It was bound to happen sooner or later but what do you think of the current Tom Cruise Fiasco? Was he worried about being out of the limelight for a while so he tried to re-establish himself? Or maybe he just stopped giving a crap and has decided to do wacky crap on TV for fun? Or maybe he has brain worms.... Anything?
Dude, I hear ya. I cannot believe how weird he has become so quickly. For some strange reason I caught his interview on the 'Today Show'. He went on and on about how Psychology and Psychiatry is a load of hooey. And anyone that chooses psychology or psychiatry is basically and idiot - the entire time with this scowling Frank T.J. Makie-type demeanor.
I'll tell ya why I'm concerned. I'm worried for his kids. He's starting to sound like my shut-in of an Uncle that routinely calls Kodak because the nearby factory is making too much noise.
I think he believes that people will listen to him and not think he is nuts. He is incorrect. I'll still watch him act. Until I can't separate the on-screen Tom from the kooky street Tom.
Personally, I think he's always been off-kilter. There are hints of it in his whole acting resume. That slightly goofy appeal thats half-physical, half-vocal and lingers in every film hes in no matter what type of character hes trying to portray which is why he comes off as strangely funny sometimes even in his dramatic roles. HE has these "Tom Cruise" moments in films that sometimes make you laugh when your not suppose to or even if you are, youre laughing for the wrong reason. ANd no its not just his bad acting, its something else. Something that allows Ben Stiller the most spot on impression in his repertoire. In "VAnilla Sky" Penelope Cruz draws her impression of Tom Cruise as a one-dimensional cartoon caricature. When she apologizes after noticing Toms hurt look, Tom says "NOT at all, you're actually more right than you know", and I think she is. If theres any brand of craziness Tom Cruise subscribes to its the kind in which there is an incredible lack of self-awareness that seems to allow the person to be either in either a consistently blissful or consistently perfunctory state of mind. KEanu REeves can probably be diagnosed with the same disease.
As far as Tom is concerned, Its just hes kept it hidden/reserved for his career and publicist's sakes and didnt have any motivation to "reveal" himself until kitty katie came along. He really seems to be perpetuating the myth of the young freespirited girl rejuvenating her seasoned, over-40 lover and Im more concerned for Nicole Kidman than anyone else. What a slap in the face it must be for her. That apparantly, little miss Holmes could make Tom more alive with craziness in a few months than she ever did during their decade long marriage.
...and hire one of his cousins to - a fellow Scientologist - to do the job could have something to do with it. I think his nuttiness is of the same brand as M. Jackson's. There's no one around either willing to risk their lifestyle as a star's hanger-on and tell them that they are kooky as cocoanuts.
Tom is an ass. I'm going to have a hard time watching anything with him in it without thinking about his enormous ego and his obvious feeling of self-importance.
You are a piece of pop fluff Tom. You do not understand the origins of psychology because you read some stuff that you bought from the Scientologists for a lot of money.
Well I can say without a hint of sarcasm, I completely agree. I'm gonna drink a lot Sauturday Night, and if I time it... just right... I'll vomit right on the front steps of Cincinnati Scientology. That'll teach 'em! Dammit, if it weren't for that damn cult we coulda have 'Losin' It, II'!
I've read somewhere (on the net) that at some point in their "evolution" the higher level scientologists are supposed to gain powers like invisibility, flight etc. It sounds so ludicrous I'm having a hard time believing it so, can anybody tell me if it's actually part of their doctrine or not, and if it is why aren't the people who think it's true locked up in Arkham Asylum ?
"Scientologists unburden themselves of the Reactive Mind. Once you have successfully accomplished this feat, you are declared "Clear." After becoming a Clear, you now possess a genius IQ, as well as a perfect memory, ideal physical health, and an inability to cause accidents. At which point, you are enticed to progress beyond Clear, into the advanced levels ascribed to Operating Thetans. Hence, the first stage is called OT I, the second OT II, and so on up to OT IX. The spiritual path is called "The Bridge to Total Freedom." At each step of The Bridge, you will accumulate increasingly powerful and extraordinary gifts, including the power to fly, turn invisible, perform astral projection, control matter and energy with only your mind, telepathy, ESP, etc.
In other words, Operating Thetans are capable of violating physical laws of the universe. In ecclesiastical terms, they can work miracles just like Jesus Christ. In fact, according to [L. Ron]Hubbard, Jesus was simply an ordinary mortal who had somehow managed to bring himself "a shade above Clear." So Scientologists are in good company. (Of course, LRH also claimed the King of Kings was a boy fucker. Maybe not such good company after all.)
And all of this is available for just the low-low price of $380,000. That's the estimated cumulative cost of all the course materials and the many hours of auditing sessions required to reach the spiritual level known as OT IX. But $380k is a small price to pay for invisibility, right?"
Re: I have read the same thing. I believe they are that kooky.
June 25 2005, 12:08 PM
HerrDoktor~ That site was awesome. I tried reading "Dianetics" when I was like 12. My mom read it. I asked her what it was about and she was like,"This crackpot thinks he's got all the answers and he started some kind of cockamamey religion." Well I was at an age where I was having serious doubts about my current religion, so I figured I'd check it out. I would read a chapter and feel like I knew WTF ole Hubbard was talking about and then I'd be like "Hold up. I have no clue what the hell I just read" and I'd go back and reread it, only to find the same result. There is some definite brainwashing going on there. But, if you think about it, how does that differenciate scientology from any religion?
OK, as absolutely ludicrious as that sounds, in the big picture, things are starting to make sense. Consider, Scientology's main demographic - Uber-Hollywood stars. They have (with basically very little effort) dump truck loads of $$, fame, and in the broadest sense - power.
That is (generally), respected elected officials or legitmate captains of industry, have achieved an enviable position in life due mainly to hard work, perseverence, and some sort of intellectual savvy.
On the other hand, rich Hollywood stars make a living by sitting in a trailer all day, eating, playing XBox, screwing co-stars, and occasionally emerging to get in front of the camera for a 45 second take. For some, 3 months work equates to 15 million dollars, to average John Q Public, that is something simply mind boggling. But for a Hollywood star, a city that closes down for a shoot is pretty tame. So if you've peaked, with all your money and influence what else is there? Ah... flight, ESP, playing blackjack with Jesus. And isn't that kinda the same sorta things the Devil promised Faust? And look how that turned out.
This message has been edited by HOLDSDOWNSHIFTKEY on Jun 26, 2005 1:05 AM This message has been edited by HOLDSDOWNSHIFTKEY on Jun 26, 2005 1:03 AM This message has been edited by HOLDSDOWNSHIFTKEY on Jun 26, 2005 1:02 AM This message has been edited by HOLDSDOWNSHIFTKEY on Jun 26, 2005 12:57 AM This message has been edited by HOLDSDOWNSHIFTKEY on Jun 26, 2005 12:56 AM
Roger Williams was pretty ahead of his times as well. I believe he was one of the first to advocate separation of church and state, if I'm not mixing things up in my head.
I have yet to see in print--if Tom Cruise is so uuup on the Scientology ladder...Why is it that he and Nicole divorced?? Does not Scientology interject themselves & their teachings to keep the family unit together? Why did Mr. Tom dump Nicole like a hot potato? Why did he not put all that money & study to keep his family together....Something is wrong here...(or I should say with Mr. Tom) Seems like he 'got took' BIG TIME. To late to get his money back from Scientology...?? Should we start a petition...& get Mr. Tom's $$$$$$$$$ back??
It would be interesting to compare the number of mentions Tom Cruise gets on this board to say the number of times darfur, or any other item of real consequence get referenced (and don't go lecturing me about how this is a movie board. There are PLENTY of great movies about truly important and relevant issues that get virtually no conversation here.
Usually, Kristof gets it right all the time, but in this case his net of frustration should include the population at large at getting off their frosted-flaked-coated asses and giving a shit about someone else who has it much worse. Who gives a flying f*ck about Tom Cruise and the idiocy that comes out of his mouth. Is his life REALLY that much more interesting or important than the 100s of people who just died in Darfur while i typed this out?
July 26, 2005
All Ears for Tom Cruise, All Eyes on Brad Pitt
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Some of us in the news media have been hounding President Bush for his shameful passivity in the face of genocide in Darfur.
More than two years have passed since the beginning of what Mr. Bush acknowledges is the first genocide of the 21st century, yet Mr. Bush barely manages to get the word "Darfur" out of his mouth. Still, it seems hypocritical of me to rage about Mr. Bush's negligence, when my own beloved institution - the American media - has been at least as passive as Mr. Bush.
Condi Rice finally showed up in Darfur a few days ago, and she went out of her way to talk to rape victims and spotlight the sexual violence used to terrorize civilians. Most American television networks and cable programs haven't done that much.
Even the coverage of Ms. Rice's trip underscored our self-absorption. The manhandling of journalists accompanying Ms. Rice got more coverage than any massacre in Darfur has.
This is a column I don't want to write - we in the media business have so many critics already that I hardly need to pipe in as well. But after more than a year of seething frustration, I feel I have to.
Like many others, I drifted toward journalism partly because it seemed an opportunity to do some good. (O.K., O.K.: it was also a blast, impressed girls and offered the glory of the byline.) But to sustain the idealism in journalism - and to rebut the widespread perception that journalists are just irresponsible gossips - we need to show more interest in the first genocide of the 21st century than in the "runaway bride."
I'm outraged that one of my Times colleagues, Judith Miller, is in jail for protecting her sources. But if we journalists are to demand a legal privilege to protect our sources, we need to show that we serve the public good - which means covering genocide as seriously as we cover, say, Tom Cruise. In some ways, we've gone downhill: the American news media aren't even covering the Darfur genocide as well as we covered the Armenian genocide in 1915.
Serious newspapers have done the best job of covering Darfur, and I take my hat off to Emily Wax of The Washington Post and to several colleagues at The Times for their reporting. Time magazine gets credit for putting Darfur on its cover - but the newsweeklies should be embarrassed that better magazine coverage of Darfur has often been in Christianity Today.
The real failure has been television's. According to monitoring by the Tyndall Report, ABC News had a total of 18 minutes of the Darfur genocide in its nightly newscasts all last year - and that turns out to be a credit to Peter Jennings. NBC had only 5 minutes of coverage all last year, and CBS only 3 minutes - about a minute of coverage for every 100,000 deaths. In contrast, Martha Stewart received 130 minutes of coverage by the three networks.
Incredibly, more than two years into the genocide, NBC, aside from covering official trips, has still not bothered to send one of its own correspondents into Darfur for independent reporting.
"Generally speaking, it's been a total vacuum," said John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, speaking of television coverage. "I blame policy makers for not making better policy, but it sure would be easier if we had more media coverage."
When I've asked television correspondents about this lapse, they've noted that visas to Sudan are difficult to get and that reporting in Darfur is expensive and dangerous. True, but TV crews could at least interview Darfur refugees in nearby Chad. After all, Diane Sawyer traveled to Africa this year - to interview Brad Pitt, underscoring the point that the networks are willing to devote resources to cover the African stories that they consider more important than genocide.
If only Michael Jackson's trial had been held in Darfur. Last month, CNN, Fox News, NBC, MSNBC, ABC and CBS collectively ran 55 times as many stories about Michael Jackson as they ran about genocide in Darfur.
The BBC has shown that outstanding television coverage of Darfur is possible. And, incredibly, mtvU (the MTV channel aimed at universities) has covered Darfur more seriously than any network or cable station. When MTV dispatches a crew to cover genocide and NBC doesn't, then we in journalism need to hang our heads.
So while we have every right to criticize Mr. Bush for his passivity, I hope that he criticizes us back. We've behaved as disgracefully as he has.
"It would be interesting to compare the number of mentions Tom Cruise gets on this board to say the number of times darfur, or any other item of real consequence get referenced"
If you are that naive to think that everybody's lives are equally as important, then how about we just stop posting patronizing articles on the internet that try and make people feel guilty about living a good life while others across the world have it worse off. I don't come here to be quilted and I think that most of the other posters feel the same way. I could barely tolerate it when it was just in one thread, now you've tainted another with your idiocy... I'm sorry, but for me the more you post the less I care... and please correct me if I'm wrong but the people who would do something to help probably already know about this genocide in Rwanda and are doing something. Don't act like copying and pasting an article in a thread about Tom Cruise's zany antics is helping the cause to solve Rwanda's problems, because it's not. I find it despicable that you sit in front of your keyboard and see yourself as someone with the right to preach about how others waste their time talking about things of no consequence. Well I'm sure that if we followed you for a day we would see nothing but feeding the homeless, helping old ladies across the street and acting as a meat shield for poor citizens in Rwanda.... well at least copying and pasting articles about them onto message board threads that are not related to the subject in anyway.
Amazing. The more I post, the less you care, you say. Like I'm the one who is responsible for you being a self-absorbed, shallow do-nothing. Oh, gotta go. There a little ole lady who needs me to help her across the street. (You know me soooo well.)
ahhh, your focus is on my typos and not the substance of what I write? In that case, let me ease my way down from my high horse and pull you by the ear to see your own chubby finger mess in which you apparently dislike being "quilted". Although i would agree it would probably be a rather uncomfortable thing to be, I had the good sense - and seemingly overly generous oversight to realize that you meant to write guilted - and I let it go. But I see, that in order to communicate at all with you in particular (which has actually never been my intention, but it's getitng to be a hialrious experince over here) i must talk way, way down here for you.
Because... because.. you're the boss of me? Nah. I don't think so. In fact, I may just decide to pop this into a bunch of posts. So keep a look out. (I know that you will)
This bump is just to poke at "TTG"'s nerve. But to anyone else out there who's been following (if you care), I remain dedicated to injecting news/polemics/commentaries/arguments (of merit) that reflect a greater mortal significance than the inane meanderings and subseqent media (and OT board orgies) of Tom Cruise or his ilk.
So my girlfriend buys this new Jeep, she's got temporary plates and because it's brand new, she's skittish to park it on the street. I say, "Park it on the street, in front of the Wacko's office (local Cincinnati Scientology Chapter), they're up all night with the lights on." And they are up all night, literally (maybe waiting patiently for L. Ron to show up). Then I thought for a moment, what if - WHAT IF, the Wackos, merely by being around at the time, somehow thwarted the break-in of the Jeep by would-be criminals? If said remote event happened, we would then be endebted to the Wackos and forced to deal with the 'nicieties' every time we walked by the office (the vacant 'Hellos' and head nods, etc). After not so much deliberation, she parked it in a garage. Think poor 'ol Chris Klein is playing Russian Roulette while watching 'Rollerball'?
