Things are getting so bad for actor Tom Cruise that he’s probably not going to be cast in Mission Impossible IV. He could be headed, though, into a starring role in Another Gay Movie II.

He’d play the supposedly straight actor, living in West Hollywood, who is plagued by rumors that he’s gay. When he finds it advantageous to his career to come out of the closet, he abandons his latest sham marriage and shacks up with Lance Bass. Co-starring with Cruise will be Kevin Spacey, Clay Aiken and Ryan Seacrest.

Well, there could be more truth than fiction to the above.

That’s because last week, Sumner Redstone, the czar in charge of Viacom, which owns Paramount Productions, announced that Paramount was severing its contract with Cruise.

Redstone told reporters that Cruise’s “conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount.”

News reports indicate that MI III did not do well selling domestic tickets. An opinion poll conducted after the movie opened showed Cruise’s star power has dimmed considerably in the eyes of the viewing public.

Why? Is it because people think Tom is gay?

No. The USA Today/Gallup poll surveyed the public and found that half now have an unfavorable opinion of the actor, largely because of his off-screen behavior.

During the last year, Cruise has promoted his religion, Scientology. The Los Angeles Times reported that Cruise has a very close relationship with one of the leaders of Scientology, and the church has promoted him to some higher status. This status requires him to publicly criticize psychiatry. He must also publicly condemn the use of antidepressants. Not surprising, he criticized actress Brooke Shields’ treatment for postpartum depression through the use of antidepressants.

Then, of course, was the incident on “Oprah” where in a manic move Cruise jumped up and down on a couch proclaiming his love for actress Katie Holmes, who has given birth to his (presumably) first biological child. She’s named Suri, a word supposedly of Hebrew origin, which no one in the Jewish religion has ever heard of.

I thought Cruise’s strange behavior started a few years ago when he sued Kristina Ann Kirstin, the ex-wife of gay porn star Chad Slater. Slater allegedly told a reporter he had an affair with Cruise. Then Kristina confirmed to tabloids that Slater told her the same thing during their marriage.

Cruise sued both Slater and his ex-wife for defamation, alleging that just stating Cruise was gay was defamatory. He sued for $100 million.

Slater, the porn star, disavowed ever saying anything to anyone. He ended up defaulting on the suit. This means he did not mount a defense and Cruise could take a default against him. This allowed Cruise to say that the default was an admission that the statement was false.

Cruise still sued Kirstin, but lost. A judge dismissed the case because Kirstin didn’t say Cruise was gay, she just repeated what her husband had said. The judge ruled Cruise owed Kristina close to $30,000 in legal costs.

Cruise appealed, but both parties settled, with Cruise dropping the appeal.

Cruise’s spin people said neither Slater nor his ex-wife had any proof of the “gay affair” between Cruise and Slater.

I thought this was all a bit fishy. Why would Cruise sue for $100 million knowing full well that Slater and Kirstin probably couldn’t even afford to hire a defense lawyer? It was obvious that Slater and Kirstin would default.

Defendants in cases default all the time. It doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have a defense. It may simply mean they cannot afford to hire a lawyer and defend themselves.

Slater and Kirstin could have argued that. Even if they did say “Cruise was gay,” that doesn’t constitute defamation anymore. And, besides, could Cruise show he was damaged to the tune of $100 million? Very doubtful.

And then a strange thing occurred. Prosecutors in Los Angeles issued a 60-page indictment of celebrity gumshoe and alleged wire-tapper Anthony Pellicano.

Ironically, Cruise’s lawyer (the one who filed the suit against Slater and Kirstin) is 76-year-old lawyer Bertram Fields, who for years employed Pellicano as an investigator. As reported in the Los Angeles Times, the federal indictment alleges Pellicano and his associates either allegedly wire-tapped the victims or performed background checks on them.

The illegally obtained information was then forwarded to attorneys, who used the information to gain tactical advantages over opponents.

During the next year, we may learn whether Pellicano supplied information to Fields in the Cruise/Slater litigation. And it may not be surprising if he did and that played a role in the Cruise/Slater affair (I mean the legal one, of course).