There are no fights in Hollywood that are too big that money can’t ease the tensions. Cruise is coming off his worst showing in two decades with Lions For Lambs and is looking for a hit. Early buzz on his WWII film, Valkyrie, hasn’t been good and the film has already been pushed back several times. It’s no wonder Cruise would look to Mission: Impossible as a money making machine. A fourth film in the series would almost certainly do well on the world market.
Cruise, of course, is no longer a part of the Paramount family after his fight with Redstone led to a parting. After Cruise’s deal with Paramount ended, he and business partner Paula Wagner struck a deal with MGM to revive the United Artists banner. On Tuesday, however, Redstone said that he has no objections to Tom Cruise starring in another M:I movie for Paramount (which is owned by Viacom).
“I consider Tom Cruise a great actor and a good friend,” Redstone said. “And if Paramount decides to move ahead with him, I will not object.” He added that the decision was “up to Brad Grey, who runs Paramount.”
Paramount apparently feels like it’s a good idea as they’ve begun talks with Cruise to star in a fourth film. There’s no word on whether or not there’s a script in play for a Mission: Impossible 4 or if there is any sort of story.
Even though MI3 was the weakest of the franchise, IMO, I still think it might be fun to see another one. It may be the only thing moviegoers would pay to see Cruise in.
Scotty Dubs last blog post..Inked
Yeah, I’d see it, but really don’t care to see him in anything else.
I would watch another Mission Impossibe movie. I liked all of them so far. I never watched the original show however, so I am not a true fan. I like the idea of an alternative to James Bond, but I also like James Bond Films. I guess I like spy/action films in general. I am not a Tom Cruise fan, but I think the media has painted a false picture of him and I think he is a good actor. I really liked his performance in “War Of The Worlds” and I actually liked “MI3″, and “Minority Report”. I probably will not see “Lions For Lambs” or “Valkyrie” just because I am not interested in those films.
Raven Spinners last blog post..My Alternatives to Plastic!
I think it’s going to take quite a lot for the average American to embrace Tom Cruise anymore… whether fair or unfair. His name attached to stuff doesn’t get the positive vibe it used to.
@ Jina - i think you are spot on with that comment. i have little desire to see any of his movies these days.
His Scientology friends can go see it.
I think Jina is probably right although I’m not really sure why he’s taken such a beating. His Scientology views are no more wacky than a lot of other Hollywood stars’ religious beliefs and until recently he’s made pretty good movies. If I stopped watching movies because of how actors were in their personal lives I would never watch anything.
I think it is also his superior (”everyone else is an idiot”) kind of attitude that has also turned off a lot of people, not just his Scientology views or couch jumping.
It was his superior attitude, yeah, but also the strange way his marriage has been, it almost seems like he was super possessive of Katie Holmes, etc…
And then being so outspoken about Scientology and basically acting like a nutcase a lot of the time also helped.
Spot on Jina. There are a number of Scientologists in Hollywood, but Cruise is out there beating the drum louder than anyone else, not to mention that he’s got that arrogant, if you don’t think like me you’re an idiot attitude.
And the whole marriage thing with Katie Holmes is whack (scientific term) too.
Scotty Dubs last blog post..Inked
Yeah, I totally get what you guys are saying, but I have a story about this subject: I think the media has put an unfair spin on any Tom Cruise story because everyone loves a good lynching, the downfall of a star. (Remember, I am NOT a TC fan), but I just happened to be watching the Oprah show on the day when Tom jumped on that couch and started the downward spiral that really pushed him into the media in a negative light and I never could understand it, because that day was a total joke on the show. He was being, “funny” (for Tom Cruise) and joking around with the audience. The audience was totally into it too and laughing, so was Oprah for that matter, no matter what she says now. It was funny, and I remember the backlash in the media afterwards, “Tom Cruise is CRAZYâ€Â? bla bla, the way they spun it, it did make him look crazy out of context. I am telling you guys, it was a joke and it was actually funny “in contextâ€Â?, if you watched the entire show. After that day it was all down hill. He didn’t do himself any favors with the Matt Lauer interview/Scientology thing, fired his publicist, hired his sister, got married, had a baby, got fired, it was a downward spiral after “the couchâ€Â?, but it all began by a spin on a story fueled unfairly by the media. I think it was highly unfair and ½ ruined his career and seems tragic. If I had not watched Oprah that day, I would never even thought about this…it makes you think how much of each story told by the media is true? Maybe %40, or less? How much do we just blindly believe?
Raven Spinners last blog post..My Alternatives to Plastic!
He wasn’t perfect before Oprah - He lost his temper in public when a British reporter sprayed him with water once as a prank.
He used to be this huge star we knew very little about. The more we know the less we want to know. Most people wish they could go back to seeing him only as an actor and not connect him with the stuff from his personal life.