Mission Impossible III

[cthomer5000]

I saw it tonight at an advance screening. My take on it:

- Fantastic action movie. If you want an action film, you won't be disappointed.

- The best of the 3 MI films yet. For reference I thought 2 was better than the first, and this better than both.

Solid cast and writing all around. Thumbs up. http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/icons/icon14.gif

[DaddyTorgo]

fuck that. i refuse to see this movie and tacitly support the fact that tom cruise is an absolute fruitcake. i know that's silly, cuz such a small % of the $ from the movie will actually find his pocket, but still...it's the principle of the thing. And I don't want him thinking he's succeeded.

[Swaggs]

My wife and I feel the same way, DT.

His assanine assault on psychiatry made him lose our business.

[dervack]

I'm going to see it Wednesday night. Just my friend and I in the theater.

[caspanky]

fuck that. i refuse to see this movie and tacitly support the fact that tom cruise is an absolute fruitcake. i know that's silly, cuz such a small % of the $ from the movie will actually find his pocket, but still...it's the principle of the thing. And I don't want him thinking he's succeeded.

Unfortunately, I think he probably thinks that he is a sucess. I mean, he's done quite a few movies and most have done pretty well.

I'm planning on seeing it tomorrow night at an advance private screening with a couple friends. So, he won't be getting any of my money :cheesy:

[cthomer5000]

Silly me, I just want to be enteratained when I go to a movie. I couldn't care less about an actor/producer's personal politics or religious beliefs.

[Draft Dodger]

Silly me, I just want to be enteratained when I go to a movie. I couldn't care less about an actor/producer's personal politics or religious beliefs.

exactly. there are a ton of nutjobs in hollywood. if I stopped seeing movies based on principle, there's not many movies left to see.

I'm not really that eager to see it, mostly because I don't think either of the previous movies have been very good. but it happens that my wife has free tickets for Sunday, so that's what we're going to go see.

[Bee]

I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD, but it just doesn't look appealing enough to me to go see it at the theater. I only go see a handful of movies since getting the home theater room a couple years ago and I don't think this one makes the cut for me. It's good to hear that it's better than the previous versions though, since I thought they were both decent action movies.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I thought the first one was pretty fun up until the end. Then it just sort of became like any other action movie.

The second one sucked balls. It was a really bad movie. The silly motorcycle duel, all the people constantly removing those stupid masks, it was nonsense. John Woo at his worst.

John Woo in Hong Kong = great movies.

John Woo in the U.S. = not so much. I mean, his best "Hollywood" picture was Hard Target, starring Jean-Claude Van Damme.

[Qwikshot]

I thought the first one was far better than the 2nd. In the 2nd it just seemed so over the top, the whole motorcycle battle was stupid. It was just so bland to me, Ving's character seemed so unimportant and the Aussie guy was minimal comic relief.

The first one had tension, had plot, and emotion too. I didn't find the plot that difficult for the 1st one.

[Butter]

I thought the first one was pretty fun up until the end. Then it just sort of became like any other action movie.

The second one sucked balls. It was a really bad movie. The silly motorcycle duel, all the people constantly removing those stupid masks, it was nonsense. John Woo at his worst.

I didn't HATE the second one, but I didn't like it either. It was over the top... I don't like that Hong Kong fighting style where everyone hangs in mid-air for 20 seconds kicking each other.

But the 3rd one has Philip Seymour Hoffman in it, so I figured it has to be pretty good.

[Maple Leafs]

Silly me, I just want to be enteratained when I go to a movie. I couldn't care less about an actor/producer's personal politics or religious beliefs.
No kidding.

[DanGarion]

Silly me, I just want to be enteratained when I go to a movie. I couldn't care less about an actor/producer's personal politics or religious beliefs.
Ding Ding!

I can't wait to see it!

[rkmsuf]

JJ Abrams is on a pretty good roll.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I couldn't care less about an actor/producer's personal politics or religious beliefs.

That's very sad.

FTR, I don't mean that as some sort of sly rip on you or anything, I sincerely find that to be a very sad statement to hear someone make.

[Crapshoot]

Silly me, I just want to be enteratained when I go to a movie. I couldn't care less about an actor/producer's personal politics or religious beliefs.

Well, I couldn't care less about his politics - My view is that I'd rather not bother to support his movies after that South Park stunt, and the 2nd bored the hell out of me.

[cthomer5000]

That's very sad.

FTR, I don't mean that as some sort of sly rip on you or anything, I sincerely find that to be a very sad statement to hear someone make.

Really? Feel free to tell me why I make you sad.

[rkmsuf]

Maybe Steven Spielberg molests collies. I could care less. If Cruise wants to get his tetan swerve on good for him. Just make good movies.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I
John Woo in the U.S. = not so much. I mean, his best "Hollywood" picture was Hard Target, starring Jean-Claude Van Damme.

Oh, come on, Broken Arrow was awesome! Howie Long: oh god, the radiation is killing me! Ok, actually I completely agree. I guess I should watch his Hong Kong movies, but having seen his U.S. ones, I have to say he's pretty much a sucknut and I avoid him like the plague..

[Anthony]

i don't want to support Cruise knowing how much of a cook he is. he needs to be knocked a couple rungs down the ladder and realize its ok for him to believe his gobbledy gook if he wants, just don't use your fame as a an excuse to spread your rhetoric.

i was fine w/ cruise when i thought he was normal. there is something clearly off-center with him and knowing what i know now about his beliefs and the way he acts i don't want to support it. i'll wait for the movie to come out on cable. it's ok, the good guys will win in this movie and the bad guys will lose, i'm sure.

[ice4277]

I'm going to see an advance screening tonight, otherwise I probably would not have bothered.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Really? Feel free to tell me why I make you sad.

Yeah, really.

FWIW, I think you're probably in the majority in this country today, which may actually have something to do with the sadness I get from the comment, like a reminder of the current state of society at large or something. In other words, it's not like I'm sitting here thinking "Oh, poor cthomer5000", it's more like "Sigh. That's the world I live in :( "

Why that makes me sad is that I believe the statement says a lot about the importance you place on your own personal/religious/political/whatever beliefs. Which is a statement that usually generates an immediate (often indignant) denial. Which in turn is even sadder, because those denials are often quite sincere, which means you (the royal "you" that is, since you're really serving as a stand-in for a big chunk of the population here) don't even realize what's happened, how readily you'll compromise your own beliefs and lend support to something that runs contrary to them all in the name of a little entertainment.

I'm a pretty big believer in the "got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything" school of thought. Dammit, you don't have to be right everytime, but at least stand for something. Obviously, I'd prefer you to be right when you do stand, but at least when you stand wrong you're displaying the ability/willingness to believe something, and that at least gives me reason to hope. (Sidebar: Why oh why do I expect this snippet to be quoted somewhere & replied to with lines from Bull Durham).

And that's really where the sadness comes from I guess -- everyday that goes by lately I find less & less reason to hope we'll ever see this ship right itself. More and more I believe that we're simply too far gone as a nation, that there's too few people who are willing to make a commitment, take a stand. I don't even get mad about that much anymore, just sad.

This really wasn't a rip at you personally, your role was really just to make a comment that kind of highlighted something that disturbs me deeply on a exponentially larger scale than you/FOFC/the internet. And, you did say I should feel free to tell you why, so I did.

[Anthony]

cthomer: hi, i'd like to purchase your product

merchant: just so you know, i plan on funneling the proceeds of this purchase to fund a terrorist organization. death to all Americans

cthomer: awww, what the hell do i care about your beliefs?

[Butter]

America: hi, i'd like to purchase your product

Many oil producing countries: just so you know, i plan on funneling the proceeds of this purchase to fund a terrorist organization. death to all Americans

America: awww, what the hell do i care about your beliefs?

Fix'd.

[rkmsuf]

cthomer: hi, i'd like to purchase your product

merchant: just so you know, i plan on funneling the proceeds of this purchase to fund a terrorist organization. death to all Americans

cthomer: awww, what the hell do i care about your beliefs?

that's a great example in the case of tom cruise.

[Anthony]

cthomer: hi, i'd like to purchase a ticket to your movie

Tom Cruise: just so you know, knowing what my cult preaches and that i forced my wife to join my cult you are essentially reaffirming my way of life and giving my lifestyle a vote of approval.

cthomer: beliefs schmeliefs.

[rkmsuf]

cthomer: hi, i'd like to purchase a ticket to your movie

Tom Cruise: just so you know, knowing what my cult preaches and that i forced my wife to join my cult you are essentially reaffirming my way of life and giving my lifestyle a vote of approval.

cthomer: beliefs schmeliefs.

you have to be kidding

if you ever watch pulp fiction again you are a hypocrite. or dharma and greg reruns.

[DanGarion]

Oh noes the big bad Scientoligist with their big googly eyes are going to get us and assplode us all to hell! I better not watch a movie that stars one of them or the terrorists win and all of the communists will take over the USA. Then the muslims will come in and suicide bomb our lands all because we saw a movie.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Oh, come on, Broken Arrow was awesome! Howie Long: oh god, the radiation is killing me! Ok, actually I completely agree. I guess I should watch his Hong Kong movies, but having seen his U.S. ones, I have to say he's pretty much a sucknut and I avoid him like the plague..

Go rent "The Killer" and "Hardboiled." They are great movies. It may be different now that you've seen Woo do his "thing" in the U.S. I saw those movies first and they are fantastic. For whatever reason, it just works in those movies.

[Crapshoot]

Yeah, really.

FWIW, I think you're probably in the majority in this country today, which may actually have something to do with the sadness I get from the comment, like a reminder of the current state of society at large or something. In other words, it's not like I'm sitting here thinking "Oh, poor cthomer5000", it's more like "Sigh. That's the world I live in :( "

Why that makes me sad is that I believe the statement says a lot about the importance you place on your own personal/religious/political/whatever beliefs. Which is a statement that usually generates an immediate (often indignant) denial. Which in turn is even sadder, because those denials are often quite sincere, which means you (the royal "you" that is, since you're really serving as a stand-in for a big chunk of the population here) don't even realize what's happened, how readily you'll compromise your own beliefs and lend support to something that runs contrary to them all in the name of a little entertainment.

I'm a pretty big believer in the "got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything" school of thought. Dammit, you don't have to be right everytime, but at least stand for something. Obviously, I'd prefer you to be right when you do stand, but at least when you stand wrong you're displaying the ability/willingness to believe something, and that at least gives me reason to hope. (Sidebar: Why oh why do I expect this snippet to be quoted somewhere & replied to with lines from Bull Durham).

And that's really where the sadness comes from I guess -- everyday that goes by lately I find less & less reason to hope we'll ever see this ship right itself. More and more I believe that we're simply too far gone as a nation, that there's too few people who are willing to make a commitment, take a stand. I don't even get mad about that much anymore, just sad.

This really wasn't a rip at you personally, your role was really just to make a comment that kind of highlighted something that disturbs me deeply on a exponentially larger scale than you/FOFC/the internet. And, you did say I should feel free to tell you why, so I did.

While my particular "stand" may be very different from yours, I do think you have a point here - almost Voltarian, but a point nonetheless. I would argue that you are failing to differentiate between taking a stand on issues that matter to people (such as politics) and issues where this isn't a case (like say entertainment). Not paying attention to Tom Cruise's hijinks doesn't preclude the fact that while strong stances may exist, they exist on issues where the holder of set stances believes they are valued. Alternatively, the strong stance itself may be the idea of accepting a wide array of ideas.

[ice4277]

Go rent "The Killer" and "Hardboiled." They are great movies. It may be different now that you've seen Woo do his "thing" in the U.S. I saw those movies first and they are fantastic. For whatever reason, it just works in those movies.

Never saw "The Killer" but "Hardboiled" was good stuff.

[JeeberD]

cthomer: hi, i'd like to purchase a ticket to your movie

Tom Cruise: just so you know, knowing what my cult preaches and that i forced my wife to join my cult you are essentially reaffirming my way of life and giving my lifestyle a vote of approval.

cthomer: beliefs schmeliefs.


Wife?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wife?

You didn't know HA was married?

[cthomer5000]

Why that makes me sad is that I believe the statement says a lot about the importance you place on your own personal/religious/political/whatever beliefs. Which is a statement that usually generates an immediate (often indignant) denial. Which in turn is even sadder, because those denials are often quite sincere, which means you (the royal "you" that is, since you're really serving as a stand-in for a big chunk of the population here) don't even realize what's happened, how readily you'll compromise your own beliefs and lend support to something that runs contrary to them all in the name of a little entertainment.

It's a perfect reflection of how I feel about religious beliefs. I don't give a single shit. People can feel free to pray to whatever imaginary character they choose. Personally, I'm a confirmed catholic who happens to be an atheist.

And I think a large chunk of Tom Cruise haters have shown just how easily they are manipulated by the media. The guy has beliefs you all find crazy or "cultish," but this is only the case becasue they aren't views held by a majority of religions. Most the crazy shit in Scientology is no crazier than the other crap other religions hold dear.

And I love how a guy who does 1 movie every 2-3 years is viewed as "overexposed" these days simply because the media can't leave him and his wife alone. Personally, I think the whole Tom Cruise debacle has proven what a vicious state our media and nation as a whole are currently in. I've never seen such a deliberate attempt to smear someone by the media at large.

[Draft Dodger]

You didn't know HA was allegedly married?

fixed

[cthomer5000]

cthomer: hi, i'd like to purchase your product

merchant: just so you know, i plan on funneling the proceeds of this purchase to fund a terrorist organization. death to all Americans

cthomer: awww, what the hell do i care about your beliefs?

You really are the best argument against yourself.

[Anthony]

is your need for entertainment that great? getting a laugh or cheap thrill from a movie means more to you people than saying "you know what? this guy is not normal and is taking his fame too seriously and actually thinks that he should use the world stage to spread his nonsense, i think it's time i refrain from supporting the ventures he's a part of as a way to voice my disapproval". not to say everyone should feel this way towards Cruise, but you people are saying you don't care at all. what's next - seeing a movie by known pedophiles or murderers? i guess i know who'll be buying a ticket to OJ Simpson's next movie.

[Anthony]

Wife?

or hostage, or "brainwashed victim", maybe "breeding device"? i don't know what he refers to Katie Holmes as.

[rkmsuf]

It's a perfect reflection of how I feel about religious beliefs. I don't give a single shit. People can feel free to pray to whatever imaginary character they choose. Personally, I'm a confirmed catholic who happens to be an atheist.

And I think a large chunk of Tom Cruise haters have shown just how easily they are manipulated by the media. The guy has beliefs you all find crazy or "cultish," but this is only the case becasue they aren't views held by a majority of religions. Most the crazy shit in Scientology is no crazier than the other crap other religions hold dear.

And I love how a guy who does 1 movie every 2-3 years is viewed as "overexposed" these days simply because the media can't leave him and his wife alone. Personally, I think the whole Tom Cruise debacle has proven what a vicious state our media and nation as a whole are currently in. I've never seen such a deliberate attempt to smear someone by the media at large.

That's my take as well. I'm not a Cruise fan per se but what has this guy done "wrong". Is he a nutball...perhaps and likely is. Many movie stars are. Is he a Scientologist...yes. Again he isn't alone here. I can't fault the guy for actively embracing whatever he believes in and I can disagree. Doesn't mean he's got bad morals or ruining society.

And as far as forcing someone into marriage...that's just speculation. May or may not be true Katie Holmes sold out for the exposure. Who knows.

Sure he's got a cooky side that has been highlighted as of late but the hatred is way off the deep end in this case.

[JonInMiddleGA]

cthomer -- just FTR, I'm not particularly feeling strongly one way or another about Cruise's movie (I actually figure he's such an obvious whack job that we could give him all of Bill Gates money & he still couldn't do any significant harm with it).

My comments were pretty well general, just as I took your comment to be (i.e. I believe I understood correctly that you didn't really care about any entertainment figure's beliefs about whatever, not just Tom Cruise).

[Flasch186]

fuck that. i refuse to see this movie and tacitly support the fact that tom cruise is an absolute fruitcake. i know that's silly, cuz such a small % of the $ from the movie will actually find his pocket, but still...it's the principle of the thing. And I don't want him thinking he's succeeded.

I think youd be surprised to know how much money from each ticket ends up in his pocket, also action figures, board games, etc. etc.

[DanGarion]

is your need for entertainment that great? getting a laugh or cheap thrill from a movie means more to you people than saying "you know what? this guy is not normal and is taking his fame too seriously and actually thinks that he should use the world stage to spread his nonsense, i think it's time i refrain from supporting the ventures he's a part of as a way to voice my disapproval". not to say everyone should feel this way towards Cruise, but you people are saying you don't care at all. what's next - seeing a movie by known pedophiles or murderers? i guess i know who'll be buying a ticket to OJ Simpson's next movie.

OJ Simpson went to trial and was found not guilty, not sure where you are getting this "known murderer" from.

[Bee]

i don't want to support Cruise knowing how much of a cook he is.


Wait a second...

Cruise is a cook?!?! Ok, I'm joining the boycott of Cruise movies!

:D

[Maple Leafs]

Cruise is a nut, no doubt, but so far I'm not seeing him actually doing much harm. I'm sure Katie Holmes is a big girl and can make her own decisions. Yes, he hurt Brooke Shields' feelings, but I'm not sure that's worth a boycott. Scientology may be ludicrous but I think the comparisons to terrorism are a wee bit of a reach. I'd argue that the "violence and killing as fun diversion" message of movies like MI3 probably do far more harm than a celebrity with crazy religious beliefs.

With all the lying, cheating, abuse, excess and general "me first" behaviour that goes on in Hollywood every day, it seems odd to draw your line in the sand on sins like jumping on a couch, giving a baby a funny name and getting snippy with Matt Lauer. Or maybe Dennis Miller was right -- the only unforgivable sin in this country is to come across badly on television.

[Franklinnoble]

I have a wife, three kids, and a fat mortgage. We don't go to the movies very often, and we're pretty selective about the ones we pick. I'm pretty sure that we wouldn't see this one in the theater, even if Tom Cruise wasn't a nutcase Scientologist. The fact that he is just seals the deal. I'm not interested in helping him out at the box office.

[wade moore]

cthomer -- just FTR, I'm not particularly feeling strongly one way or another about Cruise's movie (I actually figure he's such an obvious whack job that we could give him all of Bill Gates money & he still couldn't do any significant harm with it).

My comments were pretty well general, just as I took your comment to be (i.e. I believe I understood correctly that you didn't really care about any entertainment figure's beliefs about whatever, not just Tom Cruise).

But I think there is a line that can be drawn between certain personal beliefs. Like I may not care whether an actor/musician/whatever is scientologist, homosexual, democrat, republican, anti-war, pro-life, or sells amway. However, I would care that he is actively supporting organizations designed to overthrow the government. I think you can make a general statement like this, and not necessarily say that this person can believe ANYTHING and do ANYTHING and it won't matter.

[Anthony]

I have a wife, three kids, and a fat mortgage. We don't go to the movies very often, and we're pretty selective about the ones we pick. I'm pretty sure that we wouldn't see this one in the theater, even if Tom Cruise wasn't a nutcase Scientologist. The fact that he is just seals the deal. I'm not interested in helping him out at the box office.

this is my stance as well.

[BrianD]

is your need for entertainment that great? getting a laugh or cheap thrill from a movie means more to you people than saying "you know what? this guy is not normal and is taking his fame too seriously and actually thinks that he should use the world stage to spread his nonsense, i think it's time i refrain from supporting the ventures he's a part of as a way to voice my disapproval". not to say everyone should feel this way towards Cruise, but you people are saying you don't care at all. what's next - seeing a movie by known pedophiles or murderers? i guess i know who'll be buying a ticket to OJ Simpson's next movie.

See, I've always thought that listening to Cruise and discussing the points he brings up provides a lot more support than watching his movie and not listening to what he says off-screen.

[rkmsuf]

I think it's funny how the good people of the earth apply their holy powers of abstinance.

[TroyF]

And I think a large chunk of Tom Cruise haters have shown just how easily they are manipulated by the media. The guy has beliefs you all find crazy or "cultish," but this is only the case becasue they aren't views held by a majority of religions. Most the crazy shit in Scientology is no crazier than the other crap other religions hold dear.


I'm amazed by the second line there. When did ripping on psychiatric drugs and psychology as a whole get figured into religion?

I don't hate Cruise because his religion differs from mine. I don't care what religion the guy has. That single fact wouldn't stop me from seeing any of his movies. What HAS stopped me from supporting him is hist unabashed hatred for something I think is important.

For me, it's a personal thing. I have PLENTY of things I can do to be entertained. (I'm sure there are a ton of jokes there) I have so many options I do not need or want to be entertained by someone who I think sends a poor message to the world.

[stevew]

I think youd be surprised to know how much money from each ticket ends up in his pocket, also action figures, board games, etc. etc.


On this movie, especially, since he's the producer. I remember reading he made over 60 million from the first movie, dunno about the second. But I would guess he'll pocket at least the opening weekend amount for this flick, if not way more than that.

[Swaggs]

I don't care if he worships a tree or a science fiction author. Even if I am only worth a tiny, tiny percentage of money in his pocket, I do not want to support him because he uses his fame to speak out against psychiatry and to promote his own, unproven beliefs on mental health. Several members of my family earn their living and put a lot of time/heart/effort into psychiatry to help people. This guy uses the time he is given with broad audiences to shoot that down and I do not respect that.

[Anthony]

For me, it's a personal thing. I have PLENTY of things I can do to be entertained. (I'm sure there are a ton of jokes there) I have so many options I do not need or want to be entertained by someone who I think sends a poor message to the world.

me too. too many options to sell myself out to people like Cruise. we're not talking about 1980's Cruise from TopGun or Risky Business. the Cruise we have now has some sort of scientological agenda.

when you say "scientological agenda", doesn't he even sound more evil?

[Mustang]

I'm amazed by the second line there. When did ripping on psychiatric drugs and psychology as a whole get figured into religion?


I thought that was part of the scientologists view that they were against psychiatry as a whole so, this wouldn't be something solely on Tom Cruise but, Scientology as a whole.

So, you pretty much have to boycott any movie any Scientologist is in if you are that opposed to this viewpoint.

[rkmsuf]

I thought that was part of the scientologists view that they were against psychiatry as a whole so, this wouldn't be something solely on Tom Cruise but, Scientology as a whole.

So, you pretty much have to boycott any movie any Scientologist is in if you are that opposed to this viewpoint.

don't forget any star that has done drugs, been arrested, doesn't believe the US actually landed on the moon and those who look funny.

And in music forget about it. Might as well sell all audio equipment.

Cancel all plans to go to a Laker game.

Same for the Devil Rays if they ever call up the bat thrower.

[Anthony]

nope, not saying people have to be perfect. i'm saying don't use your fame to influence others to your own personal agenda, or to speak on topics you aren't well versed in. being famous doesn't mean your opinions have more weight. someone should pass that memo to George Clooney while we're at it.

[DanGarion]

nope, not saying people have to be perfect. i'm saying don't use your fame to influence others to your own personal agenda, or to speak on topics you aren't well versed in. being famous doesn't mean your opinions have more weight. someone should pass that memo to George Clooney while we're at it.
As well as Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and her hubby.

But I'd have to say Clooney doing that filming of what's going on in Africa, is pretty stand up...

[TroyF]

I thought that was part of the scientologists view that they were against psychiatry as a whole so, this wouldn't be something solely on Tom Cruise but, Scientology as a whole.

So, you pretty much have to boycott any movie any Scientologist is in if you are that opposed to this viewpoint.


Do all Scientologists use their fame to go on talk shows and bash psychology? He's using his fame to influence others in something If ind ridiculous.

And no, I don't have to stop watching drug addicts, or alcoholics or anything else YOU tell me I have to do. You have every right to make your own decisions about what to watch. I never once told you that you couldn't or shouldn't do what you wanted.

As for the religion, that may be part of their belief, but the religious portion is something I don't care about. He's going on talk shows and bad mouthing something I think is very, very important and something that is personal to me for a variety of reasons.

It's America. He has the right to do it. But I have to look at myself in the mirror tomorrow and in my own mind, I have to like what I see. There is no way I can support Tom Cruise and do that. If you can, by all means, have fun at the movies.

[cthomer5000]

Do all Scientologists use their fame to go on talk shows and bash psychology? He's using his fame to influence others in something If ind ridiculous.

Troy, would this have ever come up if Matt Lauer didn't bring up Scientology in an interview to promote War Of The Worlds? I think it's ridiculous to say he went on the show to bash psychology. I think it's far more accurate to say he expressed his opinions when the interviewer took the interview in that direction. And if your memory is hazy, here is the transcript of the entire interview:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8343367/

If you disagree with his opinions, that's fine, but it's completely unfair to say he went on TV to express those views. Jackie Chan could believe the same things, but we'll never know if an interviewer doesn't push things in that direction.

[TroyF]

Troy, would this have ever come up if Matt Lauer didn't bring up Scientology in an interview to promote War Of The Worlds? I think it's ridiculous to say he went on the show to bash psychology. I think it's far more accurate to say he expressed his opinions when the interviewer took the interview in that direction. And if your memory is hazy, here is the transcript of the entire interview:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8343367/

If you disagree with his opinions, that's fine, but it's completely unfair to say he went on TV to express those views. Jackie Chan could believe the same things, but we'll never know if an interviewer doesn't push things in that direction.


I guess you missed this. Read your own article:

We asked Cruise to explain his recent comments regarding Brooke Shields. Cruise created a firestorm when he criticized Shields for revealing that she went into therapy and took antidepressants to deal with her postpartum depression. Cruise has said that, as a Scientologist, he doesn't believe in psychiatric medicine.

Lauer asked him because of a comment he'd made previously. (and yes, I was aware of the Shields comment, I wanted to see if the article mentioned it)

[cthomer5000]

I guess you missed this. Read your own article:

We asked Cruise to explain his recent comments regarding Brooke Shields. Cruise created a firestorm when he criticized Shields for revealing that she went into therapy and took antidepressants to deal with her postpartum depression. Cruise has said that, as a Scientologist, he doesn't believe in psychiatric medicine.

Lauer asked him because of a comment he'd made previously. (and yes, I was aware of the Shields comment, I wanted to see if the article mentioned it)

I'm aware of the earlier comments, but have unfortunately never been able to find a transcript of the interview. I've seen his comments about Brooke Shields, but have zero clue as the context of the intereview that brought it up.

It's amazing that it's so diffuclt to find the original interview, but I can easily find his quotes about Brooke Shields in about 8 billion other articles. And honestly, Lauer gains very little credibility with me as I've actually watched the interview - he was quite obvious (painfully so) in his desire to push the interview in the type of direction it went.

There's no doubt the Lauer intereview was a million times more inflammatory than the original remarks.

[Mustang]

Do all Scientologists use their fame to go on talk shows and bash psychology? He's using his fame to influence others in something If ind ridiculous.

Have they been directly asked? Tom Cruise is pretty much the figurehead for Scientologists. Scientology, as a whole, has a problem with psychology. You've singled out Tom Cruise just because he has overtly expressed this view in public. I don't see what the difference would be in not going to see a Tom Cruise movie just because he has publically stated the viewpoints of Scientology as opposed to say Travolta. So, you can believe what you want, just don't say it otherwise it pisses you off? That doesn't make sense to me... sorry.

[rkmsuf]

I mean if it's true that Cruise's opinion carries the same weight as joe on the street than why is it a "firestorm" because he dared to criticise Brooke Shield. Gasp. Or that he choose not to believe in psychiatric care.

Big deal. Everyone calls him gay.

Nobody boycotts the NFL because of Reggie White's speech or Ray Lewis' image or refuses to view a Marv Albert game.

Or even bats an eye on hundreds of other beliefs of various public figures. There's thousands of stories out there far more inflammatory than Cruise's wacky beliefs.

[Kodos]

I can see both sides of this. I had decided myself that I don't need to support Tom Cruise movies because he was so condescending in his attacks on psychiatry. I don't mind kooky religious beliefs if you keep them to yourself. But I don't like how famous actors or sports stars feel like their fame somehow makes their opinion more important than Joe Schmoe's, especially when they use their fame to belittle others, just like I don't like it when Pat Robertson uses the Bible to justify hating gay people.

I will probably get over it some day and watch Tom's new movies again. But for now I'm among the crowd avoiding his movies. Maybe if the movie tanks, it'll teach him a bit of humility.

[TroyF]

Have they been directly asked? Tom Cruise is pretty much the figurehead for Scientologists. Scientology, as a whole, has a problem with psychology. You've singled out Tom Cruise just because he has overtly expressed this view in public. I don't see what the difference would be in not going to see a Tom Cruise movie just because he has publically stated the viewpoints of Scientology as opposed to say Travolta. So, you can believe what you want, just don't say it otherwise it pisses you off? That doesn't make sense to me... sorry.


I don't have the capability of interviewing 2,000 people and finding out their opinions. I can only go by what they show me. Cruise publicly made comments before the Lauer interview and continued to do so during that interview.

I find it offensive. Period.

That doesn't mean I'm going to get a list of every Sceintologist in the country so I can stop going to their shows. There may be people in the religion who disagree with that aspect of it. I don't know who they are.

But if I hear someone state their belief system and it's something I find personally offensive, how can I justify giving them money?

The other thing people keep doing here is the old "well, you believe this guys a jerk so you don't see his movie so therefore you have to hate A, B, C and you can never like anything BS"

Please, stop with this line of reasoning, OK? It's ridiculous. You don't know what I find offensive and you don't know what my response was to Reggie White or any other athlete who has had bad behavior. I like the entire Reggie White did this and you still watch football garbage. Did I say I would stop watching movies? No. I said I would stop watching Tom Cruise movies.

I'm not telling you not to see a Tom Cruise movie. Do whatever the hell you want. Just stop it with the compartive BS, OK? Cruise said what he said and I heard it. That caused me to change my opinion of him as a person and he has become someone I can no longer support. That doesn't mean I have to hate all alcoholics or that every situation is identical to his because IN YOUR MIND, they are just as bad of acts.

[cthomer5000]

Maybe if the movie tanks

In a country where RV is currently #1? Unlikely!

[Anthony]

Tom Cruise rented out the D train in NYC for tonite, paid $10K.

yes, he's completely stable.

[Anthony]

I will probably get over it some day and watch Tom's new movies again. But for now I'm among the crowd avoiding his movies. Maybe if the movie tanks, it'll teach him a bit of humility.

that's my thought too, he just needs to know his place in the world.

[cthomer5000]

Tom Cruise rented out the D train in NYC for tonite, paid $10K.

....as part of an elaborate publicity stunt for the Tribeca premiere of the movie.

The "Mission: Impossible III" star is spanning Manhattan from Midtown to downtown to uptown to hit three different openings of the movie and a taping of MTV's "Total Request Live."
Cruise will hop across the city in a firetruck, helicopter, speedboat and sports car for various stops on the blockbuster publicity tour.

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/67925.htm


yes, he's completely stable.
I guess it does a lot less to make him look crazy when judged in context, so I understand why you omitted it. You're exactly the type of rabid moron that has made me more sympathetic to this guy, based on the absurd amount of hatred being slung in his direction.

[Anthony]

You're exactly the type of rabid moron that has made me more sympathetic to this guy, based on the absurd amount of hatred being slung in his direction.

so go give him a kiss if you like him so much.

[rkmsuf]

....as part of an elaborate publicity stunt for the Tribeca premiere of the movie.

The "Mission: Impossible III" star is spanning Manhattan from Midtown to downtown to uptown to hit three different openings of the movie and a taping of MTV's "Total Request Live."
Cruise will hop across the city in a firetruck, helicopter, speedboat and sports car for various stops on the blockbuster publicity tour.

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/67925.htm


I guess it does a lot less to make him look crazy when judged in context, so I understand why you omitted it. You're exactly the type of rabid moron that has made me more sympathetic to this guy, based on the absurd amount of hatred being slung in his direction.

based on very little actual facts.

I was one to jump all over the guy when the stuff on the today show hit and the oprah thing but when I think about it there is very little there to suggest a boycott of his films or even that he is pushing an evil agenda.

I know he's a little strange now, more than I knew before, but that's about it. Just how Holmes is portrayed as an indentured servant is out there to me and way out of line.

I am now somewhat sympathic in some way. In others not because heck that's the price of fame and fortune to some degree.

[DanGarion]

Tom Cruise rented out the D train in NYC for tonite, paid $10K.

yes, he's completely stable.
Are you sure Cruise did, and not Fox?

[Anthony]

Are you sure Cruise did, and not Fox?

that could very well be the case. i retract that stmt about Cruise. he's utterly strange, but i guess he doesn't have evil intentions regarding mass transportation.

[Draft Dodger]

so, I think if I get this right...

someone profiting off movies on the 9/11 attacks is ok, as long as they aren't scientologists. am I close?

[Raiders Army]

FWIW, Cruise has maintained a "normal" profile for much longer than anyone could expect. I mean, come on. Michael Jackson went fruity probably just before 1990, right? Give him a break. At least he was a huge star for about 20 years before he cracked.

The thing is, when you're that popular and that influential, you tend to get a God complex. That's what's happened with our Presidents (as well as Wacko Jacko).

That being said, I could care less what he thinks as long as he's good at what he does (entertaining as an actor).

[Neon_Chaos]

Watched it last night. It was pretty good, better than the first 2 movies, definitely.

Philip Seymour Hoffman was a bad-ass villain. Ving Rhames was excellent as the "side-comment" sidekick. :)

It was a bit predictable though. :P

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Point 1: Deciding not to go see a movie because someone has expressed their views is asinine. It's entertainment. Probably at least 75% of all actors/directors have expressed views in public (for instance supporting political candidates). And the views Cruise expressed - pretty tame subject matter (not too mention totally blown out of proportion by media). In addition, the views he expressed are way down the totem pole from those views expressed even here by people on this public forum. Everybody just get off your high horse, already.

Point 2: Even if his views meant a hill of beans to me, I value my entertainment opportunities more than trying to send a message to Cruise by skipping the movie. I'll be seeing it.

Point 3: JIMG must love Cruise because he definitely takes a stand over and over again despite public ridicule.

[mattyeah]

Better than the second, but not as good as the first. If they hadn't pulled a few punches it coulda been a contender.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I value my entertainment opportunities more than my having any principles.

Fixed it for you.

[cthomer5000]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez
I value my entertainment opportunities more than JonInMiddlgeGA's principles.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
And now we're at the heart of what bothers Jon.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And now we're at the heart of what bothers Jon.

What can I tell you homer, I'm disgusted more by people who have no principles than I am by those who have misguided or disturbed principles.

Sue me.

[cthomer5000]

What can I tell you homer, I'm disgusted more by people who have no principles than I am by those who have misguided or disturbed principles.

Sue me.

Everyone has principles. You look at the principles some of us have expressed and interpret them as "no principles" because they aren't your principles.

I've read and heard Tom Cruise's comments and there is nothing that bothers me about them. I think he makes some valid criticism on psychology regarding the over-medication we're seeing today, especially with kids. Are his views more extreme than mine? Absolutely, but I think he raises some interesting points that people don't often think about.

And most of all, I think he's an above-average actor who has had a fine career. Everything I've ever seen him in except for War Of The Worlds has been at least "enjoyable." When I go to a movie theater, I go there for entertainment purposes.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I don't care overly much about Tom Cruise's religion or politics or views on psychiatry, as retarded as they may be. But I don't particularly want to see his movies because at this point I think he's more of distraction than anything. After the Tom Cruise circus of the past year it would be hard to buy him playing a role other than Tom Cruise. I'd just look at him and think, hey that's Tom Cruise, he's a retard. In general I tend to strongly prefer movies with relatively unknown casts over star vehicles for this reason. Big stars typically distract from the story, Cruise moreso than most.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I've read and heard Tom Cruise's comments and there is nothing that bothers me about them.

Did you catch the part up the thread where I'm not overly concerned about Cruise's comments either? His ignorance is mildly disturbing but otherwise, I'm not particularly bent about him specifically simply because he's considered such a nut job at this point that I don't believe he's capable of doing a lot significant damage to society.

Meanwhile, the distinction you're trying to draw about my values vs other values really seems to be missing the point of my ire.

If somebody says "hey, I'm going to see Cruise's movie because I agree with him" or even "Cruise's remarks don't bother me much because I think he makes a valid point", I might disagree with them but I don't think it shows a lack of some sense of values (judgement perhaps, but not ethics). Remember, I said after considering it, I'm not all that bent out of shape about whatever box office Cruise does on this movie because I think his image renders him pretty ineffectual at this point. But there's some ethical consideration coming into the decision making process both for my own decision and for those who went for other reasons.

What sickens me are those who have gotten things so out of balance that they consider "entertainment" above "ethics", or perhaps even trying to portray entertainment as some sort of ethical position. That's not "entertainment over ethics", that's "entertainment instead of ethics[/i]. And that's pretty stomach churning stuff AFAIC.

[Greyroofoo]

So some guy expresses his political views and now I'm evil for going to see his movie?

[JonInMiddleGA]

So some guy expresses his political views and now I'm evil for going to see his movie?

Depends on his views ;)
Sorry, that was just too easy.

Seriously though, here's a different question, one that's more on the point that's bothering me:

Did you consider the p.o.v. expressed & whether it's something you're willing to contribute money to support?

If so, then at least you applied some sort of ethical judgement somewhere.
I may think your values or your judgement are {insert negative opinion term here} but at least you applied some consideration.

That doesn't automatically make you evil nor good, but it at least implies you place some sort of value on some set of ethics. And that puts you at least ahead, ethically, of those who don't see any place for considering ethics in their decision making process. At least you display some ability to have ethics/values/etc as opposed to being led strictly by primal instinct toward immediate gratification.

[DanGarion]

What sickens me are those who have gotten things so out of balance that they consider "entertainment" above "ethics", or perhaps even trying to portray entertainment as some sort of ethical position. That's not "entertainment over ethics", that's "entertainment instead of ethics[/i]. And that's pretty stomach churning stuff AFAIC.

This is just a fictional movie. It's not like we are going out and seeing Faces of Death.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is just a fictional movie. It's not like we are going out and seeing Faces of Death.

But even in that, somewhere, you appear to have made some value judgement choice beyond "will this entertain me for two hours". That distinction you drew between fiction & documentary carries some indication of some sort of ethical consideration.

[DanGarion]

But even in that, somewhere, you appear to have made some value judgement choice beyond "will this entertain me for two hours". That distinction you drew between fiction & documentary carries some indication of some sort of ethical consideration.
Yes the ethical consideration is that Tom Cruise is an actor, playing a fictional character in a movie that I want to see. There are hundereds of people involved in the creation and distribution of a movie and if I based my viewing habits on those invovled in a movie I would probably never get out and see a movie.

[stevew]

48 million dollar opening weekend. Down from MI:2's 58 million dollar opening. While that's a pretty big gross, it has got to be a bit underwhelming for the studio vs their expectations.

[TroyF]

Point 1: Deciding not to go see a movie because someone has expressed their views is asinine. It's entertainment. Probably at least 75% of all actors/directors have expressed views in public (for instance supporting political candidates). And the views Cruise expressed - pretty tame subject matter (not too mention totally blown out of proportion by media). In addition, the views he expressed are way down the totem pole from those views expressed even here by people on this public forum. Everybody just get off your high horse, already.

Point 2: Even if his views meant a hill of beans to me, I value my entertainment opportunities more than trying to send a message to Cruise by skipping the movie. I'll be seeing it.

Point 3: JIMG must love Cruise because he definitely takes a stand over and over again despite public ridicule.

I feel badly I missed this post.

It's amazing how intolerant someone who claims to be tolerant can be, isn't it?

I especially like the "tame subject" matter line. Tame to who? You? JIMG? Me? My two dogs? You cannot make that judgement for me or anyone else. You make judgements about the things important to you.

I'm not saying it's asinine that you go see a Cruise movie, I'm saying I won't do it. I also love the "I value my entertainment opportunities" line. Spare me, ok? There are literally thousands of things I can be entertained by in this world. From dating to video games to books to movies with Tom Cruise not in them to sporting events. . . I could go on and on.

Lastly, I asked you guys to stop in above posts, but you keep it up and up and up. Stop it with the comparisons!!!!! Just stop. You don't know what I find offensive. Something I might just laugh at, you might fly off the handle at. It's all about how important a topic is to you.

I'm sick of the people in this thread saying "well, if you are going to stop supporting Cruise for this you have to stop supporting. . ." NO, I DON'T. I have to do what I'm comfortable with. Nothing more, nothing less. The only thing you could rightfully nail me on is if I wasn't consistent with the given topic at hand. Say for instance, Jim hopped on the board and started shredding psychology, saying it was all a farce and that it never helped anyone. Then I purchased the game.

OK, now you have a fair, even comparison. If I purchased the game, I'm a hypocrite who deserves to be bashed and shredded and laughed at. I can promise you I would NOT purchase the game if that were to happen. I do value my entertainment time and dollar. I value it a great deal. I also value my personal beliefs. My entertainment dollar can go to a lot of areas. My beliefs are with me 24 hours a day. In this case, I think Cruise was out of line and I will refuse to support him or his movies further. YMMV.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yes the ethical consideration is that Tom Cruise is an actor, playing a fictional character in a movie that I want to see.

Y'know, somehow I believe you're actually smart enough to get the distinction I'm making. Which means you're intentionally trying to avoid admitting there was something deeper than self-gratification involved in your decision making process.

What a great example of how fucked up the world is right now, it's actually easy to find people who aren't comfortable admitting that they have some sort of ethical system.

I think I'll go find another windmill, this one has officially become depressing beyond redemption.

[stevew]

Upon further review, the previous sequel did open on the memorial day holiday, so I suppose that could be part of the difference.

[tanglewood]

John, seeing as you have some political viewpoints with which I disagree can you please make clear what it is you do? I obviously wouldn't want to implictly value the selfish personal utility of what you do over my ethical integrity. Therefore you will understand that I cannot possibly purchase any service or product you or your company provides.

[ntndeacon]

I am not going to see the movie either. Basically because that Tom Cruise sucks as an actor.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Troy was posting at the same time I was, so I as I was leaving the thread he nailed something so spot on to what I talking about that I can't resist pointing it out, it just sums it up so well.

You make judgements about the things important to you.


That's what it really boils down to: what's important to you.

And my disgust isn't generated by those who didn't find Cruise's comments important enough to be dettered by them, it's by those who don't seem to think anything is important enough to be worth missing a couple of hours of entertainment over.

[DanGarion]

Y'know, somehow I believe you're actually smart enough to get the distinction I'm making. Which means you're intentionally trying to avoid admitting there was something deeper than self-gratification involved in your decision making process.

What a great example of how fucked up the world is right now, it's actually easy to find people who aren't comfortable admitting that they have some sort of ethical system.

I think I'll go find another windmill, this one has officially become depressing beyond redemption.

Ok Don, er I mean Jon.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Therefore you will understand that I cannot possibly purchase any service or product you or your company provides.

I would absolutely understand and support your decision fully. I've avoided more than one potential client for the same reason, as well as vendors, I would expect you to do nothing different.

However the odds of that becoming an issue for you would be fairly slim I think. We own an advertising agency, so if you find yourself in the position of working with one, let me know which ones you're considering & if we're one of them, I'll be glad to remove us from the process.

[Cuckoo]

And my disgust isn't generated by those who didn't find Cruise's comments important enough to be dettered by them, it's by those who don't seem to think anything is important enough to be worth missing a couple of hours of entertainment over.

FWIW, I agree with you completely Jon. I haven't read through this entire thread, but I too find it strange that people place entertainment value above their ethics (whatever those ethics may be).

Personally, I think Tom Cruise is a weird guy, and my gut tells me he has some pretty serious issues. But I don't necessarily have any ethical problem with the guy so far. So I went to see the movie this weekend.

It is much better than the 2nd one, and I thought it was well done. Personally I prefer the "undercover sneaking" type missions rather than the "guns blazing" ones, but at least the movie had one of the former. The latter, in my opinion, just grow tiresome as they're fairly unoriginal.

The plot wasn't all that intricate but solid, at least. And this one didn't have the ridiculous mask-pulling the 2nd one made us suffer through. But anyone who says it's as good as the 1st must like a completely different kind of movie than me. The 1st was top notch, if you ask me.

[larrymcg421]

I can actually see where Jon is going here. To say that ethics doesn't influence at all is a bit extreme. I'm one of the more liberal people on this board and I'm a huge movie buff, so I watch a ton of films. But I will not see the upcoming A Peaceful Warrior because it's director is Victor Salva, a convicted child molester. For those saying ethics don't come into play at all, would you watch that movie? What about a convicted murderer? Or a White Supremacist?

Now, the message of a movie definitely factors in to whether I will decide to see it, although I will say I do not necessarily oppose seeing a movie that takes an opposing viewpoint (see my sig quote). But I certainly wouldn't want to watch a movie that advocated say, white supremacy.

Of course, these are extreme examples. I can't exactly say where the line is drawn, but I suspect mine is a bit different than Jon's. For instance, I'd still watch a Mel Gibson movie despite extreme disagreement with him on political issues, and Tom Cruise's bizaare behavior and assholish comments about Brooke Shields don't even come close to the line for me.

[Karlifornia]

I think I want to become a devout scientologist just to confuzzle my parents and friends. Well, I won't really believe in it, but I'll just say I do. But don't I have to donate a buncha money to actually "acquire the knowledge"?

*Goes back to reading Dianetics*

Oh, and I don't think I'll see this movie, but that's just because I've become disenchanted with googleplex theaters.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I feel badly I missed this post.

It's amazing how intolerant someone who claims to be tolerant can be, isn't it?

I especially like the "tame subject" matter line. Tame to who? You? JIMG? Me? My two dogs? You cannot make that judgement for me or anyone else. You make judgements about the things important to you.

I'm not saying it's asinine that you go see a Cruise movie, I'm saying I won't do it. I also love the "I value my entertainment opportunities" line. Spare me, ok? There are literally thousands of things I can be entertained by in this world. From dating to video games to books to movies with Tom Cruise not in them to sporting events. . . I could go on and on.

Lastly, I asked you guys to stop in above posts, but you keep it up and up and up. Stop it with the comparisons!!!!! Just stop. You don't know what I find offensive. Something I might just laugh at, you might fly off the handle at. It's all about how important a topic is to you.

I'm sick of the people in this thread saying "well, if you are going to stop supporting Cruise for this you have to stop supporting. . ." NO, I DON'T. I have to do what I'm comfortable with. Nothing more, nothing less. The only thing you could rightfully nail me on is if I wasn't consistent with the given topic at hand. Say for instance, Jim hopped on the board and started shredding psychology, saying it was all a farce and that it never helped anyone. Then I purchased the game.

OK, now you have a fair, even comparison. If I purchased the game, I'm a hypocrite who deserves to be bashed and shredded and laughed at. I can promise you I would NOT purchase the game if that were to happen. I do value my entertainment time and dollar. I value it a great deal. I also value my personal beliefs. My entertainment dollar can go to a lot of areas. My beliefs are with me 24 hours a day. In this case, I think Cruise was out of line and I will refuse to support him or his movies further. YMMV.

Alright, I will back up a bit. Each person does have their own values and can apply those in making judgments to go to a movie. And yes, if Cruise's opinions were extreme on something I care about, then it would affect my judgment on whether to go to a movie. I guess I just thought that the topics he discussed were tame to me (and it did not seem to me worth deciding not to go to the movie). But clearly the topics are not tame to some - like psychiatrists. So, if you're a psychiarist, I could clearly see why you would not go to this movie.

I guess I liken it to this. I have some friends, and some of them have very different views than I have, but we're still friends. However, I guess there would be some things about the friend (e.g. deals drugs to kids, rapist) that would end the friendship. So, once Cruise does something like that I will go to his movie if it is one I am interested in.

[digamma]

Seriously though, here's a different question, one that's more on the point that's bothering me:

Did you consider the p.o.v. expressed & whether it's something you're willing to contribute money to support?


I think at some level the answer for everyone is yes.

My question: do you limit it to POV expressed? What if it's well known that the CEO of a company belongs to a group (political party, religion, social organization, etc.) you find objectionable? He doesn't necessarily talk about it in public, but you know that he donates a good portion of his salary to that organization. Same response? What if it's not the CEO, but someone in senior management?

We can take this to extremes, of course, but I'm sincerely wondering where you draw the line. Maybe public statements is an easy divider, but if you take this to the nth degree, at some point are you growing your own food and making your own clothes?

I'm not sure where I draw the line myself.

[Buccaneer]

Prior to the weekend, a Paramount spokesperson suggested an opening between Mission: Impossible II (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=mi2.htm) and War of the Worlds (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=waroftheworlds.htm) ($64.9 million) as the bar for Mission: Impossible III's success, compared to media and industry expectations that had ballooned past $70 million. On Sunday morning, a hopeful Paramount likened Mission: Impossible III's potential to Batman Begins (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batmanbegins.htm), which had a weaker-than-expected $48.7 million first weekend but went on to earn $205.3 million. Both sprung from dormant franchises with baggage—Batman and Robin (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batmanrobin.htm) for the latter and Cruise's overblown off-screen antics in Mission's case.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think at some level the answer for everyone is yes.


I'd like to think so to but that doesn't appear to be the case based on what's been posted in this thread, that's what tripped my freakin' trigger.

I couldn't care less about an actor/producer's personal politics or religious beliefs.

if I stopped seeing movies based on principle, there's not many movies left to see.

No kidding. posted in agreement with quote #1
Ding Ding! posted in agreement with quote #1

Maybe Steven Spielberg molests collies. I could care less. ... Just make good movies.

And that's just from the first two pages of the thread.

If your quote was right, that there was some consideration of ethics/values/p.o.v./what- have-you then this sidebar of the thread wouldn't have taken place. Instead, there's pretty regular & adamant denial of such.

[chinaski]

scientologists get a lifetime ban in my league. :P

[Drake]

Y'all are late to the Tom-Cruise-is-a-nutcake bandwagon. I knew he was a nutcake the moment he left Nicole Kidman.

[Neon_Chaos]

Batman Begins was an amazing phenomenon of a movie. It started off really slow (a stigma of following the pevious Batman disasters)... but then word of mouth that the movie was not only watchable, but actually good, just catapulted it straight to the top.

And it still is up there in my "best comic book movies" category, closely tied with V for Vendetta (currently my bar for movie excellence for 2006)

[molson]

I'd like to think so to but that doesn't appear to be the case based on what's been posted in this thread, that's what tripped my freakin' trigger.


Well, you definitely made me think in this thread, but at the end of the day, I think you're way off base. I'm one of these "principle-lacking" people who could care less about the political beliefs or criminal record of anyone involved in the entertainment that I expose myself to. This doesn't however, mean that I'm putting ethics/principles over entertainment - in fact it's quite the opposite. Entertainment is a frivolous, usually meaningless part of my existence. Ethics and principles matter when I'm dealing with my family, friends, career (the stuff that's important), but they don't come into play at all with the stuff that's meaningless (what crappy movie I'm seeing at the mall).

I also think you're confusing "no principles" with "principles different than yours". Your system of ethics/principles seems include boycotting movies if you disagree with the viewpoints of the main actor. My system of ethics/principles does not. I read Mein Kempf in college, even though I'm not a Nazi. On the other hand, I may, and probable do, utilize my principles/beliefs in scenarios in life that you haven't even thought to. That doesn't make me better.

[TroyF]

Alright, I will back up a bit. Each person does have their own values and can apply those in making judgments to go to a movie. And yes, if Cruise's opinions were extreme on something I care about, then it would affect my judgment on whether to go to a movie. I guess I just thought that the topics he discussed were tame to me (and it did not seem to me worth deciding not to go to the movie). But clearly the topics are not tame to some - like psychiatrists. So, if you're a psychiarist, I could clearly see why you would not go to this movie.

I guess I liken it to this. I have some friends, and some of them have very different views than I have, but we're still friends. However, I guess there would be some things about the friend (e.g. deals drugs to kids, rapist) that would end the friendship. So, once Cruise does something like that I will go to his movie if it is one I am interested in.


FWIW, I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm just one of the millions of Americans who have had a close friend or family member helped by the profession.

[Raiders Army]

Another facet to this conversation is that Tom Cruise is one guy in the movie. What if 30 people who worked on the movie opposed Scientology or agreed with the views of the "public". Would that make a difference in going to see the movie? Sure, you're supporting Tom Cruise with your money, but you're also supporting numerous other people with your money as well. Would it make a difference if you knew the caterer or the guy who plays a violin in the movie for the soundtrack and their views?

[Raiders Army]

Dola, if it would make a difference what would the threshold be? Would it be in numbers of people or in the amount of money they make compared to Cruise?

[Anthony]

Would it make a difference if you knew the caterer or the guy who plays a violin in the movie for the soundtrack and their views?

the caterer and the violinist aren't marketed to sell the movie. their contributions are so tiny that what they stand for/believe in thusly doesn't not matter.

when the movie studio says "see this movie because Tom Cruise is in it", that's what i care about.

[digamma]

I'd like to think so to but that doesn't appear to be the case based on what's been posted in this thread, that's what tripped my freakin' trigger.


I guess I was speaking more generally, and I'd like to think that cthomer was talking specifically about movies here. Again, maybe movies are an easy place to draw a bright line because the stars are visible and easy targets, if you will, but my side bar to your side bar was a more general hypothetical about where we draw the line in less crystal situations. Maybe it's a separate thread all together.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

FWIW, I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm just one of the millions of Americans who have had a close friend or family member helped by the profession.

Yes, that too.

[JeeberD]

I was forced to go and see it this weekend and it was better than I had anticipated, though it was definitely cheesy at times. The best part was the the girl playing his wife was fookin' HOT!

[ISiddiqui]

I know I'm late to the shitstorm, but put me down as someone who won't see this in the theater because I refuse to support something with Cruise. It isn't just scientology. I mean, Hell, you can be a scientologist and not try to force it on others. Cruise getting all huffy about Brooke Sheilds was waaay out of line. And then going on Matt Lauer and spreading false information, perhaps influencing some impressionable person out there to go off his meds because its all the 'aliens'. You can believe whatever religious principles you want to believe, but don't start condemning people left and right based on those principles.

Listen, I don't mind seeing John Travolta movies (if they are any good), because I don't feel that he forces his message on others. He's never, to my knowledge, castigated someone else in public for taking pills for depression or whatever.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Listen, I don't mind seeing John Travolta movies (if they are any good),

Well that certainly minimizes the number of times it becomes an issue ;)

[korme]

I double dipped and dropped $15 to see X-Men and Mission Impossible today. I left X-Men3 pleasantly happy and loved it. I just got back from MI3 and it was the best movie I saw today. Great action sequences, great movie.

[korme]

Damn, why did I read this thread? I thought it'd be about the movie.

I told my buddy AJ this as we were leaving, "I know Tom Cruise is crazy and all, but he's got to be the best actor in Hollywood."

Honestly, dude's a bad ass on screen... I can name a ridiculous amount of movies he's done that I would watch again - MI, MI3, Vanilla Sky, Collateral, The Last Samurai, Cocktail, The Firm, A Few Good Men, The Color of Money, Top Gun, Born on the Fourth of July, to name a few. Who cares off screen, appreciate what he does ON screen.

[Anthony]

not only is TOm Cruise short, i hear he has an inadequate sized scotum.

i can't support this movie.

[Axxon]

that's a great example in the case of tom cruise.

I know this is quite late to check in but I wanted to relate a story that is real. It happened almost 30 years ago so I won't say it's relevant now or anything more than anectdotal but anyway here goes.

My mom's best friends sister was a scientologist. Not a garden variety scientologist but a high ranking one who wanted out and got out. We had to hide her out literally as she had been told she could not leave and she did.

There were several times when we'd be questioned ( yes, a knock at the door and a "do you know where this person is" kind of questioning ) and we were followed quite a bit.

The worst moment was when I saw two of them at my middle school. It turns out that they had told the principle that they were friends of my moms and they were picking me up for her. They left when she said she had to call my mom to verify this.

Now, to me that is terrorism and I lived in terror for a while. Until the school thing I didn't but that kind of creepiness is understood even by a middle schooler.

Again, YMMV and they may be different now but to me his example isn't that big a stretch.

This only went on for a couple of months though. Once they realized she had no intentions of talking about what she knew they backed off.

Unfortunately she died of cancer in less than a year but she was one of the most amazing women I've ever met. She saw something positive in their teachings but saw something she really couldn't deal with in the organization.

Unfortunately, she never did say just what either thing was as far as I know. :(

I don't see Tom Cruise as some kind of sinister figure btw but I wouldn't be surprised if his words aren't directed by one. That's my take on it anyway.

Oops, without HA's post that you replied to this makes no sense. :)


cthomer: hi, i'd like to purchase your product

merchant: just so you know, i plan on funneling the proceeds of this purchase to fund a terrorist organization. death to all Americans

cthomer: awww, what the hell do i care about your beliefs?