Cut that check: Tom Cruise, Sandra Bullock, and other actors believe that Paramount is losing them millions in profit
The Jackass creators join Cruise and Bullock in saying that the studio's deal with cable channel Epix is losing them millions
Aux News Sandra Bullock
The relationship between studios and actors is a symbiotic one, with the two partners relying on each other to get a movie off the ground and into theaters for the rest of us to enjoy the end product. Yet, that alliance can sour pretty quickly if one side begins to feel slighted…especially if Savior-of-the-Theater-Experience Tom Cruise is involved.
According to Fortune, Cruise, other stars, and producers of recent Paramount Pictures films believe that they are losing out on millions of dollars due to a deal made between the studio and cable channel Epix. Cruise, who starred in the Paramount mega-hit Top Gun: Maverick, Sandra Bullock (The Lost City), and the team behind Jackass are some of the named groups behind the accusation, alleging that their earnings are comparatively less than other studio-to-streaming/cable deals, all due to Paramount earning less from Epix.
Formerly a partial owner of the lesser-known cable channel Epix, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer bought Paramount and Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. out of their shares in 2017. Though they had a five-year deal to exhibit their movies on the channel, Paramount bega
n to embark on creating their own streaming service, Paramount+, out of the rubble of CBS All-Access. In a new deal made with Epix in 2021, their agreement would continue for another year, while the studio could also show their new movies on the streamer only 45 days after releasing in theaters. Shortly thereafter, Netflix struck a deal with Sony, and Peacock and Amazon worked with Universal, with both studios reportedly receiving more from those streamers than Paramount received from Epix.
To break down the very complicated structure of Hollywood business, those involved in the making of a film can earn a good chunk of their profit from digital sales and a bit from residuals when films go to streamers. Of course, the real money for actors, filmmakers, and producers is in ticket sales, as, depending on their contract, they can earn a percentage of the film’s gross revenue. Since streaming is currently king, if Paramount’s deal with Epix is offering significantly less than other studios’ streaming/cable business dealings, as is alleged, that could go on to turn talent away from working with the studio in the future.
Speaking with those involved, Fortune says that this issue started coming up when talent began to notice differences in their checks between Universal and Sony vs. the Paramount payments. Representatives for Cruise, Bullock, and Jackass’ Johnny Knoxville have yet to respond to Fortune’s request for comment.
In response to all the chatter, Paramount gave a statement to Bloomberg News saying that the studio hasn’t had ownership interest in Epix for five years, and that “our agreements are entered into at market rates.”
26 Comments
Round 4,281 of Millionaires vs. Billionaires, whee.
Well, I’d rather it go to talent than fat asses in suits. At this point, I’m not sure why Paramount is fucking with Tom Cruise.
Meh, Go Millionaires!
Let’s not forget that rich people/companies stay rich by NOT SPENDING MONEY. Doesn’t make anything right/wrong, but it’s a fact.
And facts have no place in these discussions!
“Just like facts have no place in organized religion!”
Or politics! 🙂
You have to spend money to make money.
Ok everybody…let’s make this a nice clean discussion!
Team “They deserve to get paid for what they do” over that side…
And Team “World’s smallest violin” over there.
Now when I blow this whistle I wanna see you come out commenting, no low blows about grooming, abelism, incels or ‘no, YOU are!’
Okay, who’s this Pearl, and what does she harbor against me?
Oh, and only one side comes out alive.
That seems like too many.
The talent here is just too good. Where’s the weekly single camera comedy about an unfortunately addictive media blog where the writers are contantly battling with their publishers? In which as soon as a star becomes really popular, and therefore too expensive for the showrunners, they disappear and get replaced by a new actor you’ve never heard of? Would have the biggest virtual writing room in the world, half of whom refuse to work for Paramount+, and half of whom just want a check, man.
They do deserve to get paid but I don’t see how this is a lawsuit? Are they saying Paramount just didn’t try hard enough? They made their deal before the others so maybe they just didn’t think they could get that much? This is weird.
🎻
But aren’t “market rates” linked to the number of subscribers a network/service has? Paramount didn’t have much of a choice when they were on the contract that extended back to when they had a stake in it, the 2021 renewal is a head-scratcher given what a dud Epix is.
When did this kind of thing become news? Streaming may still be somewhat novel in the scheme of things but this is just normal industry machinations.
You have to spend money to make money.
This is the least important part of the story, but “building Paramount+ out of the rubble of CBS All Access” implies that there was some sort of overhaul, and as somebody who was subscribed to CBS All Access and is still subscribed to Paramount+, the only difference was a name and branding change. The app itself is functionally unchanged.
You’d think the industry would have actually adapted so that the transition to streaming services didn’t screw over people, particularly after theaters got hit for 2 years thanks to Covid. As is, I think the turnaround from theater to blu-ray was hitting 45~60 days anyway before everyone went streaming.
Oh lord my heart bleeds for them.
Paramount risked their equity on a flimsy streamer (they ‘use’ to own ‘5 yrs ago’) in hopes of it competing w Netflix or Prime (streamers)?They gambled with their monies, as well as their premier talent’s (and corresponding unions) — Unfortunately those performers should have known what they were investing in when they initially signed on w Paramount. This sounds more of a case of aforementioned star’s representatives not doing their due diligence and now they’ve convinced their clients (it’s not their fault) they should be given litigate publicize/PR for a lump sum “tip” fortheir initial gaffe, and
Paramount’s lousy gamble
Paramount risked their equity on a flimsy streamer (they ‘use’ to own ‘5 yrs ago’) in hopes of it competing w Netflix or Prime (streamers)?They gambled with their monies, as well as their premier talent’s (and corresponding unions). Unfortunate those performers didn’t know what they were investing in when they initially signed on w Paramount. This sounds more of a case of star’s representatives not doing their due diligence and now they’ve convinced clients (it’s not their fault) they should be given litigate publicize/PR for a lump sum “tip” fortheir gaffe, and
Paramount’s lousy gamble
Why no new comments ‘pending’?edit: nm
Lucky for them, Epix’s contract ends with Paramount soon. Post 2023 movies will mostly likely hit Showtime since Paramount owns them now. None of this would happen if Viacom and CBS split in the first place leading to the creation of Epix since Showtime didn’t want to renew with them, MGM and Lionsgate and focus more on indie studios and tv shows.