunts should be made a holiday. The best part of his career was in the last century, and all that’s left is a litany of filmed suicide attempts. Boooring….