Stars and Studio Scars: Talent and Their Never Ending Battle

NOTE 1:  I will be speaking at the National Film Board of Canada on film distribution in late February! I am so happy and excited to show you all my lecture

EDIT: If you enjoy the audio and the article.. feel free to leave a comment. It would mean a ton!

The Prelude

To fully grasp Ambler’s Cut and its position in the ongoing conflict between talent and major Hollywood studios, it is critical to start with a brief narrative.

Allow me to share a story that a dear friend once conveyed to me—the Myth of Sisyphus. She began by asking me, “ have you ever had something happen to you that you just cannot explain? Ever feel as though your attempts to impose reason on the world continuously fail? Have you ever heard the myth of Sisyphus?” 

She went on to explain that Sisyphus was punished and had to roll a boulder up a hill again and  again, forever. Sounds like it was awful, right? I responded: “So why is Sisyphus so unbothered with himself?”

She then went on to tell me that all we have ever done is simply roll boulders up hills, and every time the boulder rolls back down, we're all dumbfounded, shocked, and terribly upset.

 But Sisyphus knows it doesn't matter. He sees it coming. The gods already told him, "What you're doing is meaningless." Once he knew that, he could let go and just be content. Because there's never anything to do except roll boulders. Your options are to get upset when they roll back down, or take a deep breath and find some peace. If you have to do something, you might as well accept it and do it as well as you can. Being agitated just makes you more miserable.

Alas, we find ourselves at the Warner Brothers’ lot. 

The Tom Cruise Dilemma

On Tuesday, January 10, 2024, Tom Cruise, in collaboration with Warner Bros., announced a groundbreaking development—he had "entered into a new strategic movie partnership," set to take effect this year. The star, with a remarkable $13 billion grossing record, will undertake the development and production of both original and franchise theatrical titles in which he will play a leading role.

Of importance—something not explicitly stated in the initial announcement—is Cruise's departure from Paramount, choosing Warner Bros. as his new professional abode for the foreseeable future. It is noteworthy that this is not an exclusive deal; Cruise will complete his latest Mission Impossible film at Paramount and retains the freedom to create content elsewhere.

This deal holds monumental significance. Interestingly, from Tom Cruise's perspective, it seemingly contradicts his values. Why would he align with a studio that recently shelved three major blockbusters, using them for tax write-offs? Moreover, Warner Bros. has garnered notoriety for questionable decisions impacting creativity and the integrity of film.

In contrast, Tom Cruise has consistently demonstrated a genuine love for cinema. At the time of this deal, he was navigating challenges in the production of the seventh Mission: Impossible film, exacerbated by pandemic-related complications. Adding an odd twist, Cruise, hailed as a savior of in-person cinema, achieved immense success with Top Gun: Maverick grossing over $1.5 billion internationally. He also lent robust support to the Barbenheimer movement, seeking traction for theaters worldwide.

Using every ounce of detail found in reports, and publications, this is the way Ambler’s Cut saw this meeting going down:

David Zaslav, the head of WB, made his way to the sunlit offices of CAA, securing a two-hour time slot under Maha Dakhil's name. This is the agent that represents Tom Cruise and many other A-listers. Accompanying Zaslav were his two studio chiefs, Pam Abdy (Emerson '84) and Michael De Luca. The meeting commenced with the usual pleasantries and inquiries about well-being. Both WB studio heads, Pam and Michael, expressed gratitude, emphasizing Cruise's significant contribution to the successful launch of Barbie and thanking him for his support, even though he wasn't officially affiliated with the film. Cruise, in turn, reiterated his commitment to supporting theaters in any way possible. Enter David Zaslav, his imposing figure making a powerful entrance.

In a pivotal moment, Zaslav seized the opportunity to connect with Tom on mutual grounds—saving theaters. While Zaslav did not have a personal interest in preserving cinema, he knew Tom did.. And with Tom under the helm of WB, the Top Gun/ Mission: Impossible IP was there to stay.

Following this encounter, WB conveyed to Cruise and his agents that they could help Cruise save cinema, and that Paramount was in a stalemate.  Cruise knew that he was pushing a boulder up the mountains of Paramount, with no success. 

Where The Issue Lies

For the past 15 years, Paramount and Cruise have been at odds. The conflict escalated in 2021 when Cruise took legal action against the studio. This move followed Paramount's announcement of a 45-day exclusive theatrical run for Top Gun: Maverick. 

However, the discord between studios and talent relations extends beyond Cruise and Paramount, exemplified by events over the past decade. In 2021, Christopher Nolan severed ties with Warner Bros. after nearly two decades of collaboration, choosing to join Universal. His departure was attributed to his disagreement with the simultaneous release of Warner's 2021 slate on HBO MAX. Scarlett Johansson is currently suing Disney for the absence of financial compensation for the hybrid release of Black Widow.

(Side NOTE: This was an issue that also highlighted yet another case of women being hit with a glass ceiling. Misogyny can be seen in almost all issues we have discussed - more on that in another article.)

Hollywood is grappling with the complexities of this evolving economy, particularly with the pandemic dismantling the traditional theatrical model and giving rise to hybrid releases and minimal theatrical windows. In essence, this disruption has shattered the once-and-done compensation model that stars and studios relied upon. Icons like Tom Cruise and Christopher Nolan, accustomed to receiving a percentage of box office revenue and significant bonuses tied to specific box office milestones, now face the absence of these back-end profits.

When questioned about who holds the most power in this dynamic, Matthew Wilson, co-chair of AGG’s Entertainment and Sports Industry team, shared with The Observer, "I would say it’s still the studios who hold the most power as they are the gatekeepers. Regardless of how much leverage talent might have to make a movie, the studio is pretty indispensable."

Final Thoughts

The studios are the formidable mountains, and the talent consistently strives to ascend that hill—whether for fair compensation, theatrical releases, or, in the case of figures like Tom Cruise and Christopher Nolan, to preserve creativity and the enduring appeal of 'going to the movies.'

Cruise and numerous other gifted artists won't discover their salvation at a new studio; instead, they may encounter more absurdities in the unaltered landscape. Just another rock to push. The talent must find solace in the realization that this is a hill they will never conquer. Coupled with the economic instability faced by most studios, these battles are unlikely to dissipate anytime soon. Cruise, and many others need to take a chapter out of my Sisyphus’ book and understand that the answer does not lie in a different Hollywood backlot. The solution to their problems solely lie in their relations with studios they share history with. 

As my friend once told me,

The beauty is in the struggle.