Tom Cruise Meddling Leads to Pricey Rewrites
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Scripts
Oh, Tom Cruise ... you make it so hard not to bash you. Last time I wrote about ol' Tommy, I focused on the excellent, insane rumor that he and John Travolta wanted to redo Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But this one doesn't seem to be a rumor. Variety reports that while screenwriters "have been taking haircuts on every deal," Tom's script doctors are making a ton -- sometimes as much as $250,000 a week for 2-6 weeks. The job: Take Cruise's notes and hone the scripts for his upcoming movies. The pressure is on to continue Tom's post-Tropic Thunder buzz!
The doctors and projects in question: Scott Frank is changing up Wichita so that Cruise can be an action hero, Richard Curtis made some changes to Lost for Words, and Paul Attanasio is flipping rewriting David Cronenberg's script for Matarese Circle. Furthermore, those free of script doctors are not immune to Tom's notes: Billy Ray "continues to hone" Motorcade, while Christopher McQuarrie does the same with The Tourist.
Actors always seem to meddle a bit with their scripts, but this takes that to a new level. And really, it hurts my heart to think that Tom Cruise is guiding Cronenberg's vision, or rather, tainting it. And why on earth are they paying so much to have a struggling star get his way? Thunder might have helped win him back favor, but not hundreds of thousands of dollars worth.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-22-2009 @ 6:59PM
Thomas said...
Hundreds of thousands of dollars to these guys is like couple of hundred dollars to me. I wouldn't lend $300 to just anybody but I would lend it to my good friends. It is kind of a lot but in the bigger scheme of things it isn't that much.
A successful Tom Cruise movie might make $500 million globally. Out of that much money, they can afford to spend a few million on the script.
Slacker with Advanced Degrees.
Reply
4-22-2009 @ 7:08PM
Osbo said...
In the Creative Screenwriting podcast for Valkyrie, Chris McQuarrie has nothing but praise for Tom Cruise.
Of course he was working on a new script for him and offending him would have been a bad idea. As much as I don't personally like Tom Cruise, everyone has a right to protect and control their own career - particularly if they are their own boss.
4-22-2009 @ 8:12PM
Mr.R said...
Aliens are actually controlling Tom´s career, hasn't anyone seen that South Park episode? It's all clear to me now.
Reply
4-23-2009 @ 12:07PM
Liam said...
If Tom Cruise is the boss he then can make any decisions he needs to in order to make a successful motion picture.
Reply
4-22-2009 @ 8:34PM
eugene said...
Sounds like much ado about nothing. Typical wagon jumping fanboy QQing. Listen to Kevin Smith's Threevening stories on his work on Die Hard 3, big movies are under constant daily rewrites based on pressure from the star, producers, directors, the studio, etc. I know it's fun to pick on Tom Cruise but really, what's next? An expose on how Tom wants bottled water on sets and won't drink from the tap?
Reply
4-22-2009 @ 9:50PM
poker said...
Bashing Tom Cruise is so overrated......he's a great actor and makes great films. Leave him alone and get to real journalism not National Enquirer. At least many writers have jobs not fired.
Reply
4-22-2009 @ 10:17PM
paige said...
More power to him.With Hollywood creatively bankrupt and all we got are sequels,remakes,superheroes and all the Hannah Montanas,Zac Efrons projects,lame same ole same ole romantic movies I dont blame the man for aiming high.
Besides, even till this day Tom Cruise is still Top Gun. I was happy when all the anti-war films faltered but one movie I boycotted from Cruise was Lions for Lambs because I support the war but while the media savaged Lions as a flop they were so wrong. (source: box office mojo and last month Wall Street Journal stated Lions was no flop) the budget was 35 million and Lions made 63 million. Thanks to Cruise for JJ Abrams and vindicating the brilliant Bryan Singer. Im a history and military buff and again thanks to Cruise that gave a boost to World War 2 flicks not dead afterall in today's cinema.
I appreciate popcorn flicks but now and then we also need quality films.
Reply
4-22-2009 @ 11:52PM
michelle said...
I agree with the posters above, this is normal for Hollywood and no big deal.
Tom isn't the first actor to demand changes in a script and scripts are always being rewritten to accomodate or snag a desired actor .
Take Angelina Jolie's new film "Salt " for instance , It was originally planned for Tom as "Edwin A Salt" but after he dropped out they wanted Angelina for the film so they reworked the whole thing , even to changing the sex of the character just so she could play the role.
Tom has always been hands on with his scripts and the 5 Billion in box office , three Oscar noms and his many classic films are testament that he does know what he is doing.
Reply
4-23-2009 @ 12:28AM
Keith said...
Im leaning on the David Cronenberg movie for Cruise and Denzel Washington. I read the business magazine Portfolio with their cover boy Redstone of Viacom and Paramount and talk about blessings for Cruise with Redstone drowning in debth,empire in trouble,health in trouble and own family members battling against him. He is so desperate to work with Cruise and wants an MI-4. Cruise is a struggling actor? is this piece written by Roger Friedman now fired by Fox News who wrote like Perez Hilton than a movie & entertainment columnists?
Reply
4-23-2009 @ 1:59PM
Monika said...
See below for why I think he's a struggling star (not actor).
4-23-2009 @ 4:57AM
Peter said...
I agree with poker - why dont you try some real writing yourself instead of nitpicking and gossip? Why wouldn't Tom want to make the best movie he can? He hardly needs the money and despite sniping by jealous media nonentities his talent is better than it ever was. What else would he really care about other than turning out the best product possible? I'm glad, given the generally dismal quality of mainstream movies, that someone does care.
Reply
4-23-2009 @ 9:17AM
Kevin said...
How is he "struggling"? He doesn't make a ton of movies, so his starring vehicles in the last few years have been Valkyrie, Lions for Lambs, MI-3, War of the Worlds, Collateral, and Minority Report. Thats going pretty far back, so are you claiming that his lack of starring roles is due to a lack of interest on hollywoods part? I actually don't like the guy as an actor, but I recognize that his movies generally do well to extremely well at the box office. I wish people would stop deconstructing the personal lives of celebrities and focus more on their impact on the industry. If you would let go of the petty attacks you would realize the guy still has some major sway in hollywood.
Reply
4-23-2009 @ 1:57PM
Monika said...
I was actually careful above to write struggling star and not actor. After the Scientology backlash, the couch-jumping, and all of that, his image suffered a huge blow and he's still trying to build that back. Over the last few years he's cut down his starring roles, and they haven't done as well as past forays.
Valkyrie's success is all foreign -- domestically, they barely made the budget back. Lions fell under the weight of war oversaturation. Mission 3 cost more than 2 and made $150 mil less.
When Tropic hit, the reactions were positive, but surprised, which to me says that he's got the chance to bring his star power back, but isn't quite there yet. It's probably why he's meddling so much -- he's finally piling on the projects again, and wants them to remind everyone of his talents.
In some cases that's fine, but I still wouldn't want Cruise's thoughts or ego anywhere near Cronenberg, at the very least.
4-23-2009 @ 10:07AM
Astin said...
I guess my question is if Cruise has production credit on any of these. If so, then he' not a meddling actor, but a meddling producer, which is far more common.
It also depends on the depth of the changes whether or not this gets up my ire. Changing a character into an action star is big, but the other scripts could very well be nitpicks or takes on the character that everyone else likes as well. Han Solo becomes 10x less cool if Harrison Ford doesn't ad-lib "I know" in response to Leia's proclamation of love and he doesn't fight Lucas on the crappy dialogue he was given.
I do have a problem with rewriting Cronenberg though. The guy has shown for decades that he's not a traditional writer/director, and has recently gotten the respect he's long deserved. If the rewrite is because Cruise didn't "get" it, then Cronenberg should have the respect to win that battle.
I agree though, that considering the pittance most writers make, especially script doctors, that millions of dollars spent on one person to tweak a script to an individual's liking seems excessive. I'm pretty sure that a good chunk of these films won't make $500 million worldwide, so a few million for a few weeks of worth can make a difference.
Lots of Cruise-lovers on here. I'd have never guessed. I suppose none of them remember that his professional career was on the rocks after he dumped his PR team and showed the world how crazy he was for Scientology. If not for monumental efforts by his new PR group and the love of Redstone, he'd be making nothing but cameos these days or sticking to producing alone. I guess it helps that his fall came when he was the height of his power. And I'm sorry, but $63 million on a $35 million budget is a LOSS. A movie needs to make double its budget to break even. Valkyrie came and went with barely a breeze. I like the guy's movies just fine, and he's even shown the ability to stretch beyond playing some variation of the same character from time to time, but he's hardly the second coming of Olivier people, and his career has been struggling of late, at least by the standards that have been set by his previous success.
Reply
4-23-2009 @ 10:05PM
ssa said...
Bashing Cruise is so 2005. The double standard continues when some easily give a free pass to actors that on DUI,drugs,phone thrower,abuses the staff and yells at them,committs adultery,have police records,causes fights in bars,bashes America,wonnabee politicians but Cruise is treated like a criminal for acting crazy in love (many people act the same way), has a non mainstream religion( America is the land of the free). Some hate Cruise yet some loonies are so soft and forgiving to Al-Queda terrorists with all the Gitmo bay shutdown talk and torture talk. Just unbelievable.
Some say watch the actors work and movies not their personal lives so why the different treatment on Cruise?
With so many faiths and religions in the world? how do you know yours is really true and could you say to others your belief and religion is wrong?
Reply
4-23-2009 @ 10:50PM
ssa said...
Adding my final input: This is a very tabloidish hateful pov. That's why these days when I want the news I watch CNN and Fox to have a balanced view of both sides of the liberal and conservative and for celeb news I only rely People and Vanity Fair. I dont read many online rags and especially the tabloids.
Monika you only say Tropic Thunder got positive reviews for Cruise when you fail to mention he's got a Golden Globe nod. Variety featured something about all A listers struggling at the box office and how Hollywood is being challenged by Indie films and bombarded by sequels and superheroes. You are quick to judge Cruise as struggling when how about Clooney's movies that dont do well at the B.O., Tom Hanks Charlie Wilson's didnt open big same with Depp's Sweeney Todd,Case of Jesse James for Brad Pitt didnt even meet its budget. Lions for Lambs made money while antiwar movies like Redacted,Stop Loss,Rendition,Valley of Elah, W did poorly. Valkyrie is a WW-2 thriller but it was a success unlike other WW-2 and war flicks like Great Raid,Flyboys,Flags of our Fathers,Iwo Jima,We Were Soldiers,Miracle at St.Anna that tanked. CNN,Variety and Associated Press acknowledge the great nos. and they were wrong to judge Cruise on MI-3 and Lions. You dont see Valkyrie a success so Army Times,NY Times,L.A. Times,E news,Variety,Hollywood Reporter,Huffington Post,USA,Boston Herald,Newsweek,Tribune,Latino Review,Moviehole,IGN,Chud,Aint Cool News,IMDB,Empire,Movies,Wall Street Journal are wrong???? Are you even aware Australia the movie didnt do well in Australila but Valkyrie was no.1 there even in Europe esp Germany?
West Point might even recognize Cruise for Valkyrie this May.
Did you read Cronenberg's interview about TC on Macleans,Ca.?
Everyone made fun of Roger Friedman even Cinematical because all he did was print nonsense on Cruise personally and professionally. He got his comeuppance being fired by Fox News for that Wolverine piracy review. Reminds me of how the tabloids lied that Katie Holmes play sold no tickets but turns the real news was it was the no.1 non-musical play it got solid reviews and even beating the famous Seagull and Euquus.
Reply
4-23-2009 @ 11:07PM
ssa said...
Monika,Valkyrie is not all international success. I get my nos.at box office mojo and according to CNN and Variety on its 3rd week alone in the U.S. Valkyrie made $71.51 million. Valkyrie's production budget was $75 million. Compare that to Benjamin Button that cost $329 million and worlwide it made $150 million.
Benjamin Button is too pricey.
Even Entertainment Weekly was impress with Valkyrie's domestic box office performance.
http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/0.1/box-office-prev.html
I just wonna draw a line from fact and gossip-speculation.
I read many intel. not just one-sided reports. Even buy the business magazine "Portfolio" with Redstone on the cover because the man shares the decline of his empire,his bad health and battles with his own family. He respects Cruise a lot and wants to reunite with him even desperately seeking an MI-4 project.
Reply