http://www.deadline.com/2012/06/box-off ... -mediocre/

This makes me happy.

Let's hope this trend continues.

Those creepy PR pics with TC with his tongue out a la Gene Simmons didn't help.

It all depends who's review you rely on. Some movie reviews give it a thumbs-up and a big first-weekend revenue earner, with alot of credit given to Tom Cruise.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/showbiz/m ... index.html

Besides, I'm not so snarky to avoid a movie just because a Scilon is in it. People pay to see movies for the entertainment & most don't give a rat's ass about an actor's religion.

Religion alright... ...but how would people think about it when they learn the actor is a member of the Mafia?

A good review is apples-to-oranges to a box-office report. You found a good review. That doesn't refute the fact that the public isn't buying tickets.

And there are plenty of people who take into consideration where the money they pay for a ticket is going. People who consider what they're supporting when they support a certain artist. Plenty.

Your assertion that "most don't give a rat's ass" is clearly false, given Tom Cruise's dramatic fall from grace and his ten years of career exile.

I'm not going because part of my ticket price will almost certainly end up going to Scientology as a donation. Maybe it would be too small an amount to matter to some. But for me, "not one thin dime" goes to Scientology.

I'm not going because I don't want my money helping to re-build Tom Cruise's career, which he will then use to ensnare more dupes.

Hollywood has it's own terminology. One term they use is "bankable." A bankable actor is someone who when cast in a movie will ensure that movie makes a profit. I first heard of this some time ago. When I heard of it the word was that at the time the only bankable actor was Steve McQueen. Hollywood is more about money, believe it or not, than $cientology. That's probably why those who are part of Hollywood but not part of $cientology tolerate $cientology so well.

I was going to wait until after the weekend to check on how Rock of Ages did on its opening weekend because they do include Sunday's box office receipts in the opening weekend amount. I will check that out but right now, on Saturday, June 16, 2012 Rock of Ages, which had a budget of $75 million has box office receipts of approximately $5,350,000 according to Box Office Mojo. http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=rockofages.htm That's a little bit more than a seven percent recoup of the movie's cost. In $cientology a 'stat' like that would bring the staff member(s) involved a condition of at least 'treason.'

All the producers and money people in Hollywood keep up with this stuff. They are going to look at the box office receipts for Rock of Ages and think, 'This Tom Cruise is not bankable.' Even though this movie has an ensemble cast its producers have been featuring Tom Cruise as the main attraction in their trailers and other promotion, so he'll be the main one to get the negative attention associated with the poor monetary performance of the movie.

Keep in mind this is show BUSINESS. Anyone involved in it never forgets that, or they do at their own peril.

Has anyone noticed that the poster for "Rock of Ages" features clear views of the faces of all the large cast EXCEPT Tom Cruise?



YES they may have done this to add some mystery to his character BUT ...

This is the SECOND time they have avoided using his photo on a movie poster in an age where actor's photos dominate movie ad posters. The other time was his earlier movie Knight and Day where he and Cameron Diaz were outlines.

I think his negatives are so high the promoters are hedging their bets on him. They know he is a big star but he has his downsides especially among the smart assed guys they want to go to this 1980's hair metal movie.

This movie seems like it would appeal to anybody interested in watching Tom Cruise pretend his very hardest to be a decadent, hard-partying rock star.

The LA Times gave it a good review, and especially like Cruise.

Then today the news came out that it was a huge flop. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a dreadful 33.

I was actually thinking it might be fun...until I heard it was flopping and people hated it.

I saw 'Rock of Ages' tonight. I liked it. The storyline was not that great, must I share what many movie-goers enjoyed about it. The music and it was reminiscent of the 80s rock n' roll scene.

I suspect most critics here would not be so down on the movie if it weren't for the fact that Tom Cruise was in it. Typical.

I dunno. I think you either like this type of thing or you don't, and it could have nothing to do with Cruise and Scientology. Currently rotten tomatoes has it at 42% which is really bad, and probably the people reviewing it are not thinking about Scientology at all. I didn't like Mamma Mia, and I love Meryl Streep. it was just too cheesy. I didn't like Footloose either, and I thought Julianne Hough was really bleh in it. I loved Almost Famous--such a great movie. Loved Jerry Mcguire, too, because I really like Cameron Crowe, the director. I think it just depends on how a movie like this is done.

Here's one typical review on rotten tomatoes:

Hm.. from the trailers/excerpts I saw in various places I found the singing quite infectious actually. I don't think I would be hurt by watching this movie at all.
Smurf also has a point in that probably more care needs to applied to distinguishing the quality of the movie and the problems surrounding Cruise/Scientology.

On the other hand I think it's ok to be impatient with Mr Cruise, and seeing him like that is just plain freaky.
When is he going to come clean after all?

If you liked Tom Cruise as a bartender, Tom Cruise as a spy, TC as a samurai, race car driver, disgruntled nazi, pool hustler, hit man, then maybe you haven't seen enough, and you'll like Tom Cruise as a rocker. He always gets an A for effort. I respect his professionalism. But I think he's boring.

And yes, he is tainted by the cult he props. I saw him dance around and sing the played-out Bob Seger song, on the boat. that was enough

one reviewer (damned if I can find the post now) suggested the movie might have done better if Russell Brand and Tom Cruise switched characters.

Never seemed to hurt Frank Sinatra!