I thought it was a bit more than that he was fired for.
Yeah, but that would have been too involved to type. The kicker was him bitching about Brooke Shields taking antidepressants for post-partum depression.
His market is middle aged women.
Most middle aged women have borne at least one child.
Almost every woman who has borne at least one child had at least a mild brush with the baby blues, and almost all of us have a friend or relative that got full-blown post-partum depression.
It pissed off his audience. Mission Impossible 3 came out and ticket sales were very disappointing for Paramount. They connected the dots and decided his Scientology ramblings about Shields pissed off or turned off enough middle aged women that they stayed home and didn't buy tickets.
Which is true of me. I was a fan of his, saw most of his movies, didn't see MI:3. I didn't stay home because I was mad, I stayed home because the face of himself he presented on that Larry King interview, which I watched, was icky.
Just that. He came across to me as icky and creepy.
That made him not an attractive lead for a movie for me to spend ten bucks and a couple of hours on.
I want a male lead to be: "Wow....Sigh....."
not: "Ick. Kinda strange there. Ick."
He's not ugly or vile or heinous or anything like that---he's just vaguely creepy in a flaked-out sort of way.
I have plenty of eccentric friends I just love, and anybody who knows me would consider me eccentric, too. I don't have a problem with eccentric. A lot of my favorite people are differently normalled.
The creepy kind of flaky is what bothers me.
In that interview, Cruise crossed the line into the creepy kind of flaky in a way you can't go back from.
Obviously, Paramount thinks I'm not alone in that opinion.
Julie