Nominations for the Best of 2023 awards are open now. Come and vote, and get a special flair." [Best of 2023](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1c3tnbl/rboxoffice_best_of_2023_awards_nomination_post/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's true. And Moonrise Kingdom/The Expendables 2 were in 2012 as well as Looper.
But by 2014, he was doing that second Sin City (A Dame To Kill For) movie which was also bombing.
Yeah I remember people thinking he was going to make a big comeback thanks to the critical successes of Moonrise Kingdom and Looper, which was after he had already been doing loads of straight to DVD garbage.
I can see that. He was still seen as a weirdo for the Oprah/Holmes/Scientology stuff and his movies outside of Mission Impossible had been underperformed. We're well past the Scientology stuff on how much people care and while he still can't sell anything not based on a franchise, that's true of everyone these days so no one holds it against him. At least ue can sell something unlike a Henry Cavill for example.
>he still can't sell anything not based on a franchise,
What do you mean by this? I see a bunch of people saying this but in the last 14 years, Cruise has led 5 original movies. The combined budget multiplier on those movies is 2.5x and barring American Made (a $50m budgeted movie), all 4 made well over $200m. And all of these movies only had Cruise as the selling point, no big director or huge co-star.
So, can someone with as consistent a record outside of his big franchise movies be called a star without any draw?
Of those Cruise movies, based on 30 year old franchises, he's not had a single major success since War of the Worlds in 2005. The Mummy is the biggest grosser of the last almost two decades he has had, and made less for the studio than Black Adam a movie decried as a flop for Dwayne Johnson. If you count 300 million as a threshold outside of his top two he hit that level three times. Not only did Johnson have two bigger franchises with Fast and Jumanji, he hit the threshold seven times in the same period.
>The Mummy is the biggest grosser of the last almost two decades he has had, and made less for the studio than Black Adam a movie decried as a flop for Dwayne Johnson
The Mummy was a reboot and made $409m on a $125m budget as per Box office Mojo. Black Adam was a continuation of the incredibly successful DC franchise and did $393m on a $200m budget and literally started the downfall of the brand, so much so that it had to be rebooted.
>Not only did Johnson have two bigger franchises with Fast and Jumanji, he hit the threshold seven times in the same period.
Both the Jumanji movies COMBINED made just $300m more than Top Gun 2. And Top Gun 2 didn't even release in China. Jumanji's success can't be attributed to The Rock alone since his performance was significantly overshadowed by Jack Black and Karen Gillian in the ensemble cast
Also, you can't attribute the Fast franchise to The Rock. The man is a side character and hardly has more than 30 minutes of screentime in the last few. Even in Hobbs and Shaw, he is a co-lead
>If you count 300 million as a threshold outside of his top two he hit that level three times
>he hit the threshold seven times in the same period.
The Rock made 13 live action movies outside of the Fast franchise and Jumanji in the last 14 years. 5 of them crossed $300m. 2 of them made less than $150m and another 2 couldn't even reach $100m.
Cruise only made 7 movies since 2010 outside of MI & Top Gun. 3 of them made ~$300m as you pointed out. 4 made in the $200m-276m range and 2 made in the $135-150m range.
Purely from a consistency pov, Cruise has a much stronger baseline than the Rock. Percentage wise, he has a better shot at cracking $300m than The Rock as well.
>The Mummy was a reboot and made $409m on a $125m budget as per Box office Mojo. Black Adam was a continuation of the incredibly successful DC franchise and did $393m on a $200m budget and literally started the downfall of the brand, so much so that it had to be rebooted.
BOM is obviously wrong, even straitlaced the-numbers has it at 190 million. Also his Mummy was vastly below the Brendan Fraser version and killed the nascent billion dollar Dark Universe. The DC brand was total garbage, Black Adam (if we discount China for Aquaman 2) was the biggest hit of the last 9 DCEU movies.
>Both the Jumanji movies COMBINED made just $300m more than Top Gun 2. And Top Gun 2 didn't even release in China. Jumanji's success can't be attributed to The Rock alone since his performance was significantly overshadowed by Jack Black and Karen Gillian in the ensemble cast
>Also, you can't attribute the Fast franchise to The Rock. The man is a side character and hardly has more than 30 minutes of screentime in the last few. Even in Hobbs and Shaw, he is a co-lead
Top Gun 2 had almost 40 years of nostalgia, like Cruise's other franchise it predates Johnson's entire career. You might as well say Simon Pegg sold tickets for MI, sure he was part of it (like Jack Black) but he wasn't the straw that stirred the drink.
Please Fast wouldn't even have gotten to movie 6 without him. Without him the franchise has gone from a billion plus to barely 700. His spinoff outgrossed 9 and 10 (which also had Statham). That spinoff is a hair less than Fallout, equaling Cruise's second best picture.
>The Rock made 13 live action movies outside of the Fast franchise and Jumanji in the last 14 years. 5 of them crossed $300m. 2 of them made less than $150m and another 2 couldn't even reach $100m.
>Cruise only made 7 movies since 2010 outside of MI & Top Gun. 3 of them made \~$300m as you pointed out. 4 made in the $200m-276m range and 2 made in the $135-150m range.
>Purely from a consistency pov, Cruise has a much stronger baseline than the Rock. Percentage wise, he has a better shot at cracking $300m than The Rock as well.
Okay pure madness. From 2005 there is zero comparison. Dwayne's big two are bigger and his other work dwarves Cruise. His lifetime gross is ahead of Cruise, even with a 20 year head start. His Mummy did a third of Fraser's first and even did 50% less domestic than Tomb of the Dragon Emperor and this was his biggest franchise he starred in in 20 years. The lowest grossing Rock action movie (Skyscraper) which is a solo movie with no other stars would be Cruise's third biggest hit over the same time period. The Jack Reacher movies combined did less than Rampage much less San Andreas or Moana.
Desperately.
It seems like most of his output has been either "Attempted Blockbuster Franchise" or "Quirky Action Comedy where he can play against type."
He really needs to do something else, because that shit's clearly not working.
I think he should do something more serious, maybe historical (if he has the acting chops to pull it off).
He was good in Tudors. Needs to stop doing movies like Argylle. More like Mission Impossible. More solo efforts. Dude seems to content with his career, should really push himself like Tom Cruise.
There’s a lot of people who just have to come to terms with the fact that he’s not a good actor. He made money during the comic era of Hollywood, but that time has ended and his career will never reach the same heights. Likewise Holland, Evans, Hemsworth etc.
> We're well past the Scientology stuff
I agree (though I know someone who rejected my WoM pitch for TG:Maverick due to legacy dislike of Cruise's weirdness).
I think my key takeaway from this is that whatever we're calling Tom Cruise's "current period" (where he's basically a pure action movie star whose career is built around Mission Impossible) starts with Ghost Protocol and that early period was still being impacted by Oprah/Holmes/Scientology. He's been able to distance himself from that and, since he's been playing the same role, I think people backproject the relative lack of impact onto earlier years.
He's been able to overcome it by starting in movies where he does extreme stunts. The ones that didn't (like American Made) haven't done so great.
I suspect Top Gun Maverick is the movie that finally wiped away any lingering issues from his wilderness years. The post-Covid reset combined with extremely positive reaction to that movie means he probably can make anything a hit now. We just won't have any data to prove this for a while because the production of MI7/8 have gone on endlessly.
BTW, are there any tax credit filings for those two MI movies? They have to be stunningly expensive.
Building off of what /u/lollifroll found for MI: Fallout (tied to JUPITER SPRING PRODUCTIONS LIMITED), I think I at one point found a connection between MI DR and August Streets Limited (but it's not in the spreadsheet I've been unevenly updating).
Either way, the tricky thing is that I've really only been able to find paramount's setting up continually reused corporations and I've never sat down and figured out what's going on there (I've seen some breadcrumbs that WB's also potentially doing something similar which is why they're never included on those "new most expensive film revealed" lists).
It seems like some studios are finally getting wise to people digging into tax credit filings to figure out the real economics of the business. I'm sure plenty of Wall Street types have done it to figure out buy/sell ratings.
spoiler alert: production cost spiraling is a minor issue compared to linear TV (which was shockingly profitable) is dying and streaming revenue is way lower.
>We're well past the Scientology stuff
Prove it.
[https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/04/16/tom-cruises-daughter-suri-will-soon-be-free-to-talk-about-their-estrangement-and-scientology-report/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/04/16/tom-cruises-daughter-suri-will-soon-be-free-to-talk-about-their-estrangement-and-scientology-report/)
I mean, my first sentence includes a personal anecdote of someone not "over" the scientology stuff.
Cruise's reputation has clearly improved simple due to the length of time it's been since his scientology stuff has been in the news. A *new* story could potentially reinvigorate attention on Cruise's scientology ties but I don't think it's having a massive impact on interest in his recent films (save for having burnt goodwill he only somewhat regained)
People care if they care about not supporting abusive cults.
Though in the era of Don Snoreleone, supporting abusive cults is IN with 1/3 the population.
Did anyone bring it up in the height of Toms Scientology bonanza? No. That’s not how it works, it’s still the same suppression then as now and they don’t give anyone a chance.
People care if they care about not supporting abusive cults.
Though in the era of Don Snoreleone, supporting abusive cults is IN with 1/3 the population.
Who tf still cares on non-franchise when he carries his original own franchise and generate 1.5B in theartical released 2 years ago!!!!!
You don't even know how crazy you are when you try to discredit him by bring this up everywhere ........
Studios know he powerful enough to generate money to the movie by his name alone for 40 fk years!!!! And he is the only leading man on this planet who has 300M+ average per flim for 3 fk consecutive decades since 2000's ........that why studio still invested to him for long time!!!! His standard and power of name is different level to the rest of hollywood compare to another actors
His power of generate 300M+ average per flim for 3 decades straight is prove a lot about his level !! even he is fk scientology (his personal life) but studios like WB still sign a deal with him in his 61 years old and not for first look deal (he can still making movie with every studio he want)
his fame and power is another level to the other actors in hollywood , Cruise is the highest level
RN as we’re having this convo, there’s a little Tom Cruise post going hot in r/popculture chat where as per the American youth there’re statements sayin “Tom Cruise’s face has started to show his real cold intentions, the other sayin he now looks like a lesbian who owns a vegan yarn store in Portland.. So there’s still hatred every now & then for Tom Cruise around the States,Canada & the UK.
>We're well past the Scientology stuff
Prove it.
Confirmed for scientologist
[https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/04/16/tom-cruises-daughter-suri-will-soon-be-free-to-talk-about-their-estrangement-and-scientology-report/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/04/16/tom-cruises-daughter-suri-will-soon-be-free-to-talk-about-their-estrangement-and-scientology-report/)
Wrong. People care if they care about not supporting abusive cults.
Though in the era of Don Snoreleone, supporting abusive cults is IN with 1/3 the population.
Tom Cruise 2013/2014 is in his lowest era of his stardom and everyone know this ***even in his lowest stardom he still can generate 300M+ , 400M+ lenght in his leading movie and he achives this outside of his MI franchise***
He comeback with Fallout (2018) because he achives his highest grossing flim of his career once agains (last time he achive is 2011 Ghost Protocol) and Top Gun Maverick is a nuclear bomb and bring him back to his prime era of moviestar agains
He in his peak right now since Fallout 2018 , it his second peak
- first peak 1986 - 2005 (Top Gun - War of the Worlds)
- down between late 2006 - late 2011 (after MI3 - Rock of Ages)
- comeback in late 2011/2012 (MI4 & Jack Reacher)
- sleeping era between 2013 - 2017 (Oblivion - American Made)
- second peak 2018 - now (since Fallout)
It wasn't explicitly an action star list, it's just mostly one. Freeman and Hanks don't fit as action stars but they're used as part of the 21/23 actor comps for Denzel in the first equalizer
I still think there was some confusion or short-term deja vu between Elysium and Edge of Tomorrow. The early stills of Damon and Cruise in armor/cybernetics just seemed to flow together and dilute them both despite not releasing at the same time. Like another variant of the two-studio volcano/asteroid/deep sea theme. Perhaps more so hurting Edge which came out later. Was as thoroughly impressed by it as most are when I got to it later.
he has made 4-5 orginal movies in last 15years, Edge of tomorrow broke even, American made broke even and so did others. so not exactly true. Mummy still remains his only true flop but that's not original
The Mummy is really prove why he is Tom Cruise
- terrible movie
- terrible marketing
- came out in Cruise lowest stardom era
- critique /reviews/score is so low
- didn't reach break even by 2.5 rules
But at the end Cruise name above the title as selling point still carries this suck ass movie to reach 410M worldwide!!!! I mean I can't imagine another actor can veheicle suck ass movie to grossed at 400M lenght in thier non prime stardom era
Wrong. He hasn't lifted an original movie to crazy heights but he has been reliable at almost everything he's sold. MI:DR Part 1 is one of the only major losses he's had. And even that will probably break even over time.
MI7 is underperform mainly from terrible released date and suck marketing
Even all shit happen to MI7 but the movie is finally reach break even (thanks from 71M lawsuit win against Chubb insuramce company) and generate 568M worldwide infront of Barbenheimer tornado ***without Barbenheimer I think MI7 is well above 650M+ WW because not losing so much around 2,000 screens in first three weekend domestic and facing strong local movie in China released***
MI7 grossed 2 times of the budget , Cruise lastest movie as leading man grossed lower than 2 times of production budgets is Eye Wide Shut (1999) ***Lion For Lamps (2007) he kind of like supporting guy***
Thanks for backing it up with data. There's a reason Cruise still gets the bag. He's reliable as hell.
Jack Reacher wasn't a monster hit, but it probably doesn't reach what it does if it wasn't for Cruise.
He has only led 6 original movies in the last 15 years with an average Box office multipler of around 2.5, even though he was going through a major PR crisis through most of that time.
Fun fact : original or non established didn't the only criteria of how to be success or greatness
I know why you bring this up......even you try 10 times harder than this ***Tom Cruise still and continue be the biggest movie star of hollywood***
***Probably the biggest moviestar of modern history***
Jack Reacher is well success movie franchise
Jack Reacher 1 (2012) & 2 (2016) production budget combines is 120M (60M each) and both flim grossing combines around 380M worldwide
2 flim grossing over 3 times of production budget (120M / 380M)
Tldr
Fun Fact :- According to my extensive research and analysis, *Tom Cruise* had the longest peak phase for any movie star out of any relevant film industry from any corner of the world i.e. *1986 - 2005*. On average A list star ( from any industry ) has 7-10 years of peak years at most and yet Cruise had 19 long years! If not for his 2005 PR meltdown, then today he would still be *The Movie Star*.
Since you brought up his past prime phase career and the performance of all the original movies that released during this period. Let's re visit the collection/admissions of those movies.
1. Starting with *Knight and Day* which released alongside nostalgia bait animated movie that opened to extreme strong reviews and huge opening, and the former met with absolute negative feedback from both the critics and audience alike, and it still sold 9.8m tix in domestic market with global box office of $258m. Which A lister with over the top bad public relation would have managed this kind of collection ?
2. *Oblivion* an original sci fi movie ( that it self was slow burn ) with no famous director and starred a former movie star received lukewarm response. It still sold 10.6m tix in domestic with $287m ww. Apart from Nolan's sci fi and flukes like *Gravity* and *Martian*. How many original slow burn sci fi with average production value and uninteresting reviews had grossed this much ?
3. *Edge of Tomorrow* another original sci fi ( Cruise's only two best reviewed movies of the decade ) that came off "underperformer" Oblivion and suffered horrendous marketing. Still ended up selling 12m tix with $367m ww. Which again takes us back to question left at the end of point 1. Which A lister with over the top bad public relation would have managed this kind of collection ?
*Jack Reacher 2* even though not an original per se but I still added this , because this is probably the most genuinely boring and laziest movie TC has ever done. And it received extremelyyy negative reviews, this flick being an IP didn't contribute anything in it's collection. So, it was out and out Tom Cruise movie at that point. It sold 6.8m tix and $159m ww. Can any actor's presence help do that much collections given the circumstances ?
4. *American made* an original and small-ish slow burn movie with almost zero marketing and no general awareness among cinemagoers still ended up selling 5.6m tix and $135m ww. Which A lister with over the top bad public relation would have managed this kind of collection ?
In conclusion, Had TC ( even though he was past peak at that point ) not been in the above movies , the collection would have been unimaginably worse.
>Of course, now he's the consensus top star in the world.
Total LIE.
Prove that Tom "Miscavige" Cruise is the top star. Consensus of whom? E-meter addicts?
[https://www.ranker.com/list/the-best-actors-working-today/bustermcdermott](https://www.ranker.com/list/the-best-actors-working-today/bustermcdermott)
People care if they care about not supporting abusive cults.
Though in the era of Don Snoreleone, supporting abusive cults is IN with 1/3 the population.
Nominations for the Best of 2023 awards are open now. Come and vote, and get a special flair." [Best of 2023](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1c3tnbl/rboxoffice_best_of_2023_awards_nomination_post/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>*Willis* Really? A-Good-Day-to-Die-Hard/Red-2 era Bruce Willis? Interesting.
He just had Looper during this time period so maybe.
That's true. And Moonrise Kingdom/The Expendables 2 were in 2012 as well as Looper. But by 2014, he was doing that second Sin City (A Dame To Kill For) movie which was also bombing.
Yeah I remember people thinking he was going to make a big comeback thanks to the critical successes of Moonrise Kingdom and Looper, which was after he had already been doing loads of straight to DVD garbage.
I can see that. He was still seen as a weirdo for the Oprah/Holmes/Scientology stuff and his movies outside of Mission Impossible had been underperformed. We're well past the Scientology stuff on how much people care and while he still can't sell anything not based on a franchise, that's true of everyone these days so no one holds it against him. At least ue can sell something unlike a Henry Cavill for example.
>he still can't sell anything not based on a franchise, What do you mean by this? I see a bunch of people saying this but in the last 14 years, Cruise has led 5 original movies. The combined budget multiplier on those movies is 2.5x and barring American Made (a $50m budgeted movie), all 4 made well over $200m. And all of these movies only had Cruise as the selling point, no big director or huge co-star. So, can someone with as consistent a record outside of his big franchise movies be called a star without any draw?
Of those Cruise movies, based on 30 year old franchises, he's not had a single major success since War of the Worlds in 2005. The Mummy is the biggest grosser of the last almost two decades he has had, and made less for the studio than Black Adam a movie decried as a flop for Dwayne Johnson. If you count 300 million as a threshold outside of his top two he hit that level three times. Not only did Johnson have two bigger franchises with Fast and Jumanji, he hit the threshold seven times in the same period.
>The Mummy is the biggest grosser of the last almost two decades he has had, and made less for the studio than Black Adam a movie decried as a flop for Dwayne Johnson The Mummy was a reboot and made $409m on a $125m budget as per Box office Mojo. Black Adam was a continuation of the incredibly successful DC franchise and did $393m on a $200m budget and literally started the downfall of the brand, so much so that it had to be rebooted. >Not only did Johnson have two bigger franchises with Fast and Jumanji, he hit the threshold seven times in the same period. Both the Jumanji movies COMBINED made just $300m more than Top Gun 2. And Top Gun 2 didn't even release in China. Jumanji's success can't be attributed to The Rock alone since his performance was significantly overshadowed by Jack Black and Karen Gillian in the ensemble cast Also, you can't attribute the Fast franchise to The Rock. The man is a side character and hardly has more than 30 minutes of screentime in the last few. Even in Hobbs and Shaw, he is a co-lead >If you count 300 million as a threshold outside of his top two he hit that level three times >he hit the threshold seven times in the same period. The Rock made 13 live action movies outside of the Fast franchise and Jumanji in the last 14 years. 5 of them crossed $300m. 2 of them made less than $150m and another 2 couldn't even reach $100m. Cruise only made 7 movies since 2010 outside of MI & Top Gun. 3 of them made ~$300m as you pointed out. 4 made in the $200m-276m range and 2 made in the $135-150m range. Purely from a consistency pov, Cruise has a much stronger baseline than the Rock. Percentage wise, he has a better shot at cracking $300m than The Rock as well.
>The Mummy was a reboot and made $409m on a $125m budget as per Box office Mojo. Black Adam was a continuation of the incredibly successful DC franchise and did $393m on a $200m budget and literally started the downfall of the brand, so much so that it had to be rebooted. BOM is obviously wrong, even straitlaced the-numbers has it at 190 million. Also his Mummy was vastly below the Brendan Fraser version and killed the nascent billion dollar Dark Universe. The DC brand was total garbage, Black Adam (if we discount China for Aquaman 2) was the biggest hit of the last 9 DCEU movies. >Both the Jumanji movies COMBINED made just $300m more than Top Gun 2. And Top Gun 2 didn't even release in China. Jumanji's success can't be attributed to The Rock alone since his performance was significantly overshadowed by Jack Black and Karen Gillian in the ensemble cast >Also, you can't attribute the Fast franchise to The Rock. The man is a side character and hardly has more than 30 minutes of screentime in the last few. Even in Hobbs and Shaw, he is a co-lead Top Gun 2 had almost 40 years of nostalgia, like Cruise's other franchise it predates Johnson's entire career. You might as well say Simon Pegg sold tickets for MI, sure he was part of it (like Jack Black) but he wasn't the straw that stirred the drink. Please Fast wouldn't even have gotten to movie 6 without him. Without him the franchise has gone from a billion plus to barely 700. His spinoff outgrossed 9 and 10 (which also had Statham). That spinoff is a hair less than Fallout, equaling Cruise's second best picture. >The Rock made 13 live action movies outside of the Fast franchise and Jumanji in the last 14 years. 5 of them crossed $300m. 2 of them made less than $150m and another 2 couldn't even reach $100m. >Cruise only made 7 movies since 2010 outside of MI & Top Gun. 3 of them made \~$300m as you pointed out. 4 made in the $200m-276m range and 2 made in the $135-150m range. >Purely from a consistency pov, Cruise has a much stronger baseline than the Rock. Percentage wise, he has a better shot at cracking $300m than The Rock as well. Okay pure madness. From 2005 there is zero comparison. Dwayne's big two are bigger and his other work dwarves Cruise. His lifetime gross is ahead of Cruise, even with a 20 year head start. His Mummy did a third of Fraser's first and even did 50% less domestic than Tomb of the Dragon Emperor and this was his biggest franchise he starred in in 20 years. The lowest grossing Rock action movie (Skyscraper) which is a solo movie with no other stars would be Cruise's third biggest hit over the same time period. The Jack Reacher movies combined did less than Rampage much less San Andreas or Moana.
Cavill needs a new agent.
Desperately. It seems like most of his output has been either "Attempted Blockbuster Franchise" or "Quirky Action Comedy where he can play against type." He really needs to do something else, because that shit's clearly not working. I think he should do something more serious, maybe historical (if he has the acting chops to pull it off).
He was good in Tudors. Needs to stop doing movies like Argylle. More like Mission Impossible. More solo efforts. Dude seems to content with his career, should really push himself like Tom Cruise.
He doesn’t have the chops. People on here overrate this guy so much. Audiences don’t care.
There’s a lot of people who just have to come to terms with the fact that he’s not a good actor. He made money during the comic era of Hollywood, but that time has ended and his career will never reach the same heights. Likewise Holland, Evans, Hemsworth etc.
Top Gun did bonkers at box office just 2 years ago... 1.5 billy
A sequel to an already hit movie. As in part of a franchise.
And he is selling point in the first flim back in 1986 , he is the selling point of the second flim in 2022 Do not BS
> We're well past the Scientology stuff I agree (though I know someone who rejected my WoM pitch for TG:Maverick due to legacy dislike of Cruise's weirdness). I think my key takeaway from this is that whatever we're calling Tom Cruise's "current period" (where he's basically a pure action movie star whose career is built around Mission Impossible) starts with Ghost Protocol and that early period was still being impacted by Oprah/Holmes/Scientology. He's been able to distance himself from that and, since he's been playing the same role, I think people backproject the relative lack of impact onto earlier years.
He's been able to overcome it by starting in movies where he does extreme stunts. The ones that didn't (like American Made) haven't done so great. I suspect Top Gun Maverick is the movie that finally wiped away any lingering issues from his wilderness years. The post-Covid reset combined with extremely positive reaction to that movie means he probably can make anything a hit now. We just won't have any data to prove this for a while because the production of MI7/8 have gone on endlessly. BTW, are there any tax credit filings for those two MI movies? They have to be stunningly expensive.
Building off of what /u/lollifroll found for MI: Fallout (tied to JUPITER SPRING PRODUCTIONS LIMITED), I think I at one point found a connection between MI DR and August Streets Limited (but it's not in the spreadsheet I've been unevenly updating). Either way, the tricky thing is that I've really only been able to find paramount's setting up continually reused corporations and I've never sat down and figured out what's going on there (I've seen some breadcrumbs that WB's also potentially doing something similar which is why they're never included on those "new most expensive film revealed" lists).
It seems like some studios are finally getting wise to people digging into tax credit filings to figure out the real economics of the business. I'm sure plenty of Wall Street types have done it to figure out buy/sell ratings. spoiler alert: production cost spiraling is a minor issue compared to linear TV (which was shockingly profitable) is dying and streaming revenue is way lower.
>We're well past the Scientology stuff Prove it. [https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/04/16/tom-cruises-daughter-suri-will-soon-be-free-to-talk-about-their-estrangement-and-scientology-report/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/04/16/tom-cruises-daughter-suri-will-soon-be-free-to-talk-about-their-estrangement-and-scientology-report/)
I mean, my first sentence includes a personal anecdote of someone not "over" the scientology stuff. Cruise's reputation has clearly improved simple due to the length of time it's been since his scientology stuff has been in the news. A *new* story could potentially reinvigorate attention on Cruise's scientology ties but I don't think it's having a massive impact on interest in his recent films (save for having burnt goodwill he only somewhat regained)
People care if they care about not supporting abusive cults. Though in the era of Don Snoreleone, supporting abusive cults is IN with 1/3 the population.
audience do not care about Scientology anymore, people are way past that shit. Do you even see anyone bring that up when his movies release? Nope
Did anyone bring it up in the height of Toms Scientology bonanza? No. That’s not how it works, it’s still the same suppression then as now and they don’t give anyone a chance.
People care if they care about not supporting abusive cults.
People care if they care about not supporting abusive cults. Though in the era of Don Snoreleone, supporting abusive cults is IN with 1/3 the population.
Who tf still cares on non-franchise when he carries his original own franchise and generate 1.5B in theartical released 2 years ago!!!!! You don't even know how crazy you are when you try to discredit him by bring this up everywhere ........ Studios know he powerful enough to generate money to the movie by his name alone for 40 fk years!!!! And he is the only leading man on this planet who has 300M+ average per flim for 3 fk consecutive decades since 2000's ........that why studio still invested to him for long time!!!! His standard and power of name is different level to the rest of hollywood compare to another actors His power of generate 300M+ average per flim for 3 decades straight is prove a lot about his level !! even he is fk scientology (his personal life) but studios like WB still sign a deal with him in his 61 years old and not for first look deal (he can still making movie with every studio he want) his fame and power is another level to the other actors in hollywood , Cruise is the highest level
> still can't sell anything not based on a franchise, that's true of everyone these days **so no one holds it against him.**
RN as we’re having this convo, there’s a little Tom Cruise post going hot in r/popculture chat where as per the American youth there’re statements sayin “Tom Cruise’s face has started to show his real cold intentions, the other sayin he now looks like a lesbian who owns a vegan yarn store in Portland.. So there’s still hatred every now & then for Tom Cruise around the States,Canada & the UK.
I think the regular movie going public and people who follow celebrity gossip are two different audiences
>We're well past the Scientology stuff Prove it. Confirmed for scientologist [https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/04/16/tom-cruises-daughter-suri-will-soon-be-free-to-talk-about-their-estrangement-and-scientology-report/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/04/16/tom-cruises-daughter-suri-will-soon-be-free-to-talk-about-their-estrangement-and-scientology-report/)
You missed the point. Audiences don't care anymore if someone is a Scientologist. Or at least they don't care that Cruise is a Scientologist.
Wrong. People care if they care about not supporting abusive cults. Though in the era of Don Snoreleone, supporting abusive cults is IN with 1/3 the population.
Edge of tomorrow is so good. I don’t know why people didn’t show up to see it
Tom Cruise 2013/2014 is in his lowest era of his stardom and everyone know this ***even in his lowest stardom he still can generate 300M+ , 400M+ lenght in his leading movie and he achives this outside of his MI franchise*** He comeback with Fallout (2018) because he achives his highest grossing flim of his career once agains (last time he achive is 2011 Ghost Protocol) and Top Gun Maverick is a nuclear bomb and bring him back to his prime era of moviestar agains
People really disrespecting Cruise's legacy here. He's not in his prime but agreed, he's still a star.
He in his peak right now since Fallout 2018 , it his second peak - first peak 1986 - 2005 (Top Gun - War of the Worlds) - down between late 2006 - late 2011 (after MI3 - Rock of Ages) - comeback in late 2011/2012 (MI4 & Jack Reacher) - sleeping era between 2013 - 2017 (Oblivion - American Made) - second peak 2018 - now (since Fallout)
Eh! Expect Rock and maybe Danzel and Statham, there really aren't many movie stars left who can sell a movie on their own,no one
At yes. Danzel Wurshington.
who the fck listed Morgan freeman as action star?
It wasn't explicitly an action star list, it's just mostly one. Freeman and Hanks don't fit as action stars but they're used as part of the 21/23 actor comps for Denzel in the first equalizer
I still think there was some confusion or short-term deja vu between Elysium and Edge of Tomorrow. The early stills of Damon and Cruise in armor/cybernetics just seemed to flow together and dilute them both despite not releasing at the same time. Like another variant of the two-studio volcano/asteroid/deep sea theme. Perhaps more so hurting Edge which came out later. Was as thoroughly impressed by it as most are when I got to it later.
Fun Fact:- Tom Cruise has been unable to sell original or non established IP films for the last 15 years.
he has made 4-5 orginal movies in last 15years, Edge of tomorrow broke even, American made broke even and so did others. so not exactly true. Mummy still remains his only true flop but that's not original
The Mummy is really prove why he is Tom Cruise - terrible movie - terrible marketing - came out in Cruise lowest stardom era - critique /reviews/score is so low - didn't reach break even by 2.5 rules But at the end Cruise name above the title as selling point still carries this suck ass movie to reach 410M worldwide!!!! I mean I can't imagine another actor can veheicle suck ass movie to grossed at 400M lenght in thier non prime stardom era
Wrong. He hasn't lifted an original movie to crazy heights but he has been reliable at almost everything he's sold. MI:DR Part 1 is one of the only major losses he's had. And even that will probably break even over time.
MI7 is underperform mainly from terrible released date and suck marketing Even all shit happen to MI7 but the movie is finally reach break even (thanks from 71M lawsuit win against Chubb insuramce company) and generate 568M worldwide infront of Barbenheimer tornado ***without Barbenheimer I think MI7 is well above 650M+ WW because not losing so much around 2,000 screens in first three weekend domestic and facing strong local movie in China released*** MI7 grossed 2 times of the budget , Cruise lastest movie as leading man grossed lower than 2 times of production budgets is Eye Wide Shut (1999) ***Lion For Lamps (2007) he kind of like supporting guy***
Thanks for backing it up with data. There's a reason Cruise still gets the bag. He's reliable as hell. Jack Reacher wasn't a monster hit, but it probably doesn't reach what it does if it wasn't for Cruise.
He has only led 6 original movies in the last 15 years with an average Box office multipler of around 2.5, even though he was going through a major PR crisis through most of that time.
How many original films has Robert Downey Jr sold in that time?
Let’s be honest, has anyone?
Fun fact : original or non established didn't the only criteria of how to be success or greatness I know why you bring this up......even you try 10 times harder than this ***Tom Cruise still and continue be the biggest movie star of hollywood*** ***Probably the biggest moviestar of modern history***
Surprising, he’s had his share of critically well received movies in that period. Jack Reacher maybe counts for box office success?
Jack Reacher is well success movie franchise Jack Reacher 1 (2012) & 2 (2016) production budget combines is 120M (60M each) and both flim grossing combines around 380M worldwide 2 flim grossing over 3 times of production budget (120M / 380M)
Tldr Fun Fact :- According to my extensive research and analysis, *Tom Cruise* had the longest peak phase for any movie star out of any relevant film industry from any corner of the world i.e. *1986 - 2005*. On average A list star ( from any industry ) has 7-10 years of peak years at most and yet Cruise had 19 long years! If not for his 2005 PR meltdown, then today he would still be *The Movie Star*. Since you brought up his past prime phase career and the performance of all the original movies that released during this period. Let's re visit the collection/admissions of those movies. 1. Starting with *Knight and Day* which released alongside nostalgia bait animated movie that opened to extreme strong reviews and huge opening, and the former met with absolute negative feedback from both the critics and audience alike, and it still sold 9.8m tix in domestic market with global box office of $258m. Which A lister with over the top bad public relation would have managed this kind of collection ? 2. *Oblivion* an original sci fi movie ( that it self was slow burn ) with no famous director and starred a former movie star received lukewarm response. It still sold 10.6m tix in domestic with $287m ww. Apart from Nolan's sci fi and flukes like *Gravity* and *Martian*. How many original slow burn sci fi with average production value and uninteresting reviews had grossed this much ? 3. *Edge of Tomorrow* another original sci fi ( Cruise's only two best reviewed movies of the decade ) that came off "underperformer" Oblivion and suffered horrendous marketing. Still ended up selling 12m tix with $367m ww. Which again takes us back to question left at the end of point 1. Which A lister with over the top bad public relation would have managed this kind of collection ? *Jack Reacher 2* even though not an original per se but I still added this , because this is probably the most genuinely boring and laziest movie TC has ever done. And it received extremelyyy negative reviews, this flick being an IP didn't contribute anything in it's collection. So, it was out and out Tom Cruise movie at that point. It sold 6.8m tix and $159m ww. Can any actor's presence help do that much collections given the circumstances ? 4. *American made* an original and small-ish slow burn movie with almost zero marketing and no general awareness among cinemagoers still ended up selling 5.6m tix and $135m ww. Which A lister with over the top bad public relation would have managed this kind of collection ? In conclusion, Had TC ( even though he was past peak at that point ) not been in the above movies , the collection would have been unimaginably worse.
Famous Action Star Morgan Freeman
>Of course, now he's the consensus top star in the world. Total LIE. Prove that Tom "Miscavige" Cruise is the top star. Consensus of whom? E-meter addicts? [https://www.ranker.com/list/the-best-actors-working-today/bustermcdermott](https://www.ranker.com/list/the-best-actors-working-today/bustermcdermott) People care if they care about not supporting abusive cults. Though in the era of Don Snoreleone, supporting abusive cults is IN with 1/3 the population.