- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
WB kills $275M Tom Cruise underwater film "Deeper" last-minute over budget concerns
Posted on 8/19/25 at 9:10 pm
Posted on 8/19/25 at 9:10 pm
The film would probably need $600M to even break even. Cruise coming off bad return on last MI films and last De Armas' film was a massive flop, and theaters have basically lost half their audience over the last 5 yrs. Billion dollar films are the anomoly now, not the norm.
I guess making a $275M ripoff of "The Abyss" and "Leviathan" isn't going to get made anymore.
I guess making a $275M ripoff of "The Abyss" and "Leviathan" isn't going to get made anymore.
quote:
Tom Cruise doesn’t hear “no” very often in Hollywood — but that might be changing.
After Paramount backed the $400M-budgeted Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning, only for it to deliver lukewarm box office returns, Cruise is now running into a wall at Warner Bros.
The project is “Deeper,” which I previously reported was aiming for an August shoot. This underwater action thriller, directed by Doug Liman and starring Ana de Armas, was initially pegged by Deadline at a $200M budget, but Cruise had been pushing for $275M.
Warner Bros. gave no indication early on that the studio was getting cold feet, especially since it had already sunk money into early development, including pre-vis. However, suddenly changed. The studio’s ceiling for the budget reportedly now stops at $230M, and sources say they’ve made it clear they’re not going higher.
That shift left Cruise and his team scrambling to relocate the film in time for this summer’s shoot. Now, according to Puck’s Matt Belloni, the whole thing has officially hit a wall, with Liman looking around for other projects as his potential next film.
Deeper, the underwater adventure that Cruise hoped to start shooting with de Armas this month for director Doug Liman, is now stalled over budget issues. Universal, which has been suggested as another possible home for Deeper, hasn’t even heard a pitch, and Liman is said to be looking at other projects.
Universal was apparently in the mix to acquire “Deeper,” but the budget demands from Cruise and company are proving too steep. Cruise was reportedly eager to get this one going, having already spent months in prep mode with de Armas.
Liman has described “Deeper” as a “supernatural thriller.” The story follows a disgraced astronaut, played by Cruise, who embarks on a deep-sea mission to explore a recently discovered ocean trench — only to encounter a mysterious and dangerous force.
What studio is willing to drop $275M on an original, underwater sci-fi film with no built-in audience? Even with Tom Cruise attached, there’s no guaranteed hit. If I were a betting man, I’d wager it will never see the light of day.
11
Posted on 8/19/25 at 9:14 pm to Jack Ruby
Would rather watch that than some shitty Avatar film. Saw a preview for the third one and it looks like absolute trash.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 9:16 pm to Jack Ruby
Yeah this is not surprising. I imagine any budget north of 200 million is going to get reservations atm. Budgets are going to be lowered.
This post was edited on 8/19/25 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 8/19/25 at 9:17 pm to UnluckyTiger
Avatar 3 has a budget of 250 million. This one wanted 400+ million. Those days may be over.
My bad I misread that. They wanted 275 million. It sounds like WB is drawing the line at 230 million. Maybe they can come to an agreement. It doesn’t sound like they’re too far off. But mega budget movies like Mission impossible Final Reckoning may be over.
My bad I misread that. They wanted 275 million. It sounds like WB is drawing the line at 230 million. Maybe they can come to an agreement. It doesn’t sound like they’re too far off. But mega budget movies like Mission impossible Final Reckoning may be over.
This post was edited on 8/19/25 at 9:24 pm
Posted on 8/19/25 at 9:53 pm to abellsujr
With AI and technology in general, I just don’t understand why any movie would cost that much to make. Seems unnecessary.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 9:59 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
guess making a $275M ripoff of "The Abyss" and "Leviathan" isn't going to get made anymore.
I don’t know that there is an original plot left to use.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 10:05 pm to Jack Ruby
Considering it is WB, I’m not surprised.
Zaslav, the CEO of WB, has been pinching pennies ever since the Discovery merger. Regardless of whether the move is right or wrong, it is the cheaper move and that has been their mindset for a while now.
Zaslav, the CEO of WB, has been pinching pennies ever since the Discovery merger. Regardless of whether the move is right or wrong, it is the cheaper move and that has been their mindset for a while now.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 10:12 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:Tom is a big traditionalist so I imagine he still wants practical expensive effects. Dude probably wants every actor to train in diving for a year.
With AI and technology in general, I just don’t understand why any movie would cost that much to make.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 10:13 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
With AI and technology in general, I just don’t understand why any movie would cost that much to make. Seems unnecessary.
Speaking of AI. I just want a 90 minute movie of Sasquatch's escapades after getting into some booger sugar.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 10:25 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
Liman has described “Deeper” as a “supernatural thriller.” The story follows a disgraced astronaut, played by Cruise, who embarks on a deep-sea mission to explore a recently discovered ocean trench — only to encounter a mysterious and dangerous force.
I’d watch that.
And of all people to invest money in for a film, Cruise has consistently been one of the most bankable actors for going on four decades now. So they should do it IMO. I know the last MI didn’t do as well as previous entries, but it did still manage $571 million.
You gotta love Hollywood accounting though. They want $275 million and are being offered around $230 million, but need $600 million to break even?
Posted on 8/19/25 at 10:26 pm to teke184
quote:
Considering it is WB, I’m not surprised. Zaslav, the CEO of WB, has been pinching pennies ever since the Discovery merger. Regardless of whether the move is right or wrong, it is the cheaper move and that has been their mindset for a while now.
you act as if it’s reasonable to spend $275mm on a water movie just because cruise is in it Did you see the MI box office recently?
Posted on 8/19/25 at 10:38 pm to Proximo
I mention it because Zaslav has done all kinds of penny wise pound foolish shite such as scrapping finished pictures, pulling stuff off HBO Max to cut costs on streaming rights, etc.
The amount of this shite he has done means I do not give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to cost savings, even if justified by massive budgets for the scrapped films.
The amount of this shite he has done means I do not give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to cost savings, even if justified by massive budgets for the scrapped films.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 10:45 pm to teke184
WB is doing pretty good this year in the scheme of things. This is based on the MI numbers. It didn’t get a good return. So WB is trying to draw a line with this one. It’s understandable, although disappointing because I like these Tom Cruise stunt filled movies.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 10:59 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
With AI and technology in general, I just don’t understand why any movie would cost that much to make. Seems unnecessary.
get some super nerd fan in a roomfor 5 months, pay him 250K and let him tell AI what to make... I'd bet we get better shite to watch than the crap being currently pumped out
Posted on 8/20/25 at 12:55 am to Jack Ruby
frees up some time on his schedule
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:24 am to JPLSU1981
quote:
With AI and technology in general, I just don’t understand why any movie would cost that much to make. Seems unnecessary.
Knowing cruise, practical effects, stunts, and stunt insurance.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:04 am to Jack Ruby
I was wondering why they are pretending to be dating. Both had movies out and also trying make movie together.
I wonder if it’s cancelled, does she move on…
I wonder if it’s cancelled, does she move on…
Posted on 8/20/25 at 6:27 am to Jack Ruby
quote:
What studio is willing to drop $275M on an original, underwater sci-fi film with no built-in audience? Even with Tom Cruise attached, there’s no guaranteed hit. If I were a betting man, I’d wager it will never see the light of day.
They should go ahead and name “UnderWaterworld”
Posted on 8/20/25 at 6:48 am to Jack Ruby
So they didn't kill the film, they just didn't give Cruise the extra $75 million he wanted.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 6:53 am to teke184
quote:
Considering it is WB, I’m not surprised.
Zaslav, the CEO of WB, has been pinching pennies ever since the Discovery merger. Regardless of whether the move is right or wrong, it is the cheaper move and that has been their mindset for a while now.
Yeah it really seemed to screw up house of the dragon season 2 after season 1 had great reviews.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News