Take a look at this.

Now read this.

Here’s my question: Has Hollywood really lost touch?

Let me preface this by saying that I have not seen MI3 yet. I have a life that involves my wife and kids. We haven’t actually been out to see a movie (you know, like a date?) in a long time and our times are so rare that we are very choosy consumers when we are presented with the opportunity. MI3 is not even on the list at all, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with Tom Cruise.

I do, however, think Tom Cruise is a freak, but not to the point of stopping me from seeing one of his movies. Do I think that he needs to keep his mouth shut and just make movies? Yes. Am I offended to the point where I won’t go see his movies? No.

No, my decision not to see MI3 is based on one unmistakable fact: MI2 was a complete wreck. It was a horrible movie. I agree, for the most part, with my buddy Widgett over at NeedCoffee.com. MI1 was great, and rather than trusting that same reliable feel for its sequel, they decided to make a huge departure (even to the point of making some devastaing changes to some key characters) and it backfired.

Here’s where I think Hollywood has really lost touch. Stardom is not forever…at least not for most people. It is certainly not guaranteed (Steve Guttenberg, anyone?). At some point, it is possible that your star will dim. There are a number of reasons why which really don’t matter. So, some poll says that a majority of Americans don’t like Tom’s personal life as much anymore. Couple that with lower than expected box office receipts for the first weekend of his new movie and you’ve got the makings of a Cause in Hollywood.

A group of “stars” who are rallying behind Tom and his sagging box office numbers and approval; providing him with “support.” If these stars were really smart, they would keep their mouths shut about everything except for their work. What is it that makes them so outspoken about these issues? They are in the entertainment industry, not positions of political power. The stars that I have the most respect for are the ones that have managed to keep their personal lives and political views out of the tabloids and the front pages of more respectable rags.

Yet the fault is not all theirs. We, as consumers of the entertainment industry’s “product,” bear an equal amount of responsibility. If, after all of these stars rally to Tom’s side during this “troubling time,” do manage to bring his popularity back and help the box office receipts of this movie, then we have been duped and are therefore have no right to complain about the poor quality of the movies that ooze out of Hollywood in the future.

If, however, some of these stars feel themselves under the pinch for having aligned themselves with Tom, we can hope that at some point down the line, people in Hollywood will remember that they are not immortal and are subject to the laws of the market. If we can help them to remember that, the quality of the work–as a whole–will improve. Who knows? That might bring back some of the credibility of the Academy Awards.

My question is this: Why can’t the receipts for Tom’s latest movie simply reflect the fact that the movie is just not good? Is it not possible for Tom to put out a bad movie? If not, who granted him that status, the Hollywood elite themselves or we the consumers?

If you put out a product of lesser quality, why are people still expected to just accept it and pay through the nose for it?

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 11th, 2006 at 8:55 am and is filed under theatre blogosphere. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.