The Paula Wagner-Tom Cruise Show flops

There has been coverage everywhere about Paula Wagner leaving United Artists and lighting out for the territories (here's a good piece from our paper). The only math anyone needs to know is this: After securing a $500-million film financing deal from Merrill Lynch to make a slate of 15 to 18 films over five years in their effort to revive the moribund UA label, Wagner and her UA partner Tom Cruise managed to release one movie in two years. To add insult to injury, the one movie, the Cruise-starring "Lions for Lambs," was a bomb. UA's second film, the upcoming Bryan Singer-directed "Valkyrie," has bounced around on the release schedule, buffeted by all sorts of negative buzz.

What happened? People close to the situation tell me that Wagner got played by MGM chief Harry Sloan. A one-time agent and longtime Cruise confidante, Wagner is Hollywood Old School: She still thinks the business revolves around servicing movie stars. Sloan is Hollywood New School: He realizes the business is all about money, perception and gamesmanship. Having jumped at the chance to run a big-time studio, Sloan quickly realized that he'd installed himself as the admiral of a sinking ship. All his moves since have revolved around perception, since Sloan realized it would be almost impossible to get investors to sink more money into MGM unless Wall Street believed the ship was being turned around.

Whenever matters have looked dire, Sloan has bought more time with a splashy announcement. First it was bringing in Wagner and Cruise to revive UA. More recently, it was bringing in producer Mary Parent to head production at MGM. What Wagner never seemed to realize was that she was a pawn in the game. She had greenlight power and plenty of Merrill Lynch moola, but whenever Wagner tried to greenlight a movie, Sloan blocked it, either saying MGM wouldn't distribute it or saying he didn't believe the studio could market it. What Sloan really wanted was UA's money, which he needs to pay for some of the movies Parent wants to make. The real tipoff was the news last week that Sloan had signed a new long-term deal at MGM. His future secure, he quickly moved to grease the skids for Wagner's departure.

The blog world today has been full of reports about a new Sloan press release paying homage to Cruise, saying the star remains a "full partner in control of UA." That's how much power a fading movie star like Cruise has today--he forced MGM to kiss his tuchis, but he couldn't save his longtime partner's job. In Hollywood, as in Washington, you learn to follow the money. And someway, somehow, you can bet most of that UA money is going to be keeping Harry Sloan's faltering MGM empire alive.    

Photo of Paula Wagner by Matt Sayles / Associated Press

Comments

[lisa snow]

Cruise is in deep guano. His upcoming film, Valkyrie, is already slated to be a big-time flop for multiple reasons (historically dry, nazi-themed, hero is a failure... Might fly on the history channel?). Cruise just doesn't get it. He alienated most of his audience by his psychotic break on Oprah and his tirade against women. He's a certifiable nutcase that's been poisoned. I was really trying to think of a way for him to come back -- but I've come up blank. His pride is way too big for anyone to believe he's ever undergone any deep change. ... I can think of one way -- if he went off and served as a private on the front line in Iraq -- doing the Prince Charles thing -- he could validate his maleness -- but now -- he's a hyper-heterosexual icon who's become an overly gaudy pretty-boy, with "boy-george" flaming antics whose money bought him a nice wife bauble, on his terms -- but can't buy respect.

[kerry livermore]

Prince Charles, as heir to the throne, never has and never will serve on a front-line; except perhaps on the front line of privelege. You are right about Cruise though, his tedious pompous moralising is putting a lot of former fans off him.

[John Kiernan]

Lisa is right. He is seeing the blowback you can incur if you express your personal beliefs too strongly. Certainly he and every other star can do so, but you takes a chance. Look at Mel Gibson (no, don't actually) and others. If it;s not too far out of the mainstream, you might get away with it. But when you do things like criticize a whole science (psychiatry) when you barely graduated high school, people's eyes glaze over. And the whole Scientology thing (I'm not rabidly against it, but like the born again Christians -- shut up about it already!).

Put a fork in him, he's done.

[JJ MORLEY]

Spin it however you like but Tom Cruise is no genius. Never has been...It has had more to do about good fortune and plain old luck...you can call it a black cloud. I call it Karma something even his church is really into. His karma sucks right now and his name has outlasted his obvious lack of any real tangible talent. If it wasn't for the fact of the trillions the little minion has been able to salt away we would not even be having this conversation. You can't polish a turd and this little prick has become one. The masses see right through all of that over blown phoniness. Execs in the know and under the gun had better start thinking about moving in a different direction... away from this glorified Albatross!