Subscribe
(Photo of Tom Cruise from Valkyrie.)
Liz Smith, from the New York Post, had a nice and interesting chat on the phone with Tom Cruise. Here are a few excerpts from the article:
On Paula Wagner Leaving United Artists:
“I LOVE Paula Wagner, but she wants to produce elsewhere and in her own venue, and I don’t intend to stand in her way. I’ll say this of her leaving United Artists – whatever Paula wants is what I want her to have! And I hope we’ll continue working together on future projects.”
Tom then adds, “I don’t run United Artists; I just own it.”
Read the rest of the article below.
On Valkyrie:
“It’s original. It’s suspenseful. The writers Chris McQuarrie and Nathan Alexander are just great, and I can’t say enough good things about the director, Bryan Singer. I first met him at the ‘Mission Impossible’ premiere, and we’ve been hoping to work together ever since.”
Tom on why everyone has gone after Valkyrie – “It just doesn’t make sense to me either. The moment I read the screenplay I knew it was an important story, and as it’s a true tale of heroic resistance to one of the great villains of history, I can’t imagine that people won’t want to see it.”
On wife Katie Holmes Broadway debut:
“Things are going really well for Katie, and we’ll see you on opening night, Sept. 18th.”
On daughter Suri:
Liz congratulated Tom in his baby girls and he said, “Oh, yes, she’s so charming; she’s so beautiful; she’s just great!”
Read the full article here.
What a great interview with Tom Cruise! I miss hearing from him and wish he would do more interviews. I guess as Valkyrie is about to come out, we will hear more from him.
Image used with permission by Newscom
Good for Tom!
He meant to say, “I own a small part of it.” He should tell the truth.
Business Week dot com says he owns a small percentage of the Studio. He sure as heck doesn’t OWN UA. I think it is something like only 15% ownership and the deal was that he and Paula W. could greenlight movies but only under certain conditions–they didn’t have free rein from the startup. And since Forbes has reported that TC has gone from the top ten power celebs to something like #37, it isn’t necessarily true or expected that just because he stars in a movie, it will make the kind of money he has garnered in the past. There is no doubt that in his career, he has brought in billions of $$ with his movies, but today is a different story altogether. Since UA has lost a lot of its upper echelon management, it could be said that it is definitely struggling to stay afloat in a very competitive cutthroat culture.
Oh and Paula’s departure is just one in a growing list of people bailing..
Probably a made up interview, TCdoesn’t talk like that.
Annie, sorry to burst your bubble, but that was part of an interview he did with Liz Smith. You can easily google it.
OK, sorry it wasn’t made up, but if TC says he owns UA, then he owns it.
Tyler: You can also look up this interview with
Liz Smith on the New York Post’s website. And
Liz Smith hasn’t been caught lying or exagerating
the truth (yet).
Annie,
He owns about 15% of the company. If in your mind that equates to owning a company, so be it.
liz smith wouldnt lie
where did you find out % of what he owns in UA?
anyone….
“Merrill Lynch is examining its contract with United Artists as the beleaguered bank looks to revise the deal on more favorable terms, The Post has learned.
Merrill’s goal is to see if studio parent Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer violated any terms by axing Paula Wagner – superstar Tom Cruises’ movie partner – as UA’s CEO.
Meanwhile, as a safeguard against Merrill’s maneuvering, MGM has retained Goldman Sachs as a strategic adviser to raise equity for film financing as well as other alternatives, including a potential sale of the famed studio, according to three people involved in or close to the situation.
Since Tom Cruise still is technically tied to UA, MGM boss Harry Sloan likely hasn’t defaulted on any of the terms of the $500 million credit facility that Merrill extended to UA.”
———–
” technically tied” does not sound like the OWNER.
Think about it, if tom and Paula are partners, and Paula was “axed” by MGM, then MGM owns UA and NOT tom.
where did you find out % of what he owns in UA?
anyone….
—————————————–
It was stated in several articles about the situation when Tom and Paula took over. They own a total of 30% of the studio – 15% each. MGM (or actually the consortium that owns them) owns 70%. It’s common knowledge.
I’m a little disappointed by Tom’s statements to Liz Smith. I expected him to say exactly what he did regarding Paula (he’s being gracious – he’s never aired his dirty laundry before. I don’t expect him to start now), but that line about owning UA was misleading.
Anyone else shocked by his breakup with Paula? I really am. They were together longer than most Hollywood marriages last. She supported him through thick and thin all these years! 25 years is a lifetime in Hollywood. I would have thought if Paula was let go (which by all accounts, she was), Tom would have gone with her out of loyalty. IMHO, staying with UA was not a wise choice on Tom’s part. With Paula and CW, he had control over various projects. Now, I don’t think that’s going to be the case. After all, he admitted that he doesn’t run the studio. Just my opinion, but I would have liked to see him move on with Paula and look for a production deal at one of the other studios. Paula will retain her 15% of UA. Tom could have done the same and resurrected CW. Unless their relationship has deteriorated which is what the word is around the industry. Who knows. I find the whole situation a bit sad.
Puck Happy
Sounds to me as if MGM is using Tom to hang onto that financing from Merrill Lynch. So what happens when a buyer is found for MGM or they renegotiate the deal with Merrill Lynch? Tom ends up being irrelevent to the studio. Not a good thing for Tom and again, it makes me sad.
Tyler, so many lies are written about TC, that to be honest , these sought of topics confuse me, because you don’t really know that he does’nt own UA and I don’t really know that he does(he said he does own it), so I guess you prefer to believe that he has a15% interest in the studio because you read it somewhere as opposed to what came out of his mouth, I mean why should TC lie so publicly about it, if it can be proven otherwise, tomorrow , next week or whenever, it doesn ‘t make sense to me that he should say something like that if its not true.
Whether he has a 15% share or more he’s one of the owner/s of UA and he doesn’t run it.
As long as he fans like some here, it appears that he can lie all he wants. Unfortunately, for the Cruiser, the general public knows the truth.
LOL.
Business Week is no tabloid and they say he owns about 15% of it. This is simply a case of-and I can understand it –the fans not wanting to accept the truth in this instance– He said he owns it, but truthfully he owns a PIECE of it and his deal did not even allow him and Paula Wagner to freely greenlight any projects they wanted to. Better be careful because if Merrill Lynch pulls the rest of their $500 million support from UA, it will sink again. Not sure if Paula bailed from a sinking ship or was fired… Reports say MGM fired her. These stories are not from the tabloids but from respected sources like Business Week and NY POST and here is just a small quote from USA Today-not a cheesy source, eh??
“Cruise and Wagner will own a MINORITY stake and have creative control over a slate of about four films a year with relatively modest budgets, the company says. Wagner will be CEO. Cruise, who last worked with UA in 1988 on Rain Man, will appear in UA films but has the right to work in other studios’ productions. ”
They weren’t meeting the time requirements and what has it been 2 years with nothing but LFL?? Called for 4 films a year that they could green light in the $50 million dollar range to make them.
If you look at the UA Web site, the home page is basically a Valkyrie Web page. The most recent press release is dated 2007!!!
Wow! you guys sure read news about TC more than the fans. I personally don’t remember the last time I checked the UA website.
From what I read, yes, TC is a part/minority OWNER.
The point he was trying to make was that he doesn’t run UA!
From what I read, yes, TC is a part/minority OWNER.
The point he was trying to make was that he doesn’t run UA!
——————————————
Hi Hana,
Don’t you think it would have been a little more honest and upfront if Tom had said he was PART OWNER of UA, rather than stating that he owns the studio?
The other comes across as a bit dishonest IMHO. Perhaps he misspoke, but it came across badly, I think.
Just my 2cents.
Everyone have a good weekend!
I might be wrong, but I thought THE EYE with Jessica Alba was a Cruise Wagner production.
It was annie. So is Death Race 3000. Both were produced by CW. CW has nothing else in production. It’s now dead and gone.
By the way, if you’re wondering how I know that, our unions give a list of all productions that have been greenlighted, are in production, or in post production. Most hollywood trade unions do that including SAG (which we do not belong to – we are not actors).
Annie not only the Eye but also Death Race who Jason Stadham stars , are from Cruise Wagner production, this means some people who aren’ t fans doesn’ t know everyhing as they say
Looks like UA overlooked that blockbuster on their Web site. I’m sure that it had nothing to do with the fact that it was loser. LOL.
Both The Eye and DeathRace are C/W productions but were not released by UA.
I think TC should make a DAWSONS CREEK movie like SATCity movie, low budget, big bucks at the box office.
Mary,
Did TC produce The Eye? What was his connection?
The Eye is a C/W production. It was distributed through Lionsgate.
LOL. It is always interesting to see people trying their best to show that Tom Cruise is all doom and gloom. Cheer up people, such sadness in your lives if the only highlight of your day is something negative written about TC’s life. I can feel your adrenaline pumping because you think UA is going under. Sorry to bust your bubble but it won’t. Try and find something positive to make you happy. Dancing at people’s graves is no way to live.
That said, all studios have their share pf problems. I am sure TC owns one (he said it…) and knows that this comes as part of the trade. Dreamworks has its problems with paramount. So did Disney in the 90s and many other studios. Now that the problems with greenlighting have been sorted with Paula’s departure, I hope UA can start releasing movies. Funding is not longer an issue. TC is more flexible than Wagner. Fingers crossed we will see more movies coming out of UA.
Aw shucks Lauren. I really really wanted to see UA go under too!!! What a shame – you mean to tell me it’s going to survive? No!!!! How can I go on now? I’ll just keep my fingers crossed that all those investors who put in millions upon millions of dollars lose every cent. Otherwise, what is the point in living!!
HAHAHAHA.
Of course, I don’t want anything to go under except for the one thing that I can’t mention here. LOL.
I’m sorry Lauren, but I’m confused. I don’t see anyone wishing anything bad on Tom or UA. Where are all these “doom and gloom” people who are joyful at the idea of UA going under? Who’s “dancing” on anyone’s grave?
Tom owns 15% of UA so he is AN owner, but certainly not a majority owner and certainly not the owner of a major studio. That’s fact. I’ve worked in the business for 18 years and NO ONE wants to see any studio, no matter how small, go under. It’s bad for business, not that UA has been hiring.
Also, you should know that UA wasn’t handed 500 million by Merrill Lynch. That money was conditional on putting out projects that made money. They haven’t put anything out as of today other than Lions for Lambs and we all know that didn’t go well. Why do you think Paula Wagner was fired? These are all facts available in the trade papers, which I am sure Mary can verify.
Just because someone is realistic and honest regarding the UA/Tom situation doesn’t mean they enjoy negativity, nor are they the bad people you seem to make them out to be. Please stop being so judgemental. I see alot of really nice people here, many of whom seem very happy. I wish you could be positive too. It would be really nice!
Oh…..forgot to mention. Tom does not have the ability to greenlight projects on his own. That’s up to Mary Parent and Harry Sloan. That’s also readily available information. Tom even said he doesn’t run UA. Also, UA is not NEARLY the size of Par or one of the major studio’s. Its an office in West LA. There’s no lot and no production facility. Again, readily available information.
You may think that’s negative, but its not. Plenty of smaller production houses are run that way.
I don’t know if UA is gonna make it. It may or it may not depending on Harry Sloans next move, but to say that it’s doing well is definitely overstating the situation. I wish Tom the best either way. He may even be better off with an independent production company outside of UA and without MGM breathing down his neck.
Please feel free to research everything I’ve said. It’s all out there if you know where to look!