Tom Cruise Producing Partner Paula Wagner Leaves UA

LOS ANGELES — Tom Cruise's producing partner Paula Wagner said Wednesday she will leave her job as chief executive of United Artists to produce projects independently.

Wagner will continue to co-own the studio with Cruise and "be attached to UA's most exciting film properties," UA and its parent company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. added in a joint statement.

Cruise and Wagner were brought in to head UA in November 2006.

She said she still believes in the vision she and Cruise have for the film studio that was formed nearly 90 years ago by Hollywood actors including Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford.

"I am proud of all that we've accomplished in the past two years," she said.

However, the effort has faced challenges.

The studio flopped on its first production attempt with last year's political thriller "Lions for Lambs," which was estimated to have lost about $30 million. Wagner has said the company took a modest financial risk with the film but its symbolic benefits were invaluable.

UA's second effort "Valkyrie," starring Cruise as a Nazi army officer executed after a failed attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler, has been delayed a few times.

In April, UA pushed back the release date from Oct. 3 to February 2009. MGM announced Wednesday the film would be released Dec. 26.

"We saw and tested the movie, and we believe a strong movie deserves a strong play date," said Clark Woods, president of MGM Distribution.

Comments

[dana94591]

Well, this seems to be an indication of trouble in Tom-town!

[duckcrackers]

Look, I agree, this is an important story and deserves to be told, but for godsakes Ernest Borgnine is masturbating a few stories over. Can we keep it quiet for a few minutes.

[hootie1fan]

It's far more likely that Tom Cruise is being neutered by his latest box office returns than anything else.

[Puller58]

The sooner the loon flops the better.

[hypnus]

When Valkyrie was shown to an audience early this year they apparently laughed when Cruise appeared on screen. I know they have gone back and reshot and reedited the hell out of it because to use a very technical motion picture term, it sucked.

[gahoggafugga]

and we care because? . . . . .

[vinny]

b/c of old woman cleavage...

[TXpastafarian]

LOL!!

[Bozwellian]

LOL, these days ALL celbrities are considered "neuterable" and neutered and , etc, etc...Not ez gig for any but it seems to feed the public papetite or so we are told as but giving us what we want !!!

[RobertAndropolis]

"Lions for Lambs" failed, as is almost always the reason, due to writing weaknesses. Cruise's scenes with Ms. Streep brought his game up a notch, and he was solidly up to the challenge. But as a producer he is assigned the blame--along with Ms. Wagner--for failure to recognize the script's flaws, in particular the enervating and needlessly pedantic scenes between Robert Redford's idealistic professor and his star less-than-motivated pupil. Painful. Redford is better than this material.

[Tom95134]

She couldn't stand to have that idiot Tom Cruise jumping up and down on her office sofa.

[NortheastNeighbor]

.......or kicking her walls!

[luckyoldson]

I have no idea where they come up with the inane headlines run at HuffPo. (Exactly how was Cruise "neutered?" Because his producing partner left to do independent projects?)

When Hillary was still in the race you could find a newer and crazier one every day...and they would almost never relate to anything in the article itself.

[Raspletziak]

The reference to Cruise being "neutered" is derived from a separate (much more informative) article on the topic. Click on the headline and you'll find it.

[Fudgefase]

I liked Lions for Lambs.
I don't plan to see Valkyrie though as I don't fancy the subject matter.

[lioness39]

Cruise getting neutered by UA? Isn't this headline a little provocative? This man has been razzed constantly for his sexual preferences. I think he could have done without that headline even though it deceptively applies to his work place.

[Elahrairah]

The deadline is definitley on the ball, the problem is the article does nothing to support it - so that headline should never have been used.