Ordinarily I'd leave Tom Cruise alone, since he doesn't openly shill for Scientology. But after seeing that Paramount has given John Travolta yet another big chance in "Domestic Disturbance," I wondered if Tom Cruise's deal with Paramount mandated that they star Travolta in a juicy role. Does anybody know whether this is true or not? Is Travolta in a contract for a number of movies with Paramount? I can't prove this wrong or right, but maybe someone else can.
Paramount is the top studio (Warner Bros is 3rd): http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/
so it makes sense that they would go after a big star like Cruise. He's "bankable" http://www.boxofficemojo.com/bankability
But why would they lose money on Travolta (who's NOT on the bankable list)? Could it be to make Cruise happy?
I confess I'm not sure of Paramount's role - Luckily I don't make a living as a gossip columnist or I'm sure my inexperience would get me laughed out of Hollywood. Paramount seemed to be a "distributor" in most of these cases:
PARAMOUNT time line:
Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible 2 in 1998 - Paramount Pictures.
Travolta in Lucky Numbers -1999 Paramount http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1802953382
Travolta's next movie Domestic Disturbance is Paramount http://www.upcomingmovies.com/domesticdisturbance.html
Tom Cruise's next three movies Vanilla Sky, Minority Report, and Mission Impossible 3 - all Paramount http://www.upcomingmovies.com/crowecruise.html http://www.upcomingmovies.com/minorityreport.html http://www.upcomingmovies.com/missionimpossible3.html
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
For those curious about WARNER BROS.:
Travolta was in Battlefield Earth, 1999 distributed by Warner Bros
Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut 1999, Warner Bros
Travolta in Swordfish 2001, Warner Bros.
But WILL Warner Bros distribute Battlefield Earth Part 2? If Paramount seems to have a lock on Tom Cruise anyway (it may take years to produce Mission Impossible 3), why should Warner Bros. waste their time and money?