Los
Angeles
(Reuters):
A
day
after
one
of
Hollywood's
most
powerful
men
publicly
scolded
actor
Tom
Cruise,
the
film
capital
began
to
think
cost-conscious
studios
may
finally
be
fed
up
with
giving
stars
the
star
treatment.
But
some
industry
insiders
believe
Viacom
Inc
Chairman
Sumner
Redstone's
rebuke
of
Cruise
was
more
a
sign
that
a
great
money-making
career
was
on
the
wane.
In
few
other
places
on
Earth
are
stars
pampered
the
way
they
are
in
Hollywood.
Jewelers
want
to
loan
them
diamonds,
developers
want
to
give
them
houses,
and
studios
want
to
cater
to
their
every
whim.
Few
actors
besides
Cruise
have
been
held
in
such
high
regard
in
Hollywood.
But
his
last
film,
Mission:
Impossible
III,
while
raking
in
close
to
$400
million
worldwide,
did
not
do
as
well
as
hoped.
And,
in
Hollywood,
you
are
often
only
as
good
as
your
last
picture.
Redstone
said
a
key
reason
Viacom's
film
studio,
Paramount
Pictures,
did
not
renew
its
deal
with
the
actor
was
his
off-screen
behavior.
Redstone
told
the
Wall
Street
Journal:
''He's
a
terrific
actor.
But
we
don't
think
someone
who
effectuates
creative
suicide
and
costs
the
company
revenue
should
be
on
the
lot.''
Cruise
raised
eyebrows
with
several
publicity
gaffes
in
the
past
year,
including
his
couch-hopping
appearance
on
The
Oprah
Winfrey
Show,
his
outspoken
espousal
of
Scientology
and
denunciations
of
psychiatry.
To
some,
Redstone's
comments
signal
a
major
change
in
Hollywood.
''There
is
a
definitive,
palpable
change
in
climate,''
one
source
at
a
major
Hollywood
talent
agency
said.
''Stars'
demands
have
gotten
so
over-the-top,
and
they've
gotten
so
petulant.
And
the
studios,
because
they're
part
of
publicly
traded
companies,
have
to
maintain
quarterly
results,
I
do
think
they
are
less
intimidated
by
the
stars,''
he
said.
A
high-ranking
studio
executive
who
declined
to
be
named,
said,
''I
think
we're
more
willing
to
say
'no'
now.
...
We're
finding
the
more
we
pay,
the
less
our
profit
margin
is
and
the
less
people
appreciate
the
risk
that
we're
taking.''
Hollywood
producer
Jerry
Bruckheimer,
whose
credits
include
the
Disney
blockbuster
Pirates
of
the
Caribbean:
Dead
Man's
Chest,
agreed
that
the
demand
for
talent
had
become
a
kind
of
buyer's
market.
''I
think
the
studios
are
certainly
being
much
more
conscious
of
the
bottom
line,
and
they're
being
much
more
careful
on
how
they
structure
their
gross
deals,''
he
told
Reuters.
''They
just
are
tightening
the
screws
as
far
as
what's
good
business
for
them
and
the
(movie)
community.''
Nevertheless,
the
biggest
stars,
like
Cruise
and
Tom
Hanks,
remain
in
demand,
Bruckheimer
said.
''If
you
want
Tom
Hanks
for
a
picture,
he's
got
a
price.
You
either
want
him
for
the
picture
and
pay
his
price,
or
you
go
to
somebody
else,''
he
said,
adding
that
mid-level
performers
are
the
ones
who
get
squeezed.
In
one
high-profile
example
of
Hollywood
executives
losing
patience
with
their
stars,
the
head
of
a
major
film
production
company
sent
a
letter
to
actress
Lindsay
Lohan
saying
she
was
acting
like
''a
spoiled
child''
on
the
set
of
''Georgia
Rules.''
Film
historian
David
Thomson
said
he
thought
Cruise
was
having
career
troubles
based
on
his
age
and
the
loss
of
his
boyish
screen
charm.
And
with
Cruise
gone,
Viacom
could
sign
younger
stars
at
a
cheaper
rate,
he
said.
''The
crucial
thing
was
that
Mission:
Impossible
III
did
significantly
worse
than
the
first
two
films
in
the
series.
I
think
Paramount
judged
that
as
a
sign
of
Cruise's
waning
appeal.