Mswas made a very good point. Anyone who said they refused to watch any movie or TV show that had a Jew in the cast would be torn apart on this board. But people are proudly declaring they boycott movies and TV shows with a Scientologist in the cast.
I don’t pay to watch Tom Cruise’s movies for the same reason I don’t pay to watch Susan Sarandon or Sean Penn movies: I refuse to give my money to evangelical zealots of philosophies that are in direct opposition to my own.
I don’t think my quality of life has suffered much.
There’s that, and the fact that if you want to boycott Scientology or Judaism either one then you need to stop watching anything from Hollywood.
Little Nemo - It’s probably a good discussion, but for another forum. I don’t think being anti-Scientology is the same as being anti-Jew. Likewise, I can be anti-Creationism without being anti-Christian.
My mom once went off on Anti-Cruise jag. I was stunned honestly. So he’s coo-koo, how does that affect his acting? If my faucet is leaking, I’m going to call a plumber to fix it and I wouldn’t give a damn about his religion as long as the water stops.
I couldn’t care less about what he does with money he makes including funding Scientology. The people who are stupid enough follow his advise are inherantly stupid and are going to find some stupid mythology to follow regardless.
Two reasons:
- Making movies is a business. The idea for investors is to turn a profit. Tom puts asses in theater seats.
- Tom is a good actor. His billionaire status speaks a lot to this.
I don’t know if they still do it but I’ve seen them set up at indoor flee markets posing as “mental rest stops” (for want of a better description). They weren’t advertising scientology up front and were luring people in with some bullshit story of taking a break. You could see the books in the background but nowhere did you see any reference to their religion at the booth.
Making money in Hollywood and acting ability have nothing to do with one another.
Tom Cruise is an OK though not great actor, though I prefer him when he plays against type, like in Collateral or Interview with a Vampire, or when his performance is somewhat self aware, like in Magnolia.
I can’t say an actors opinions would never cause me to boycott their movies, but it would have to be something a lot more severe than scientology. Open and unashamed pro-nazism, or something similar. I found Gibson’s drunk anti-semitic ravings appalling, but I’ll probably see Apocolypto at some point.
I include both Fonda and Cruise. But if I had to choose only one, it’d be Fonda. What a bitch.
- he’s not a good actor any more than Britney Spears is an accomplished singer. He plays himself in every movie which doesn’t require much talent.
Top Gun
Days of Thunder
Rain Man
Jerry Maguire
They’re all the same character. They could merge the movies together and nobody would know the difference.
He may put asses in the seats but so does the Undertaker on the WWF. The difference between the 2 actors is that one of them can do his own stunts.
“There’s no such thing as a chemical imbalance”.
“You don’t know the history of psychiatry. I do.”
Those two statements are absolutely contradictory. If one believes that there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance, one absolutely does not know the history of psychiatry. If one actually knows the history of psychiatry, one would acknowledge that chemical imbalances are quite real.
Not to even mention that claiming “There’s no such thing as a chemical imbalance” and then that drugs just “mask” the real problem is a logical contradiction in itself. If the drugs do something it must be that they are changing some chemical balance; and if drugs can change it, nature surely can.
The man is dangerous because, by virtue of his star status, some people in our society (sadly) believe at face value what he says on subjects that have nothing to do with his being an actor.
And what the heck is it with so-called interviewers who let crap like what Cruise was spewing go by unchallenged? If I were interviewing someone who said, “You don’t know the history of psychiatry. I do.”, I’d ask the SD standard, “cite?” But that jerk in that interview instead kisses Tom’s butt with that “it’s impressive to listen to you because clearly you’ve done the homework” crap. I wasn’t impressed, and it surely was NOT clear that he’d done any homework, it was only clear that he kept saying “I know it and you don’t” over and over, yet said nothing at all to support that claim.
That video was a leaked internal Scieno interview with Cruise, so don’t expect them to go all Chris Matthews on his ass.
Who cares what Tom Cruise believes? Seriously. If someone is looking to Cruise for guidance they have problems of their own. He’s an arrogant dumbass, and a mediocre actor why get so worked up?
There was a time when we expected our artists to be crazy. I still do.
It’s not a function of his beliefs, it’s a function of his funding a cult. He could just as easily be funding dog fighting or child pornography. He gives money to and helps fund something that is detrimental to society. I pray to the great DC-8 spaceship gods that he doesn’t need the medical care he currently rejects. Or worse, he might prevent his children from proper medical care. I just want to be CLEAR on that point.
When his belief affect other people I see no reason to fund the project.
The same could be said for most actors today. Very few actors can be considered “character” actors.
the good ones can. Not that it should matter if paying to see a good actor is an excuse to fund a cult. Thus the reasoning behind a boycot.
This used to be one of the best Tom Cruise sites out there: http://www.tomcruiseisnuts.com/
ETA: Here’s some haiku from the aforementioned site:
Tom Cruise is handsome
but Cuckoo for Coco Puffs
Shut the fuck up, Tom
I don’t boycott a GOOD show or movie simply because Scientologists are involved in its production.
But you have to understand how Scientology works. All kinds of wannabe entertainers come to Hollywood, trying to break into the business. That’s exactly why their headquarters is in East Hollywood, right across Sunset Blvd. from my hospital, and I can walk there in about eight minutes from my house. They know that the vast majority of these wannabes are not succeeding, and are desperate for some way to get into the business. All along Hollywood Blvd. are Scientology buildings, as well. When a wannabe actor is desperate, s/he will try anything, and Scientology seems as good as any when you’re desperate.
So they take the bogus “psychological” profile test, and of course the results always tell them they have these negative “engrams.” The recommendation is to do an “e-meter analysis,” (at a price) which they then can say indicates the obstacle to the wannabe’s success is some kind of thing they have to cure through Scientology’s various “courses” and other nonsense.
The Scientologists are banking on the fact that a certain percentage of these wannabes will actually make it, and then they have perfect spokespeople. Along the way, in the “sessions,” they have to tell the person who gives the “e-meter” test and other interviewers personal information–information that can be damaging to the person’s career if he or she becomes famous–and it’s all kept on file.
Then, if the person actually becomes a success in the entertainment world, they are beholden to Scientology to keep the info under covers, but they also get to stay in the “Celebrity Center” on Franklin Ave., and are treated like royalty.
When someone like Tom Cruise touts Scientology, the average Joe Schmo will take it seriously. But Joe will probably just end up wearing one of their silly “uniforms” and doing manual labor like grounds upkeep of the various buildings in order to pay for his “sessions.”
They call themselves a “church,” but what kind of church makes its parishers wear uniforms and do manual labor to “advance” in spirituality?
Who?
Well, I couldn’t care less about the Scientology angle, but I feel that there’s good cause to boycott his movies because of his beliefs about mental illness. And yeah, someone who might look to him for guidence in that is obviously very screwed, which is part of the problem and the reason why it’s not good to have an idiot spouting bullshit about it. There’s enough misinformation and stigma out there as it is without more be added to the mix by someone that famous and ‘looked up to.’
Oh, and I’ll say the man can act (like in Magnolia), but it’s not worth it to do so by knowingly contributing his wrong-headed diatribes.
So? Just because they’re both religious groups they should be treated equally, without regard for their actions?
When we call the Church of Scientology a criminal organisation, we literally mean that highly placed executives, including the founder’s wife, have in the past been convicted of crimes against the United States.