Who Has More To Lose In This Divorce: Tom Cruise Or Katie Holmes?
Posted on July 01, 2012 at 9:14 PM
I think this is really the question on a lot of people’s minds: who has more to lose in this high profile divorce, Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes? Bonnie Fuller of Hollywoodlife.com told USA Today that Tom has a lot to lose, given the challenges he’s faced since he and Katie started dating (who could forget the couch-jumping incident on Oprah?) The superstar cannot afford to risk his reputation again in a nasty divorce, Bonnie says.
“This cannot turn into an ugly divorce battle. And there should be no public fight over Suri. If people perceive that he’s not being generous with Katie or Suri or he’s trying to take Suri away from Katie, I think that would be the greatest harm he can do for his public image.”
Bonnie even went so far as to say that Tom should pay Katie “whatever it takes” to keep the divorce quiet. But does that mean giving up legal custody of Suri? Bonnie doesn’t go that far, but I guess that’s the implication. As another person put it:
“[Tom] is keenly aware of his precarious public image, and knows selling movie tickets to his latest film is inherently tied to this.”
Yet what about Katie’s career? One source said Katie is actually more at risk.
“She was trying to find her way in Hollywood before she married Tom and she’s still in the same place.”
It’s true that Katie isn’t regarded the same way as Tom’s second ex-wife, Nicole Kidman, is. Something tells me both will be more focused on Suri than on their careers, but part of being a celebrity is that what occurs in your personal life can impact your image, and thus your career. Who do you think has more to lose, Tom or Katie?
Photos by CWNY/FAME
Leave a Reply
Must- See PHOtos!
One thought on “Who Has More To Lose In This Divorce: Tom Cruise Or Katie Holmes?”:
Bonnie even went so far as to say that Tom should pay Katie “whatever it takes” to keep the divorce quiet. But does that mean giving up legal custody of Suri? Bonnie doesn’t go that far, but I guess that’s the implication. As another person put it: