i personally think he was getting too obnoxious for them to handle and they were finding it harder and harder to spin the crazy stuff he does so they cut thier ties with him. What do you all think?
2006-08-22 18:24:36 · 33 answers · asked by purple dove 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
I don't think it was a matter of them handling him, but the press he is getting them. It's not very good at the moment, what with him deciding its ok to act out his every misfired brain synapse. I mean the guy should be home with his wife and child for a few months bonding and taking a rest. I can't believe she went through all that Scientologist crap just to have to wait around for him to feel lucky just to have someone who worships him, a sweet new baby, and a life that’s better than most of us even dream.
It’s nothing new. The “bottom line” is God.
He is a very good actor, so maybe he just needs a pile of work if he's not going to go be part of his family.
To bad about the whole, "cult rules our every move" thing. Katie Holmes seemed like an awfully sweet girl with a lot of promise.
Can you say Rosemary?
2006-08-22 18:41:34 · answer #1 · answered by Sen 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO this isn't any longer loopy!!! Tom Cruise is barely as good because of the fact the show writers, the script writers, and the production enterprise that makes video clips! Tom Cruise is a thoroughly self serving, self merchandising, overhyped, undertalented douchebagg extaordinairre!!! Like a typical hollywood jerkwad he has additionally given his newborn a acceptance (Suri) which will continuously state "My mom and father are finished douchebaggs that had to grant me what they concept became right into a cool and unique call".
2016-10-02 10:38:34 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A spokesperson from Paramount was quoted as saying that after Cruises recent antics, eg: couch hopping, were putting a drain on his box office appeal, which is really all the studios are worried about. They dont care if he's a good actor or a nice person, the want money hand over fist at the box office, so if they think they can make more money out of someone else, they will... simple as that.. :-)
2006-08-22 18:34:44 · answer #3 · answered by Squishygirl 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I can respect that, but don't you think that Paramount is dropping the ball too soon, Tom is still a high marketable item. I sure that other movie companies are drooling to get their hands on him.
2006-08-22 18:39:56 · answer #4 · answered by tony ZA 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that they made a wise decision before Tom Cruise does another crazy stunt like...hmmm... jumping off a building while announcing his undying love for Katie. Come to think of it, it wouldn't be such a bad idea. Seriously, Tom needs to just get away from the limelight.
2006-08-22 18:31:40 · answer #5 · answered by jasmine_tea 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think Paramount did the right thing... Look at facts Nicole is so much more successful without him and so will Paramount be without him.. he basically just supresses people.
Congratulations Paramount decision well made!!
2006-08-22 18:57:48 · answer #6 · answered by Sheila 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thank God. Maybe they were also getting a little worried, what with him probably trying to sneak Scientology subliminal messages in the movies and all. Egh.
2006-08-22 19:29:34 · answer #7 · answered by BadWolf 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Tom is a few french fries short of a happy meal. Paramount was smart, losing him before he did something really stupid.
2006-08-22 18:30:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Actually this was paramount perfect oportunity to discard him: Right after Mi III. Tom has always been obnoxious, but money is money regardless. §
2006-08-22 18:25:24 · answer #9 · answered by Apollo 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I agree with you completely. Things can't always be easy, good for Paramount for doing this.
2006-08-22 18:26:40 · answer #10 · answered by Seinfeld 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋