Paramount Gets 5 Minutes Of Press, Loses Billions

Sumner Redstone doesn't need any advice from me since he has approximately a gazillion more dollars than I do, but I am thinking he sold short at the wrong time here. Cutting Tom Cruise, realistically to be rid of high salaries but likely because of bad polls, sounds like the public relations move of a crotchedly old man who has lost his mind.

This is the guy who paid $8 billion for Blockbuster. In 1997. You know, just before DVDs came out and everyone and their brother got them through the mail. MacGyver couldn't rescue Blockbuster today, no matter how much duct tape and bailing twine you gave him.

And Redstone decided that an $85 billion merger with CBS was a good idea last year. You know, CBS. Is he competing with Time-Warner for most bone-headed merger of all time? We'll see.

Tom Cruise may be a complete whacko. I have never met the guy but I hear enough crazy stories that some of them are probably true. But he is box office gold. If he can sneeze and make a $400 million movie, I don't think it's a good idea to cut ties and have him competing against you in summer 2007.

"As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal," Redstone was quoted as saying in the Wall Street Journal report e-mailed to reporters. "His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."

Redstone may be the kind of numbskull who has Forrest Gump-ed his way into being head of a big company but making decisions based on personalities is not how he got there. So he is senile or playing a dangerous game with the press. Cruise is setting up his own company with Paula Wagner so this may be just spin on the part of Redstone. And Cruise has buckets of money to do small, important films and get Oscars that put butts in seats for action movies.

Ever hear of United Artists? Yeah, you have. Well, there are two words behind that company: Charlie Chaplin. Never underestimate an eccentric, pissed off star you just let walk without even getting draft picks.