Is Tom Cruise actually good value? Photo / Getty Images
Is Tom Cruise actually good value? Photo / Getty Images
OPINION:
The world spins, trends come and go, governments rise and fall. And Tom Cruise is still the biggest draw in cinema. That is the story of the summer, with Cruise's Top Gun: Maverick nuking the competition from orbit and Cruise barnstorming his way to a US$100 million ($159m) payday.
That may seem an extravagant sum to pay an actor to pretend to be a late-middle-aged man-child obsessed with fighter jets (we say "pretend"...). However, Variety's countdown of the highest-paid movie stars of 2022 confirms Cruise as belonging to a category of his own, his earnings eclipsing the next three entries on the countdown combined.
But then Cruise is also unique as the only modern movie star bigger than whatever tent pole he happens to be propping up at any particular moment. Audiences have pushed Maverick to a US$1.2 billion ($1.9b) box office not because they are invested in Cruise's character, Pete "Maverick" Mitchell. It's because they want to see Tom in a jet pulling loop the loops at age 59. Cruise is the franchise and the franchise is Cruise.
In other words, he commands box office G-forces of which other A-listers can but dream. The year's third-highest-paid actor, Leonardo DiCaprio, is for instance receiving US$30 million ($47m) for starring in Martin Scorsese's Killers of The Flower Moon. And yet there can be no doubt audiences will flock to that film for its director, not its star.
Still, if this new countdown definitively answers the question, "who is the world's biggest movie star?", it also raises a great many other imponderables. Here are the ones we need answered.
1. Is Tom Cruise actually good value?
The received wisdom is that Marvel-style franchises are king – and that audiences aren't much bothered whether they watch their favourite characters at the cinema or on streaming. This is why Disney is putting the same resources into its Marvel television shows as into its films (and why Star Wars has pivoted entirely to the small screen).
Is Tom Cruise actually good value? Photo / Getty Images
But Cruise, with his US$1.2 billion Top Gun haul, has demonstrated there is still a place for old-school star vehicles created in the image of their lead actor or actress. As co-producer of Maverick, the actor has agreed to a bespoke deal, too – he receives a percentage of the film's "first dollar" gross, which ensures he is paid before the project breaks even. And yet given that his star power has turned Maverick into a hit – and been largely responsible for giving Hollywood a summer to remember – who would quibble?
"I would never bet against Tom Cruise," a studio executive told Variety. "Most actors aren't worth what you pay them, but Cruise and maybe Dwayne Johnson justify their salaries."
2. Have we all forgotten Will Smith's Slapgate?
"The Slap Heard Around The World" screamed headlines after Will Smith jumped on stage at the Oscars and introduced a stunned Chris Rock ("uh-oh"!) to the palm of his hand. Actors have been cancelled for less.
But here we are, less than six months on, and it has been confirmed that Smith is the second-highest-paid actor of the year, receiving US$35 million ($55m) for playing an escaped slave who joins the Union army in Antoine Fuqua's Emancipation.
Have we all forgotten Will Smith's Slapgate? Photo / Getty Images
It's almost as if a Hollywood star can assault someone with millions watching – and not face any consequences. Or, who knows, perhaps the slap will sap the movie of its hoped-for Oscar momentum – and saddle backer Apple with buyer's remorse. And yet, given the millions Apple has splurged on "prestige" TV shows nobody has ever watched (Elizabeth Moss in Shining Girls? Julianne Moore in Lisey's Story?) there is a decent chance it isn't even keeping tab. Unless ..
3. Could Apple run out of money?
With the world staring into a cost of living crisis, apocalyptic weather events and the prospect of James Corden resuming his UK television career, there is a real sense we are all teetering on the brink of a period of historical toil and trouble.
Apple is already cutting its cloth to match, with the company reducing the number of iPhones it makes ahead of an expected slump in demand. And so its endless supply of cash may turn out to be surprisingly finite. As well as Will Smith's Emancipation, it is bankrolling Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon for US$200 million ($319m) along with a forthcoming Brad Pitt Formula 1 racing film directed by Top Gun: Maverick's Joseph Kosinski. The budget for that – as yet unmade – project is estimated at US$130 million ($207m) before "above the line compensation" (ie, Pitt's big fat US$30m ($47m) pay cheque). Leonardo DiCaprio, meanwhile, is getting US$30m for Scorsese's film. Would Apple be better off sampling stuffing all its reserves into a Burning Man-style effigy, setting it on fire, and holding a rave while it burns?
4. Is Spirited the most expensive Christmas movie ever?
Will Ferrell will forever own a part of Christmas by dint of starring in Elf. He was paid a comparatively measly US$2 million ($3.1m) for that film (roughly the same as Tom Cruise's sunglasses budget for Top Gun: Maverick). And yet Ferrell has since reportedly turned down a US$30m offer to make Elf 2.
He is instead receiving US$20 million ($31m) to star as the Ghost of Christmas Present in Spirited, a modern retelling of Dickens's A Christmas Carol featuring Ryan Reynolds – also getting US$20 million – as Ebenezer Scrooge. This raises several questions – such as, is Will Ferrell now the highest-paid ghost in the history of cinema? And also, given that we already have Bill Murray's Scrooged, does Netflix need to give us a "modern" interpretation of Dickens?
5. Why is Ken making as much as Barbie?
Post #MeToo, we were assured the industry had embarked on deep soul searching as to how it treated female talent. But this bout of contemplation doesn't seem to have made it to the accounting department. Because while Margot Robbie is both producer and the lead in Barbie, her US$12.5 million ($19.9m) packet is precisely the same as that of Ryan Gosling, who plays her literal sidekick Ken. Robbie may be a Barbie girl but Hollywood is still a man's world.
Ryan Gosling as Ken. Photo / Twitter @wbpictures
6. Is US$4 million ($6.3m) the minimum wage on Oppenheimer?
Oppenheimer star Cillian Murphy is in acting for the love, not the cash – otherwise, why would he have spent so many years portraying a walking advertisement for the music of Nick Cave on Peaky Blinders?
However, his co-stars in the Christopher Nolan epic about the creation of the atomic bomb have heftier expectations when it comes to compensation. Robert Downey Jr, Matt Damon and Emily Blunt routinely command salaries in the US$10m-$20m range. But because they want to work with Nolan, one of Hollywood's last true auteurs, they're prepared to toil for a pittance of around US$4 million ($6.3m) each. How will they manage? You feel like breaking out the collection tin for a quick whip-around.
7. Should Furioso be furious about her salary?
Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron were each paid US$10 million ($15.9m) for Mad Max: Fury Road – a rare example of a male and female lead receiving equal salaries. But for George Miller's long-awaited spinoff/sequel to the greatest movie of the 21st century, Anya-Taylor Joy is reportedly receiving a paltry (ish) US$1.8 million ($2.8m) to portray a younger version of Theron's Furiosa. It is unclear how much her co-star Chris Hemsworth is to receive – but given that he's on US$20 million ($31m) every time he grows out his hair to play Thor, it feels safe to assert that he's the higher earner on the project.
That's a rough road for Joy, though, given the friction between the stars on Fury Road, at least she won't have to put up with Hardy method-acting his way through the deep desert. That's a gift for which no pay cheque could compensate.
8. They're making Enola Holmes 2?
Enola Holmes. Photo / Netflix
If we remember 2020's Enola Holmes, it is as a stop-gap while Millie Bobby Brown and Henry Cavill girded themselves for Stranger Things 4/ The Witcher 2. But apparently, it is also now a franchise – and with Cavill receiving US$20 million ($31m) and Brown US$10 million ($15.9m) for reprising their roles as sleuthing siblings Sherlock and Enola, Netflix is clearly willing to dig deep to bring them back. Somewhere out there a Netflix accountant is reaching for the laudanum and playing a sad violin.
9. Why is Vin Diesel still a movie star?
Say hello to Vin Diesel, star of the Fast and the Furious ... and also all those other Fast and the Furious films. Despite being the only person in Hollywood to fall out with Dwayne Johnson and notwithstanding that his most nuanced appearance to date has been as talking tree Groot in Guardians of the Galaxy, Diesel is still somehow on the A list – and will receive US$20 million ($31m) for appearing in the inevitable next Fast and the Furious sequel.
Why is Vin Diesel still a movie star? Photo / Getty Images
The world may be low on resources of every kind – but Hollywood has yet to run out of cash with which to hose down the monosyllabic Diesel.
10. How is Chris Hemsworth getting as much for Extraction 2 as for Thor: Love and Thunder?
Thor is Hemsworth's calling card. And whatever the project's other flaws (who's for a comedy cancer subplot?), his comedic prowess was on full display on Thor: Love and Thunder, which is predicted to earn over US$700 million ($1.1b) at the box office.
More surprising is the fact Hemsworth has somehow negotiated the very same salary for the sequel to his Netflix film, Extraction. That movie was an enjoyably gritty thrill ride – but the main special effect was Hemsworth speaking in his natural Australian accent.
And with Netflix embarking on a widely reported campaign of belt tightening, it's hard not to conclude that, whatever about Love and Thunder's goofy tone, the real punchline here is the millions the company is paying Hemsworth to bring back Extraction.
