Tom Cruise Didn’t Save Hollywood but ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ May Have Saved His Reputation

Every year, in the lead-up to the Oscars, the Academy hosts a flashy luncheon where all of the nominees are invited to hang out, take photographs, and general revel in the mighty star power of Hollywood. 2022 offered a wide slew of A-List clout among the nominated people, from Steven Spielberg to Colin Farrell to Michelle Yeoh. Yet it seemed like the most adored figure among the bunch, the one most coveted for selfies and shop talk, was none other than Tom Cruise. The star and producer of Top Gun: Maverick, which is nominated for six Oscars, was welcomed heartily by his peers. At one point, his former collaborator Spielberg reportedly approached him to declare, ‘You saved Hollywood’s ass and you might have saved theatrical distribution. Seriously, Top Gun: Maverick might have saved the entire theatrical industry.’

It’s a lofty claim to make, but one that a hell of a lot of people seem to believe. It’s true that Top Gun: Maverick made a massive amount of money, arguably more than anyone was expecting it to. It’s not just that it grossed over $1.489 billion, making it the second highest-earning film of 2022 behind Avatar: The Way of Water. It’s that the film was a theatrical exclusive at a time when many studios were slashing the amount of time their films played in cinemas before going to VOD or streaming. Thanks to that, Maverick stayed in cinemas for many months, building a strong financial foundation as it earned word-of-mouth raves. Indeed, the film had been delayed several times thanks to reshoots and the COVID-19 lockdown to ensure it received that theatrical rollout. Audiences came out in droves for Maverick, including people like my parents who seldom go to the cinema unless they feel it’s 100% worth their time (they both loved the film.) This was a true Event, and that feels like an increasing rarity in the post-coronavirus era of Hollywood timidity.

So yeah, this film got a lot of butts into seats, but it’s tough to argue that it saved an entire industry. It proved the mettle of the theatrical experience to many but that’s not something other studios have been able to replicate. Audiences are increasingly turning to streaming for most non-blockbuster releases, but not even those IP tentpoles are safe, as evidenced by the major second-week drop for Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. Studios aren’t keeping films in cinemas for as long as they used to, with the theatrical window shortening to around six weeks for many big titles. Many directors and stars have tried to fight this, but Cruise seems to be the only one who pulled it off. Others just made sure they got paid properly, as happened with Emily Blunt and John Krasinski when Paramount decided that A Quiet Place Part 2 would only be in theaters for 45 days.

There’s no evidence to suggest that Top Gun: Maverick’s immense success bolstered other films to commercial security, or any sign that others hope to replicate it, so calling it an industry-wide life-saver seems generous at best. That’s a title no one film or person can claim, especially when you look at what got butts into seats in 2022. Consider Everything Everywhere All at Once, A24’s indie sci-fi dramedy that spent months in theaters thanks to incredible word-of-mouth. There’s a film with an original story that was tough to sell to general audiences and didn’t arrive in theaters with a ton of hype. Yet it became A24’s highest-grossing film ever, and one of the true theatrical successes of the year. Did the Daniels save Hollywood? No, but surely what they pulled off here deserves some of the credit being poured upon Cruise? Indie distributors are far more dedicated to theatrical releases and such long-term investments than the studios with high-concept IPs.

Overall, Cruise isn’t doing much to save the cinema beyond making sure his own films are treated well. He certainly has the clout to get shit done but isn’t wielding that power in a way that would benefit smaller films or indie creators who can barely get their foot in the door. Frankly, what he seems more concerned with is how he can use this victory lap to add some sheen back to his own image. It’s been a long time since he’s been this popular with audiences and reasserted his status as one of the last true A-Listers of Hollywood. People loved Top Gun: Maverick and they were once again charmed by Cruise in a way they haven’t since, I would argue, the early 2000s. He’s gone back to being Cruise the Star, not Cruise the Scientologist.

That Cruise’s involvement with a pernicious cult, one whose crimes are extensively documented thanks to decades of reporting, is now seen as a mere quirk of his personality is a revealing change in his public image. The last time Cruise worked with Spielberg was War of the Worlds, the selling of which was mired by its star’s dwindling reputation on the promotional trail thanks to his weird behaviour. Remember the couch jumping and fight with Matt Lauer and attacking of Brooke Shields over her candid discussion of post-natal depression? This was the first time that the previously impenetrable image of Cruise took a true beating, far more so than when he divorced Nicole Kidman. He suddenly seemed odd, unavoidably so, and inextricably connected to a shady organization with a reputation for harassment, abuse, and much more. It’s not simply that he was seen as a member of a wacky Hollywood enterprise: he was the King of Scientology, as important to its money-making image as the people who officially run it.

What repaired Cruise’s reputation with the audiences who had grown skeptical of him was his evolution into an invincible superman of the big screen. I’ve written about this before so I won’t blabber on for too long here, but it’s crucial to understanding the ‘saviour of Hollywood’ label that we note what made Cruise’s post-glib career work. He took his megastar image and did with it what nobody else in American cinema could, and became a stunt-man of increasingly shocking scale. This is crucial to the success of Top Gun: Maverick, which sold itself in large part on its practical stunts and jaw-dropping flight sequences. You HAD to see those on the big screen, so was the selling point of the film. It worked. Cruise found the ideal film to maintain his new invincible superman image and audiences gobbled it up. I don’t blame them. It really is a great film.

If remains to be seen if Cruise can maintain this boost to his image. The Mission: Impossible franchise has new installments coming soon and more opportunities for him to show off his stunt prowess in unique ways. There’s that long-awaited film he’s supposed to be making that goes into literal space too. To keep the post-Top Gun: Maverick shine, he’ll need to keep topping his last stunt. How long can that go on for?