In late October (the 24th to be exact) I told you about Tom Cruise's latest dilemma between which new project, and multi-million dollar paycheck, he would choose for his next film. To refresh, his choices were a drama called The Ha Ha for Warner Bros., the horror-thriller Selling Time for director Spike Lee and Lions for Lambs, directed by and co-starring Robert Redford. Being the smart guy I am, I thought Cruise should join Spike Lee's film and make that his next project. They seemed like a good fit and I was looking forward to the kind of film a Cruise/Lee partnership would produce.

Of course, he decided to go a different way. According to Variety, Cruise has picked Robert Redford's Lions for Lambs to be his next starring vehicle. Not only that, but the pic will be the first film to go into production for United Artists since Cruise and producing partner Paula Wagner took over the studio from MGM a few short weeks ago. Lions for Lambs, scripted by Mathew Carnahan, features three interconnecting stories about a congressman (played by Cruise) who's pursued by a reporter (played by Meryl Streep), an idealistic professor (played by Redford) who attempts to inspire a wealthy student to action and a pair of American soldiers wounded in the Gulf war, one of them a former student of Redford's.

In the end, Lions for Lambs might actually be the best choice for Cruise to take on as his next film. It's been quite awhile since he was in an "important" film with a message like The Firm, A Few Good Men or Born on the Fourth of July. It will probably do him good to get back to his roots and to a time when people thought he actually had some acting talent instead of thinking of him as some pro-Scientology zealot who jumps up and down on Oprah's furniture. Plus, with UA financing the pic, the new Cruise/Wagner mini-studio could already have its first film ready to hit theaters next year. Maybe this Tom Cruise guy is smarter than I thought? At the moment, there's no other casting news to report, but production is scheduled to begin early next year.

Though no one at Cruise/Wagner Productions was available for comment when Paramount announced they were dumping the duo -- at least in part because company partner Tom Cruise's "recent conduct has not been acceptable" -- they're talking now. And, not surprisingly, no one at C/W is very happy with how things went down. Paula Wagner herself characterized the above comment by Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone as "outrageous and disrespectful," while Cruise's agent (and Wagner's husband) Rick Nicita described Redstone's words as "shockingly offensive and graceless." Not only did she denounce Redstone's behavior, but Wagner went on the say that Cruise was in fact the one who broke off negotiations with Paramount last week. According to Wagner, she and Cruise have already "raised a revolving fund of $100 million from two hedge funds" to financing future projects. Also, his agents told the press that Cruise has already decided on his next starring role (What? Why has no one told us about this?), and is currently in negotiations with a studio home for the film.

Take that, Sumner.

Yesterday marked the final day of Tom Cruise and long-time partner Paula Wagner's deal with Paramount Pictures, and the LA Times is reporting that the new contract on offer from Paramount significantly scales back its financial commitment to the duo. Though Wagner denies that she and Cruise ever got such a massive amount from the studio, insiders put their yearly take under the old contract at about $10 million "to cover overhead, project development and other costs." And I think I speak for everyone when I say "Holy crap!" to those numbers.

Paramount's new offer, while still generous, is a far cry from $10 million/year. According to unnamed people familiar with the deal, the studio is offering Cruise and Wagner in the neighborhood of "$2 million plus a $500,000 discretionary fund each year for two years." While this is being seen as yet another sign of Hollywood's newfangled interest in financial responsibility, the fact is that Cruise's shrinking box office potential is directly linked to his recent off-putting behavior.* That said, however, when a guy is expecting to earn a rumored $80 million from Mission: Impossible III, one wonders how much the loss of $8 million/year is going to mean to him.

*Yes, MI3 is making a ton of money. According to the LA Times, however, even if the film earns an additional $200 million from DVD sales, Paramount will only break even on the film, once Cruise's percentage is taken out.