website tracking
Search The Big Picture
« Ledger's Death Named Top Entertainment Story of 2008 | Main | TRON Returns for 'TRON 2' »
Friday
26Dec2008

Cruise, UA Betting the Farm on 'Valkyrie'

We always like to talk box office and what those numbers mean here at The Big Picture, not because a huge river of money means the movie is any good, but because it tells you a lot about the health of a studio at that particular moment, or the ability a movie star has to show up on marquees the following summer. In short, it's the business of the business.

Take Valkyrie, for example. You wouldn't automatically think that, in 2008 and 2009, a movie about a plot to assassinate Hitler would be a huge hit, even with Tom Cruise. Certainly, six years ago, this movie would have had a bigger competitive advantage. To begin with, Cruise was a more bankable star and he had alienated a huge chunk of his fan base, and secondly, there weren't a handful of other World War II movies in theaters at exactly the same time.

According to several sources consulted by The New York Post, MGM/UA is dumping about twice as much into promotion of the film as a studio normally would a movie with its box office potential. The reason, the Post says, is because if the film is a hit, United Artists, the studio Cruise runs, will have more access to a half-billion-dollar fund set up as a film financing pool a couple of years ago.

It works like this: If UA makes a movie for $20 million, that money comes out of the big fund. If the film makes $10 million in ticket sales, home video sales and rentals, and cable revenue, that's $10 million that the studio can never touch again. If that same film makes $30 million, then it has $10 million more it can spend on future productions.

Because United Artists is more a boutique at this point than a major player, it has only financed and released one other film as part of this arrangement: Lions for Lambs. That would fall in the first scenario. So Valkyrie, which is not expected to generate $100 million in domestic receipts, would now have to make back its production costs plus the exorbitant marketing fees it is incurring before it can be can viewed as a success. And that, I would argue, is highly unlikely.

I would also argue that this isn't just about Valkyrie or even a film financing fund, but also, to a degree, about Tom Cruise. You would have a hard time watching an entertainment show in the past two weeks without seeing him, or any prime time programming without catching a commercial for the film. Why was he on ESPN's Sunday Conversation last weekend during SportsCenter?

Cruise's star has fallen meteorically over the past three years, and while it's great to push a quality WWII flick, it's Cruise who's making the headlines. If the film is a success, then Cruise is a success, both as a movie star and as a studio head.

But I wouldn't count on it working out too well; that's a hell of a mountain in front of it.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Reader Comments (4)

Valkyrie is strangely oddbox.

It is a very interesting story. Many people have asked why people in Germany did not react to the evident evil and incompetence of the régime during WWII. Well, some of them did. People of position who had everything to lose by taking a stand. So it's a very exciting and morally challenging story.

But there is some strange thinking behind Valkyrie. First the combination of a slightly worn around the edges British supporting cast, who would not in themself create enough pull for a movie. Nighy and Wilkinson are in fact glorified TV actors who run on repeat even if the do it reasonably well.

Then there is the budget 95 million is a bit steep. The story could be done for much less.

Tom Cruise is of course the odd man out in the ensemble. With his recent image problems it's uncertain that he would have a 100 millions' worth of pull.

Of course, I would like to see the film doing well and I would like Tom Cruise to make a nice come back. There is something ugly about how the business turns on it's stars at the slightest excuse. It's hard to remember it now but Robert Downey's name was really mudd a few years ago, just because of his addiction. Like it's not an occupational hazard.

Anyway, if Valkyrie has a chance it's now when the competition is fairly lacklustre.

Friday, December 26, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterLengthy Johnson

I just saw Valkyrie and was impressed. I got lost in this very tense story to the point that I almost forgot the attempt to get rid of Hitler was not going to succeed. I really liked the rich and authentic look the director gave the film. It reminded me of classic "bigger-than-life" challenge movies like Guns of Navarone. All the actors were substantial in performance and presence. In my view, Tom, being a bigger than life character himself, was a good choice for that incredible young officer who risked and lost it all . I thought it was his portrayal that gave the film the needed tension. I hope Valkyrie does well and that United Artists succeeds in its Tom Cruise incarnation.

Friday, December 26, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterNot so lengthy

I agree with the "bigger than life" argument, and the point is well-taken. It still makes you wonder why he can't do an accent after 25 years, though.

Thursday, January 1, 2009 | Registered CommenterColin Boyd

������!! ��� ������ ����� ���� ������! - ���� ������ ������ � ���������� - ����� �� ��� ���� ������������� � ��� ����� ������� � ����� �� ������

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 | Unregistered Commenter������������

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>