Cruise has fricking lost it

Cruise has fricking lost it

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He can do whatever the frick he wants.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this

      Maverick is the best movie i've seen in years, keep giving him money.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Top gun Maverick made people forget about the mummy huh?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >1 flop among dozen hits
        Gee, what a loser amirite

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Two actually, his latest flopped as well

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Name his hits now.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Can’t because he has none

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The mummy was a certified kino

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      pretty much, he's the only actual movie star left

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No he fricking can't.

      He literally cannot stay together with a female who wears high heels lol

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    2020s Hollywood is nothing but a massive money-laundering operation.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I feel like that's what it was but now they've just lost control of the beast.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      always has been kiddo

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I feel like that's what it was but now they've just lost control of the beast.

      always has been kiddo

      Please do explain how the money is laundered via Hollywood productions. You can't, because you're a buzzword-addicted cretin.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        By utilising shell companies, consultants and contractors that are owned or affiliated with production staff.
        They get exorbitant budgets greenlit and then funnel chunks into their pockets via creative accounting.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's not money laundering. That's fraud.

          Fricking moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He's on the right lines and it's not fraud.
            >Oh mr executive, we need a $5m food budget
            >That's a lot but it's in line with what other films of a similar size spent so okay
            >Great. Now time to pay my nephew's catering company to provide the food for this production with a 90% profit margin for him. And if my nephew wants to return the favour by buying some memorabilia from me, then who am I to say no?
            Rinse and repeat. You get the idea. There's no incentive for producers not to do this btw

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Great. Now time to pay my nephew's catering company to provide the food for this production with a 90% profit margin for him.

              how's that money laundering? By default the money he gave him had to have been clean.

              Money laundering is fake profits
              fake costs is tax evasion

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not actually money laundering. It's not actually fraud.
                It's producers and people of power taking the company's funds and funnelling it to themselves/their friends/family. The film is just an excuse to do that.
                Competent executives would clamp down on it. But the execs are fricking morons who have no idea what things should cost or how to make films so they just sit back and nod because that's what films cost afterall.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Money laundering is fake profits
                Inflated expenses count, imagine that a movie studio has $200M to make the movie, they spent $100M, they get money from Drug Lords and spent it on Drug Lords bussiness while making the movie, now the $100M movie actually cost them $20M and they take the profits (if there is some).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How? The 100m was clean to begin with. That's not money laundering.

                Money laundering requires that the money was ill-gotten and off the books to begin with

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, but they didn't spent their own $100M. They spent $20M clean ones and used the dirty $80m to make them clean.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              . Now time to pay my nephew's catering company to provide the food for this production with a 90% profit margin for him. And if my nephew wants to return the favour by buying some memorabilia from me, then who am I to say no?

              every big blockbucster director hires the cgi company he owns (see peter jackson and the lotr movies) and pays them with the money from the studio
              I dont know why this has never been a scandal before

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I mean why wouldn't hire your own people? Obvious answer is nepotism, but it is as bad as being faithless towards your own company

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I dont know why this has never been a scandal before
                Because hollywood is just a way to take money and give it to the "right" people.
                The biggest perpetuated lie in hollywood is never use your own money. Every aspiring filmmaker gets told this. Film schools all over the world teach this. Find a sucker to fund your movies for you.
                But guess what happens when you fund your own films? You get to keep the profits. And if you spend $1m producing a film, $1m advertising it, and then make $10m through the back-end, that's $8m in profit. That you get to keep. That's the sort of payday a director will work their entire career to get by finally getting the contract to make a shitty capeshit wankfest.
                The big directors know this but don't want to step on the toes of the people who actual control hollywood. So they find other ways to make money.

                But then you get a director who's effectively blacklisted anyway so he has nothing to lose by using his own money. And now he's one of the richest directors in the world.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, it is according to the US government, moron.
            >In the past, the term "money laundering" was applied only to financial transactions related to organized crime. Today its definition is often expanded by government and international regulators such as the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to mean "any financial transaction which generates an asset or a value as the result of an illegal act," which may involve actions such as tax evasion or false accounting.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm afraid I'm going to have to fart on your head.
            Hold still.

            *PRPPRRRPRBBBBRRRAAAAAAAPPPPPTTTHTH*

            Ah yes, feel my hot anal wind rushing into your nostrils.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hollywood accounting is israeli to the core, but that's not what money laundering is.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tax benefits when a movie is marked down as "in production", is the main reason why Top Gun 3 was announced to be in production despite nothing being written yet.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        money laundering isn't the correct term, although I'm sure it has happened, but you get investors for the film, then you hire friends for whatever, pay them tons, which they kick some back to you, etc etc.
        I don't recall who, but a guy just like 2 years ago got a film greenest by Netflix, got like 10 mil, pocketed like 7 of it and moved to some island nation and told Netflix to frick off.
        It was someone who has made some movies before too

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thats embezzlement

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The situation on set worsened to the degree where an "intervention" was held by Rosés, Rinsch's brother, his wife, and members of the crew of Conquest, urging him to go into rehab. As the project was running low on cash, Rinsch urged Netflix to send him more money, despite not meeting production deadlines for the first phase of the project. Netflix forwarded his production company another $11 million, which Rinsch immediately transferred to his personal brokerage account and used it to purchase stock options, losing around $6 million in weeks.[11]
          >Rinsch sent emails to Netflix executives involved in the project stating that he had a way to map "the coronavirus signal emanating from within the earth."
          > In March 2021, Netflix cut off funding for Conquest, with no finished episodes submitted. Rinsch has insisted in the subject line of an email to Netflix executives that he is "of sound mind and body", and stated in a 2023 Instagram post that he had refused to respond to questions for The New York Times article because he predicted that the article would "discuss the fact that I somehow lost my mind ... (Spoiler alert) ... I did not."[1]
          >Despite the setbacks with Conquest and his stock market losses, Rinsch recovered somewhat financially. He used the money remaining that Netflix had sent his production company to invest millions in the cryptocurrency dogecoin in 2020, which he cashed out in May 2021, making $23 million.[12] He then purchased five Rolls-Royces, a Ferrari, and large amounts of expensive furniture.[13] Meanwhile, in his arbitration case with Netflix, he argued that the money was contractually his and that Netflix owed him more than $14 million. The case with Netflix is in arbitration as of November 2023.[1][9]

          Director of 47 Ronin

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think it's pretty clear since most major studios moved to outsourcing visuals/CGI to Indians with a clear drop in quality, indicating they are doing it for a fraction of the cost, yet budgets continue to balloon. Mad Max Fury Road had a $150 million budget and it was far more visually interesting and clearly had more work and money put into it than 90% of recent blockbuster shit with almost twice the budget.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        every single streaming service lies about its numbers. no one is watching most of this garbage and yet every show these people promote is the "#1" hit ever. every single time. and despite that these shows somehow generate revenue

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          this is the first scenario that could be money laundering

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >no one is watching most of this garbage and yet every show these people promote is the "#1" hit ever. every single time.
          You're so fricking stupid it's painful.
          Cinemaphile is full of reactionary so they only talk about the big shit. And the big shit tends to hit #1 in the viewing figures because it's the big shit.
          There are hundreds of streaming shows and movies that don't do well but Cinemaphile doesn't talk about them just like Cinemaphile doesn't talk about indie films if they aren't starring meme actors.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No one know what money laundering is.

        Laundering money would be taking illicit earnings, from drugs most likely, and then mixing the dirty dollars in with real earnings to hide their source. Then they can be taxed as income and put in real bank accounts. Of course, Hollywood would be a terrible place to do this, because movie earnings are tracked by independent theater companies and exposed to constant public scrutiny.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        they take the money to a laundromat in Hollywood and wash it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >2020s Hollywood is nothing but a massive money-laundering operation.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It always was, it just used to make money on the top

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Rumor has it Cruise spent a year on a submarine and personally fricked every crewman onboard to learn how to pilot it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      crust status?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is there scientific data to back up fricking someone absorbs their knowledge?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why do you think we call people "fricking stupid?"

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    After 8 tries, it must really be an impossible mission

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >last film flopped hard and was a steaming pile of shit
    >this film was already half shot
    >"lol let's just waste $400m trying to make this film less shit, that's a good investment probably"
    lmao these execs are fricking something else

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >last film flopped hard
      It ended up being profitable.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Cruise haters are just mad nonwhites and blue haired roasties pissed people would rather see his movie that their lgbtq self insert slop.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Don’t forget his adopted kids and the beards he led along for years and those who don’t like his fricked up cult

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Tom Cruise stands with Israel and child sex slaves on a boat under maritime law.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No it absolutely didn’t

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Prove it

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Earned twice the stated budget
          Meaning it's profitable. That's literally the magic barrier - if it makes twice the budget, it made bank. If it made 1.5 budget, it's a net zero gain. Anything below is a bomb.
          This is like the most basic shit, why the frick I need to explain this?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It literally underperformed at the box office.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Nooo, stop telling me this movie made 560 mil on 219 mil budget!
              >IT FLOPPED, BECAUSE I BELIEVE SO!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >567m
                That is called underperforming schizo

                It underperformed by design, so when part 2 comes out it, the massive box office will look even better in comparison. Plus everyone watched it on streaming, and are itching to see how Ethan turns it all around again.

                >It underperformed by design, so when part 2 comes out it, the massive box office will look even better
                Part 2 which already has a budget of 400m?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. Part 2 is going to be massive. Will make Barbenheimer look like Gigli.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It underperformed by design, so when part 2 comes out it, the massive box office will look even better in comparison. Plus everyone watched it on streaming, and are itching to see how Ethan turns it all around again.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Plus everyone watched it on streaming, and are itching to see how Ethan turns it all around again.
                Also, it's supposed to be the last Mission Impossible movie, no?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >underperformed
              When did the israelites convince everybody to start talking like venture capitalists?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Some time during the 1980's.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you moronic ? It cost 290 million and made less than 600. Also the rule is 2.5 times, which it didn’t achieve you dumbfrick

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not by much but it was, it was like Star Trek beyond where it made more than double the cost it took to make

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The latest offering, Dead Reckoning Part One, did achieve its aim and raked in $560 million worldwide. However, it ended up as a flop thanks to its high production costs, with a loss of around $40 million for Paramount Pictures.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Dead Reckoning sucked.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Paramount received a total of £57 million ($71 million) in COVID-19 insurance payouts related to the film from Swiss insurer Chubb.
          Looks like it broke even despite COVID bullshit.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It’s in that weird position where it’s a flop and it’s the second highest grossing one. Hollywood math is weird dudes

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Hollywood accounting
            Biggest Hollywood israelite myth that anons spew with no proof but some news articles written by the same israelites.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >40 million
          Whoa, it's literally nothing.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          40 million is almost petty cash for the amount of shit Hollywood execs are known to throw at things. It's a mere 10-20% of a movie budget these days. Less, if you account for the big franchises like Star Wars and their 500+ million production budgets.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If that were true then they wouldn't have dropped "Part One" from the title. They want to distance the next movie from Dead Reckoning.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >submarine malfunction
    cruise is gonna get oceangated

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Seaorg borgs….

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      not that kind of submarine. they’re talking about a submarine sandwich. something wrong with the craft services.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Cruise has lost it.
    >Starred in the only movie in the last few years than made bank at the movies.
    Go back and stay there.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >$400M submarine malfunctions
    Must be that Logitech controller's fault.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is a fricking submarine a part of production? Build a set, use CGI

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Just be cheap and make it look like a marvel movie.
      Shalom.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ... and then you wonder why movies flop, while still costing 250 mil due to all the CGI and are an unwatchable slog

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No way a submarine is cheaper than CGI

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, a civie, custome-made submarine is fricking 10 million. And you can then sell it to some nutjob that always wanted a submarine.
          Which is something that always confused me - why the frick cartels don't just order a fricking civie sub, but bother with home-made bullshit that sinks and has a radar AND sonar mark in size of a fricking flotilla of container ships

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because cartel submarines aren't so much submarines as speed boats that shit right at water height.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Civie subs are build for diving, not for cruising.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            because a legal corpo that makes submarines suddenly sells submarines to Cartels, they are going to get feds knocking at their doors and probably getting closed and fined.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This one is costing near 400k apparently. Maybe CGI is the way to go

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      SLOP

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do you think crimson tide used a real submarine?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Submarines are not easy to CGI as we’ve seen in the past

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is that from Half Life 2?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You could easily fake a submarine using a semi-submersible prop. It would look convincing and be a lot cheaper than a real submarine.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Literally just rent a submarine and submerge it in a pool, just make the outside look darker in post.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That way Scientology can later do a tax write off for their new submarine for the Sea Org fleet.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They need to go under the Antarctic ice or some shit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They use cgi in all of these "stunts" anyway. Most of it is for marketing, but not 100% real.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Cruise has fricking lost it
    Anon, there is a solid chance he lost it before you were born. Are you at least 30? No? Then Cruise is off the racker longer than you're breathing.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Considering a chunk of the last one was already shot when filming Dead Reckoning this has to be a combined budget, right?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      will this be the film that finally ends paramount?

      that cope was given right after the first's release, it's clear that they reshot everything after its failure
      gladiator is 300+ as well and stands no chance of making that back, it's over

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Apparently Tom will dive off a cliff edge into the sea and hold his breath for 10 minutes while he swim's down to the submarine

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Trust the plan, Cruisebros. /ourguy/ would never let us down, he always brings the kino. Haters and losers will seethe, tombros hold the line!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Didnt his last mission impossible movie bombed? I mean he is a kino maker, but he is losing the plot here

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A Tom bomb? No way. That’s impossible.. heh

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Top Gun: Maverick was a lightning in a bottle huh?

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >When he Dpt of Defense supplies your whole budget

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who watches that stupid shit.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    RESPECT...THE BUDGET.
    AND...TAME THE BOX OFFICE.
    TAME IT!

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Someone tell Tom that these movies don't need to be 3 hours long. Maybe that will cut the budget a bit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But when will he then cram all the running scenes?
      The franchise peaked with Ghost Recon. Don't get me wrong, it's on a very large and stable plateau right now, but GR was the peak.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The most recent movie has endless scenes of people sitting around delivering boring exposition about the pointless macguffins. Also these movies spend way too much time talking about the power of friendship and how much the people on the team love and care about each other.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the franchise peaked with ghost recon
        what

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think he means Ghost Protocol

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >just make a billion dollars at the box office dude haha how hard could it be lmao i'm tom cruise after all trust xenu

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He was talking about filming a movie in actual outerspace... like taking the whole cast and crew into space to work on production. The fricked up thing is it was a western.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That’s still happening

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This franchise is like Fast & Furious now, they'll be milking it as long as possible. When will people wake up and stop supporting this shit?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is the last one.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >This is the last one.
        Imagine believing this.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nope

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Last one with Cruise, the last one that will make money at the box office, then they'll make one more with a Black person, it will tank, and then it will be done. So basically it is the last real one.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Uhm why isn't the submarine CGI?

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This guy needs James Cameron’s help on how not to make a flop and use a submarine

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >185 mil budget, toss in 90 mil for marketing
    >560 mil BO
    >50 mil Blu Ray
    >130 mil streaming deal
    >f-flop!
    Schizos gonna schizo

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The budget was already 290mil even without marketing moron

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Whatever you say, Kathleen.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hourly scientologist shill thread
    So sick of this closeted homosexual and his fake fricking fans on here.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >based cruise probably have a harem of scientology pussy for every day of the month

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He was fricking nanzanin for awhile who’s unironically one of the hottest girls in Hollywood right now

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >fricking a woman
        >doubt

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can't Bruise the Cruise.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jews
    >Murder Children, Control Government and Usurp countries
    >Whatever not a big deal

    Scientologists
    >Take donations
    >NOOOOOOOOOOOO THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER BAN THIS SHIT NOOOOOWWWW!!!!!

    Why is this?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >hollywood cult
      >somehow not run by jays

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    cruise understands money isnt everything
    if a spectacle can be created, it must be created

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I bet he imagines that he will personally save movie theatres

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >$400 m production costs
    >double it to include marketing costs
    >double again for the theater cut
    It needs to make $1.6 billy just to break even

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      James Cameron managed to do it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I bet Tom isn't even spending 12 hours a day submerged in water breathing O2 from a tank. what a jobber.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Money isn’t real, so it doesnt matter.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder all anti Cruise posts are by Jidf.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      good.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I haven't seen a single Mission Impossible movie.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's his last one let him go out with a bang

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      too soon bro

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i havent watched the new ones, have they brought back /ourguy/

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I can't tell what's happening in this fight.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Movie productions being inflated to hundreds of millions of dollars
    >Most of them are bombing and barely even coming close to pre-Covid box office revenue

    I swear this feels like the end stage of Hollywood where so many people and studios are gonna go bust

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      wouldn't surprise me if the splurging is funded by PPP loans, just like how the Australian govt paid for half of Furiosa. it won't last for ever but Uncle Joe is giving them a few years to try to bring audiences back and save as many theatres as possible.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The problem is that they built up such absurd amounts of money in the last couple of decades, that their constant flops aren't enough to tank them (especially as long as they get one or two major hits a year).
      So they aren't adjusting their practices to respond to the market because they're still technically afloat and the people in charge are literally moronic nepo hires. This is why smaller studios like neon, a24, blumhouse etc are doing quite well fiscally - they understand that the profit in filmmaking doesn't come from constant blockbusters.
      And then you have netflix who understands that if you want to go the blockbuster route, you have to go all out so they just make films and tv shows constantly for all regions (appealing to a lot of countries that don't have a thriving film industry) which they dump straight to streaming so audiences don't have to put in any effort and decide if they want to risk going out and wasting their money on a film they might not like.

      The industry has changed but the legacy studios refuse to adapt.

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    does anyone here especially like these movies? like they're alright. but its not a big deal to me.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ghost Protocol is unironically one of my favorite movies. I also like Tom Cruise a lot

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the first one was great

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they're okay but they all blur together, including the ones people pretend are legitimately great.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They're pretty good action flicks, and it's like they've picked the women from my personal harem, which is exciting, and scary.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      1, 4, 5 and 6 were all great.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm watching through them all now, rogue nation was unironically good but I hated how they trapped the main villain like Wille Coyote, gassed him and dumped him in prison, and then brought him back in the next movie as this big baddie who haunts Tom Cruise?
      He also looks completely different in Fallout, but I understand that it was because he was filming a movie where he played an Australian paedophile who killed Daniel morcomb

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I love them. They’re action slop but they’re my action slop.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The older I get the more I realize that the cultural attack on scientology was just because he was one of the few big actors that was outside of the israelites control. They went full on war mode against him after he attacked the pharmaceutical israelite too.

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Hollywood is greedy and doesn't spend resources making good movies, prioritizing quantity over quality
    >Hollywood is spending too much money on single movies and should focus on quality
    Pick one, Chuds.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I couldn't believe how bad Dead Reckoning was. It was so obviously filmed during COVID, the editing was atrocious

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It at least gave us this

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >ywn get paid millions to spend entire days cuffed with Hayley Atwell handholding her all the time
        HE CAN'T GET AWAY WITH IT!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I rewatched the older ones a couple weeks ago, and when I saw young Thandie Newton in the 2nd one my dick went berserk. My brain went primate mode and I only regained cognition after I was done jerking off like a baboon to her tight mulatto body. Just thinking about it gets me going. I swear, the Mission Impossible series is worth the watch.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Agent Carter (heh) was hotter though.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cruise certainly has kino taste in women.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              When I saw that they put Pom Klementieff in a plaid skirt with black leggings, and gave us a free ass shot, I knew I was watching kino: https://youtu.be/7b3W9Yku15E?t=23

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, for a supposed gay man he sure does have just about the hottest b***hes ever in his movies.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                he's the type of gay man who knows what straight guys want to see better than straight guys themselves, plus he can convince women to do it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Agent Carter (heh) was hotter though.

            the series went so far downhill with shackling itself with ferguson

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I was surprised they killed her off to replace her with Atwell. while also keeping Kirby and adding Pom. in fact the last movie was worth watching just for these three

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I was surprised they killed her off to replace her with Atwell.
                Because Ferguson asked to be killed off because she was bored of the role.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't believe that for a second. That role made her

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >"Ilsa was becoming a team player. And we can all want different things, but for me, Ilsa was rogue. Ilsa was naughty. Ilsa was unpredictable. There was a lot of characters coming in, not leaving enough space for what she had been."

                >The 'Dune: Part Two' actress also explained that she no longer wished to commit so much of her time to making the films in the Tom Cruise-led action series.

                >Ferguson said: "Selfishly, that's a lot of time to make a 'Mission' film. And unless you're going to have a lot of screen time, that's a lot of time sitting around waiting to film a huge movie that could take over a year to film. It's dedication.

                >"There's a moment where you think it needs to be worth it, not just to love the character and to embrace Tom and (Christopher McQuarrie) and the story. I want to work, man. I want to work. I don't want to sit in a trailer and know that there's maybe a scene in the credits coming.

                >"You have to literally jump when they say jump, and that's why it's amazing. You're highly trained, highly skilled. It is so intoxicatingly exciting when you're rolling, but there's a lot of waiting. And the more characters that are brought in, the more waiting."

                https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hECkKIexkLk?feature=share

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What a b***h

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                she's based
                her character was hot and exciting and she didnt want to ruin her

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's one of the worst deaths of a major character I've ever seen. The fact that she didn't even need to be there or fight the guy makes it all so moronic.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >lose one hag (two if you count Monaghan)
                >get three younger bawds
                can't bruise the Cruise

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't get it she chose to lose the role so she could make some shitty apple tv show? What the frick else has she made? She was already in Dune before the last MI.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >so she could make some shitty apple tv show?
                Silo is awesome

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                have a nice dayn

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I want to work, man
                >the work:

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >conveniently cropping Silo and Dune One and Two

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Silo was mid, DUNC is boring. Sorry not sorry.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's a relief you're not her agent then

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That doesn't help her case at all. If anything that image shows that she worked more while being involved with MI. While this is how it looks now that she's finally free to just work, man.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Maybe try to accept the fact she didn't want to be involved with that franchise anymore?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Silo is way more kino anyway.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wtf they adapted wool? It's on appletv did they pozz it?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Whew! I think I need a moment.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did somebody double dip a chip?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s quite possible Tom knows more about making movies than anyone on the planet.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The whole desert scene was insanely bad. They should have cut that completely

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Every scene was bad. Even the talking ones. And the endless exposition was unbearable. That scene right before the green gas explosion was amateur tier

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Should have called James Cameron.

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This mane is dedicated to give us top tier entertainment and you spit on him. have a nice day

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This doesn’t impact Cruise financially. He’s already rich beyond imagining. The movie is financed through production companies and studios. Even if it bombed it doesn’t stop him.

    Seems to me he just likes using these movies as reasons to fund his big budget adrenaline hobbies

    If Cruise WANTED to, he could just star in some low budget drama next year if he wanted.

    Dude is 60. He could play a fricking old man in a seventies period piece or something

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Where's your manlet god now chuds?

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What are some studios who are actually successful and will continue after the big ones collapse?

    Blumhouse is doing great. Turns out financing a lot of low budget horror movies is great for profit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Turns out financing a lot of low budget horror movies is great for profit
      We've known that since the 70s, dipshit.

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >when you get a boner while fighting your assassin

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    JUST

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      NORM'S BACK GUYS

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cruise is so frickin' based.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No. Don't think I will.

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Submarine malfunction
    They used a real sub?!

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >this 100 million dollar set piece will surely equate to 100 million more dollars at the box office. Money laundering lol

  51. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >First part has 290 million budget
    >Second part nearing 400
    How? That's enough money for 3-4 movies. What's so expensive?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I imagine all those set pieces are logistical nightmares involving hundreds of people.

  52. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    moar like: tom cruise and the studio is watching hollywood collapse and are adjusting their plans and expenses in response

  53. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >submarine malfunction
    WTF

  54. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I still don't have it in me to watch through the first one. Like Dune once it's all out, background TV noise..

  55. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You say you spent 200m, you only spent 100m. That's tax evasion to write off the costs. You did the opposite of money laundering, you made the money dirty because according to the tax man you're not meant to have it

    You say you spent 200m and did but half of it was on unnecessary stuff, that's either fraud or just profiteering depending on what you spent it on, but it isn't money laundering

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The risk of money laundering isn't worth it. No one seems to understand that the producers have zero loyalty to the studios they work for.
      They only care about their jobs/resume/career going forward. If a film they make flops, it's fine as long as they can show that they did everything right.
      >We used x, y and z focus testing and delivered a palatable experience according to the brief we were given which was expected to make a healthy profit due to its audience test score
      >unexpected factors (an actor's pr, an irrelevant news story, unreliable focus testers, outright throwing the production team like the director under the bus) caused the film to underperform
      They do this right, they keep their career and have millions each year to funnel to themselves and friends. Why risk it by laundering money for a company who doesn't give a shit about them and is run by morons who have no understanding at all of the film industry?

  56. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Look. Here's a fact. A FACT. Tom Cruise is the only megastar left. He and Christopher McQuarrie are the ONLY ones saving cinema from becoming a truly dead art. And if the budget for this film has to blow out to a billion fricking dollars? Then it WILL. Because it keeps cinema ALIVE.

    Every single film Tom Cruise has shone in, every single tabloid magazine with his face on it and every single schizoid homosexual who's ever hated him for being a demigod, has culminated in this. His magnum opus.

    Part 8 will be the beacon of light that shines on all of cinema for at least the next 100 years.

  57. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i cant defend a 400 milly budget i just cant

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can and you WILL. For CINEMA.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's no way the movie makes money. Dead Reckoning was a bit of a flop, and a part 2 will always make less.

  58. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Poor guy. He is trying to achieve something.

  59. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The majority of jobs in the world seem to be scams. I'm so discouraged bros.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Blame boomers.
      They created a work culture of never enough. So their subordinates always had stupid metrics they had to meet for their performance reviews. The need for constant growth/improvement lead to the situation where the worker was no longer incentivised to do a good job to help the company. They're instead motivated to meet arbitrary performance marks to appease their bosses, while mentally checking out and looking for other ways to profit.
      This is why sites like youtube and facebook change their ui every year. If the ui is perfect, then the site designer can be fired because frick maintenance. So they have to keep "improving" it to prove their job is necessary.
      This is why ads get more intrusive and worse consistently. Why streamers have started including ads in their products. Why companies constantly make stupid decisions that piss off literally everyone. Because it results in a 1% shortterm growth in some area somewhere and frick the longterm consequences, that's someone else's problem

      As an example, if a fortune 500 manager read that stools instead of office chairs made workers 6% more efficient in their output, they'd jump at the chance to implement it and their boss would praise them for it.
      The fact that any moron could see that this would result in workers quitting, the quality of work decreasing for the majority and back problems for those that powered through is completely irrelevant because the study didn't mention any of that

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm just so burnt out. I've tried very hard and only seen corruption and incompetence and now I'm at a point where I don't even know how to try anymore. I know I need to change course but how?

        But yeah, frick boomers. 100%.

  60. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >nooooo you can’t waste hollywood’s money and kill hollywood just so you can ride a real submarine into a volcano!!
    >because uhhh you just can’t! Think of the producers!!!

  61. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Alright bros, I'm in the mood for some kino. Rec me some Cruise kino.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Minority Report

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Exquisite choice

  62. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    400 million for what? What the frick? FRICKING titanic was made for 100 million. And they sunk a fricking cruise ship

  63. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    does he want to get tomato soup'd?

  64. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The israelite fears the Scientologist.

  65. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tom's concerns are global.

  66. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    really though he can put 100 million into his own movies.

  67. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I thought he was filming something with SpaceX

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Can’t stop won’t stop he just fricked your b***h in a spaceX tanktop

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *