PDA

View Full Version : Crazy celebrities


Ashley
24-06-2005, 06:20 PM
So I was watching TV the other day and I saw a replay of Oprah where Tom Cruise in the guest. He just turned REALLY REALLY creepy... evidence:
http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/tom-oprah-grimace.jpg

http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/tom-oprah-ecstasy.jpg

http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/tom-oprah-jump.jpg


Seriously.
Then there is the perfect example of Micheal Jackson. We've all heard the verdict sure, but still there's something wrong with a man sharing a bed with adolecent boys.

So I pose a question: Why do celebrities go crazy?

Mandy
24-06-2005, 06:25 PM
If I had people randomly squirting water in my face, I'd be going crazy too.

Spire
24-06-2005, 06:28 PM
http://static.ytmnd.com:8000/78000/78874/image.gif

Ashley
24-06-2005, 06:29 PM
Personally, I think he could have shrugged that off. It was a TV show, you don't see people on Punk'd calling Ashton a jerk. They simple go "Oh SNAP!" and laugh.

Mandy
24-06-2005, 06:34 PM
There's kind of a difference...When Ashton punks people, he gets into their head, but doesn't physically do anything to the person. If Ashton was running around squirting people in the face, I think more people would think he was immature.

Ashley
24-06-2005, 06:37 PM
I just didn't find a water squirting microphone to be a big deal. Oh those Brits... they're clever

Besides he was crazy before the water. Is he crazy in love? or just crazy?

Spire
24-06-2005, 07:24 PM
I just didn't find a water squirting microphone to be a big deal. Oh those Brits... they're clever

Besides he was crazy before the water. Is he crazy in love? or just crazy?

Squirting someone with whatever is not clever at all, nor is it funny. If you're going to prank someone, do something funny.

And just for clarification, everyone involved in Punk'd knows weeks and even months beforehand, even those getting "punk'd".

Richard
24-06-2005, 07:35 PM
I thought the pranksters were arrested by security because of what they did, I had no idea Cruise had them arrested, nonetheless thrown in jail over night. But other than that, prank show or not, it was rude. It is just water, and it's not really anything to get hysterical about, but anyone who says "it's just water" is completely missing the point. Having them in jail is a different story, but perhaps now they'll learn that not all celebrities have a sense of humor towards that. In my opinion, there's a time and a place for that sort of thing, and that was neither the time nor the place.

The prank simply backfired and wasn't thoroughly thought through to begin with. Sort of half-baked, if you will. In the end, it's still assault. The kind of harm the "reporter" could've done, of course, varies because it was just water. But to some degree having them arrested was rather shocking, and when I expressed such "coolness" before with Cruise in the shoutbox, I was really just talking about what he did and said during the incident. He managed to keep calm and not resort to his fists. He was well-aware with his surroundings and actually thought about it, and that is something I expect and appreciate from people.

But I too was a little surprised to see Cruise react the way he did. I've never seen him act that way before that wasn't apart of a movie. Only goes to show he's normal like the rest of us. Every now and then celebrities such as Tom encounter incidents like that. Just recently Nicole Kidman had a similar incident with a rude reporter, but thankfully no liquids were involved. ;)

Crazy celebrities? Kid Rock is really starting to get on my nerves... but I guess that wouldn't really count.

hasselbrad
24-06-2005, 08:21 PM
So, when does Tom start hanging out with Liz Taylor, Michael Jackson and Liza Minelli?

Jacoby
24-06-2005, 08:52 PM
Tom Cruise is crazy.


Ono, he captured princess!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/devendra87/tomcruise.jpg

Kelsey
25-06-2005, 09:45 AM
I saw him right after he proposed to Katie Holmes, lol. The man*s not crazy, just in his own little world.

Liam
25-06-2005, 11:07 AM
All celebrities are crazy. At the least, they are a bunch of overpaid, underworked sissy boys and prima-donnas. Don't give me stories about X celebrity dragging themselves up from a bad, impoverished childhood to being top of the world. Christ, my tiny heart is breaking.

There aren't many groups of people on the planet that are bigger frauds than 'celebrities'. The only groups that come to mind are English aristocracy and the Raelian cult.

marine
25-06-2005, 02:03 PM
I don't know if he's crazy but he's entertaining.

Kelsey
25-06-2005, 05:11 PM
You*ve hurt me Liam... :)

I like celebrities...or actors, rather. They*re entertaining and amusing and I already owe a couple of them quite a bit.

duckula
25-06-2005, 06:27 PM
I object to actors being seen as apirational figures, the famous ones seem almost uniformally devoid of worthy characteristics. Lets idolise people of worth like Nobel Prize winners and soldiers.

Kelsey
26-06-2005, 09:14 AM
I dont fully agree with that Ducky. Using myself as an example...you know me relatively well, wouldn*t it be a waste of time for me to idolize someone who has one a nobel prize? Respect? Of course. I respect any Nobel Prize winner (and soldier° greatly, but why would I idolize them?

I think people in the entertainment industry often times get a bad wrap. Jealousy maybe? I can understand some of the things people say about them; what gives them the right to earn millions of dollars for playing a part, then spend the rest of their time in their big houses in the south of France living the good life. Without a doubt, there are those stupid, dumber than a pile of bricks actors, but if you really notice, the ones at the top of their game are no dummies. In fact, many are Ivy League graduated. I*m not just talking about box office draws like Tom Cruise (if you want my honest opinion, I actually think he is a little on the weaker side personality wise). Those actors who not only act, but are smart enough to realize that this wont last forevor and so they use their name to get into other parts of the industry such as producing (Reese Witherspoon built her production company from scratch with an old friend as her producing partner, optioned a few good scripts, and scored a first look deal with a major studio....thats smart), zwriting (check out Freddie Prinze Jr.*s new sitcom this upcoming season), the list goes on.

To be successful in any aspect of the industry, you need to not only have some talent, but you need to be a hunter and a gatherer, a leader and a follower, and introvert and a salesperson, etc. etc.

duckula
26-06-2005, 09:44 AM
While all that is fairly admirable it is no more admirable than plenty of successful business people. Those people are worthy of respect but hardly of being raised to iconic or even sub-iconic status.

Liam
26-06-2005, 09:50 AM
Whats wrong with idolising Nobel Prize winners and soldiers? Anyone that I'd regard as an idol of mine has been a scientist, engineer or soldier in some capacity. These are people who make an everyday difference to the quality of the lives of other people.

Actors and those in the entertainment business provide a fleeting, 2-3 hour escape from reality that does nothing to contribute to world progress. Quite the opposite: it contributes to their already swollen bank balances. Its slightly perverse that these people receive more attention throughout the world than those geniunely working to make a difference.
I'm not saying I don't enjoy this short escape from reality - I do - but I think its intrinsically wrong that trying to escape from the reality of the world's problems seems to get priority over trying to solve the worlds problems.

My two cents.

Digital_Ice
26-06-2005, 12:41 PM
*applauds liam*

Leonie
26-06-2005, 12:48 PM
I dont fully agree with that Ducky. Using myself as an example...you know me relatively well, wouldn*t it be a waste of time for me to idolize someone who has one a nobel prize? Respect? Of course. I respect any Nobel Prize winner (and soldier° greatly, but why would I idolize them?

I think people in the entertainment industry often times get a bad wrap. Jealousy maybe? I can understand some of the things people say about them; what gives them the right to earn millions of dollars for playing a part, then spend the rest of their time in their big houses in the south of France living the good life. Without a doubt, there are those stupid, dumber than a pile of bricks actors, but if you really notice, the ones at the top of their game are no dummies. In fact, many are Ivy League graduated. I*m not just talking about box office draws like Tom Cruise (if you want my honest opinion, I actually think he is a little on the weaker side personality wise). Those actors who not only act, but are smart enough to realize that this wont last forevor and so they use their name to get into other parts of the industry such as producing (Reese Witherspoon built her production company from scratch with an old friend as her producing partner, optioned a few good scripts, and scored a first look deal with a major studio....thats smart), zwriting (check out Freddie Prinze Jr.*s new sitcom this upcoming season), the list goes on.

To be successful in any aspect of the industry, you need to not only have some talent, but you need to be a hunter and a gatherer, a leader and a follower, and introvert and a salesperson, etc. etc.

Aren't you a writer? Ever heard of the Nobel prize for literature? It is, in my opinion, the highest honour a writer can be awarded. I'd rather idolise people who have won the Nobel prize for literature than someone who's made one film I like, and not just because the Nobel Literature prize is an oeuvre reward. I just think that people who have won the peace or science Nobel prize have had a much greater impact on the world, and are more worth looking up to. Sure, Spielberg's a clever businessman, but unlike Rabin and Arafat, he didn't almost end a decades long feud that has cost thousands of lives. He hasn't tried to come up with a cure for cancer or aids. He hasn't had a massive influence on culture through an amazing oeuvre of well written and confronting books that opened eyes (I name a J. M. Coetzee). He hasn't filled an empty spot in the periodic table. Spielberg hasn't, and neither have Reese Witherspoon, Freddie Prinze Jr or Tom Cruise.

The only celebrities I'd consider idolising are people who use the wealth and fame they have gathered to help people less priviliged. Regardless of what I think of miss Jolie as a person, she has done some amazing work, and isn't part of the UN for nothing (which by the way also won the Nobel prize for peace at some stage). Actions such as these are heaps more worth idolising than having a successful production company. Good for her, but not for anybody else, is it? Nobel prize winners generally have helped others, whereas the celebrity business is a rather egoistic one. Selflessness is more noble than succesfulness.

Ardnax
26-06-2005, 01:44 PM
I'm going to win the Nobel prize some day :icon_mrgr. But I sure hope it won't be when the current king still is king... He seems so stuck up, I wan't get it from the crownprincess Victoria... This isn't on topic is it? *goes and hides*

Elijahfan
26-06-2005, 06:32 PM
If I had people randomly squirting water in my face, I'd be going crazy too.

yeah but he had an assistant wipe the water off, note not him, an assistant. i'm gonna hire me one of thoses

Ashley
01-07-2005, 06:22 PM
Just recently Nicole Kidman had a similar incident with a rude reporter, but thankfully no liquids were involved. ;)

When that happened, I heard, I could have misheard or something, but I heard a friend of hers had just died. So that would be good reason to tell someone they're rude. Harassing you when a friend just passed.

Anyway, Cruise = Crazy. I just thought of a raucous party: Micheal Jackson, Liz Taylor, Liza and Tom. That would be spectacular to witness.
I mean, the guy basically said that depression can be overcome just by talking and vitamins. I speak from experience when I say not at all. And that he claims he knows the history of psychiatry is laughable.

Kelsey
01-07-2005, 07:01 PM
I greatly idolize Angelina Jolie, and I've made it clear countless times on this forum and off that it will take more for someone in the entertainment industry to gain my admiration than simply acting in a film I really like. For example, I *loved* Mr. and Mrs. Smith, deemed it my new favorite movie, but that isn't on my list of reasons why I admire Angelina Jolie. That can also be said for Sandra Bullock, Laura Prepon, hell even Owen Wilson.

I, of course, admire those who have achieved Nobel Prizes for helping others, making sacrifices, writing a piece of literature that redefined a culture, etc. etc., but it seems that this thread is placing the word idolize and admire on the same level. I admire Albert Einstein and Sylvia Plath, but I do not idolize them simply because I don't want to write a novel that redefines anything or whiz through a math problem in a few seconds. All I am trying to point out is that in the same way [you] think it is rather pointless to *idolize* someone in this entertainment industry, I think it is pointless (for me!) to idolize a Albert Einstein. Please don't confuse admire and idolize to accuse me of shallow priorities.

To declare the entertainment industry as egotistical and to compare it to acts you deem selfless is speaking about a world in which you are generalizing. Is this the way people feel because this is the way others have told us to feel, or because they have achieved huge personal success and that must mean everyone in this industry is in it for themselves. In the entertainment industry, everything depends on the people you are working with.

I didn't respond to this thread to start an argument, but just as you may think it is closed minded to idolize people who have achieved what I hope to, I deem it closed minded to knock me for not agreeing with you. Fine, I could maybe name one or two nobel prize recipients and if I got those one or two it would more than likely be lucky guesses, but that's okay, because I have no interesting in recieving a nobel prize just like I am sure there are a lot of people who have responded to this thread who have no interest in signing a contract with a big five agency or producing a movie that is released onto 2500 plus theaters. Priorities. We can't all have the same priorities. Respect mine, I respect yours.

Sarah
01-07-2005, 07:08 PM
At the end of the day, we can admire who we want. Just becuase one person doesn't think a certain person is worthy of admiration, doesn't mean everyone has to think that.

Kelsey
01-07-2005, 07:14 PM
Thankyou, Sarah. I don't know why I couldn't have said it so briefly yet effectively.

Sarah
01-07-2005, 07:18 PM
Thankyou, Sarah. I don't know why I couldn't have said it so briefly yet effectively.

Ah that is just me being lazy... I'm not productive enough to write long, interesting stuff these days.

Ashley
01-07-2005, 07:27 PM
I'm going to agree with Kelsey and Sarah on this.....
I don't really think I could name a Nobel Prize winner who has changed the world, but I can name celebrities who are trying to change the world be helping with AIDS and poverty in Africa.
If I want to idolize or admire a celebrity due to their talent and social consciousness, let me.
And as for actors being underworked = please.

Liam
01-07-2005, 08:10 PM
First, I never accused anybody (other than celebrities) of anything. Please re-read my posts.

Nobody has heard of Wilhelm Röntgen? The man who revolutionised the worlds of physics and medicine with his discovery of X-Rays? Celebrities never need X-Rays?

How about Marie and Pierre Curie? Albert Einstein? Niels Bohr? Mother Teresa? Yitzhak Rabin? Christ people. If this mob hasn't made a difference, then its not possible to make a difference.

I cant help feeling that these celebrities who are touted with making a difference are sort of like those who spend all week whoring themselves, gambling and taking drugs, then going to church on Sunday and declaring themselves clean. Its to make themselves feel better about their lives. I acknowledge that yes, a bunch of them do in fact do it for the greater good.

There is nothing on the television or at the cinema worth watching. I wouldn't really be terribly bothered if Hollywood disappeared into a giant hole. You could say that I don't care for it. I'll drop it here, for the good of forum peace and my own sanity.

Elijahfan
01-07-2005, 08:17 PM
more Ritalin people more damnit, hahaha just to piss cruise off

Kelsey
01-07-2005, 08:21 PM
Tom Cruise is such an idiot.

Leonie
01-07-2005, 08:45 PM
I greatly idolize Angelina Jolie, and I've made it clear countless times on this forum and off that it will take more for someone in the entertainment industry to gain my admiration than simply acting in a film I really like. For example, I *loved* Mr. and Mrs. Smith, deemed it my new favorite movie, but that isn't on my list of reasons why I admire Angelina Jolie. That can also be said for Sandra Bullock, Laura Prepon, hell even Owen Wilson.

I, of course, admire those who have achieved Nobel Prizes for helping others, making sacrifices, writing a piece of literature that redefined a culture, etc. etc., but it seems that this thread is placing the word idolize and admire on the same level. I admire Albert Einstein and Sylvia Plath, but I do not idolize them simply because I don't want to write a novel that redefines anything or whiz through a math problem in a few seconds. All I am trying to point out is that in the same way [you] think it is rather pointless to *idolize* someone in this entertainment industry, I think it is pointless (for me!) to idolize a Albert Einstein. Please don't confuse admire and idolize to accuse me of shallow priorities.

To declare the entertainment industry as egotistical and to compare it to acts you deem selfless is speaking about a world in which you are generalizing. Is this the way people feel because this is the way others have told us to feel, or because they have achieved huge personal success and that must mean everyone in this industry is in it for themselves. In the entertainment industry, everything depends on the people you are working with.

I didn't respond to this thread to start an argument, but just as you may think it is closed minded to idolize people who have achieved what I hope to, I deem it closed minded to knock me for not agreeing with you. Fine, I could maybe name one or two nobel prize recipients and if I got those one or two it would more than likely be lucky guesses, but that's okay, because I have no interesting in recieving a nobel prize just like I am sure there are a lot of people who have responded to this thread who have no interest in signing a contract with a big five agency or producing a movie that is released onto 2500 plus theaters. Priorities. We can't all have the same priorities. Respect mine, I respect yours.

I agree with you that I may have mixed the words 'idolise' and 'admire' in my post though they aren't interchangable. Good point :)

And I agree that Angelina Jolie has done some amazing things, and helped a lot of people. My point is that the things I admire her for are things she could, hypothetically speaking, be awarded a Nobel prize for. She is a UN ambassador, and the UN have won the Nobel peace price.

Trust me, I can't name the full list of Nobel prize winners either, but a lot of names on the list of people who have won (I've actually just had a look at the list (http://nobelprize.org/search/all_laureates_y.html) on the Nobel prize website) will ring a bell. On the list are people who have for example discovered peniciline (Alexander Fleming), and organisations who have helped people all over the world for decades, like the Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières and the UN. They have made a huge difference in people's day to day lives, in their prime needs of health, food and peace. They have made it possible for people to no longer worry about these important factors, and focus on one might say secondary needs such as entertainment. Without them, Hollywood would be too trivial to spend money, energy and time on.

I didn't mean to make it sound like I think having a goal in life, and admiring people (or idolising them, both apply here :icon_bigg) who have achieved that goal, is shallow.

Do I think Hollywood is? Generally, yes. Most films aren't made to help people, and most actors don't love their job for the greater good it entails. They are made to make money, and earn it. (It is what they do with this money that makes the difference, but bear with me, I'll expand on that in a minute).

That doesn't mean that there is no skill in becoming a successfull producer or writing an amazing script. It does mean that I think that their job doesn't have as great an influence on the world as that of some of history's Nobel prize winners. What they do with the fame they have is what makes them admirable. These things exactly, are Nobel prize worthy actions. Nobody is capable of winning in all of the different categories, but some celebrities definitely do well in a certain area of expertise outside of acting/producing/whatever, and it is that quality that makes me idolise them.

In the mean time - are there actors and actresses I admire? Yes. For crying out loud, this is a Keira Knightley fansite. I just don't deem what they do as extroardinary as what Nobel prize winners have done.

I didn't respond to start an argument either, but I must say I enjoy a healthy discussion :icon_razz

duckula
01-07-2005, 10:00 PM
Ugh, celebrities supporting causes. Get back to the day jobs you oversimplifying cocksmokers. I don't want to hear about plans to revitalise the Third World from someone who can't even put together a coherent album (fuck you Bono you talentless, politician brown nosing fucknugget).

Kelsey
02-07-2005, 12:01 AM
I have a semi-problem with *some* of these stars supporting this new The One cause. I know it can't be said for all of them, but I have a problem with the fact that some of them are just rich people talking about poor people.

I know that that can't be said for people like Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Alyssa Milano, Scarlett Johansson, and others who actually lend not only their names, but their time, money, and efforts in visiting these people, helping them, and here we go...inspiring them.

duckula
02-07-2005, 12:35 AM
If I was a starving African kid the last thing I would want to see is some smug looking, well fed celeb trailed by a pack of journos wandering through my village. 'Oh look at the pretty lady, did you hear that she throws up her food to keep skinny, crazy white woman, we should kill her and steal her credit cards and get us a big mac'.

Richard
02-07-2005, 03:07 AM
When that happened, I heard, I could have misheard or something, but I heard a friend of hers had just died. So that would be good reason to tell someone they're rude. Harassing you when a friend just passed.

I didn't thoroughly read as much as I'd liked to about that incident involving the rude reporter. Although, I think I'm wrong and you might be right about a friend who just recently passed away. I've heard that from several people already.

Anyway, Cruise = Crazy. I just thought of a raucous party: Micheal Jackson, Liz Taylor, Liza and Tom. That would be spectacular to witness.
I mean, the guy basically said that depression can be overcome just by talking and vitamins. I speak from experience when I say not at all. And that he claims he knows the history of psychiatry is laughable.

Did I tell you I'm becoming a Liz Taylor fan? It's beside the point I know, but 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof' was great.

I remember seeing a little of that interview with Matt Lauer, and although I don't know jack-shit about the history of psychiatry, he acted like such a dick. I still like him though.

Elijahfan
02-07-2005, 04:14 AM
if you watch it, tom cruise just doesnt listen to matt, like that he says it helps SOME NOT ALL PEOPLE BUT SOME INDIVIDUALS THAT HE KNOWS. it never says that it 100% works or promots the use of them for everyone. i read some where online from this guy who was a former scientologist that theres a way your suppose to talk to them because they tune you out if you dont agree with them

iwilltrashyou
03-07-2005, 08:02 AM
Am I the only one who thinks the entire water-mic incident seemed completely scripted and contrived? I swear that man's entire public life is puppeteered by the church of screwballs.

Liam
03-07-2005, 09:05 AM
Since this turned into a discussion of the industry a few posts above, I figured I might copy-paste this post I found on the slashdot forum. Interesting.

Mass produced media has all but killed small theatres and live entertainment. Even the local jobs from Cinemas are near-minimum wage mcjobs, and even those are being replaced by machines. The Cinema operations are franchised so as to lock in who can operate the enterprise and how they operate it, and the distribution of film quality is even monitored to keep cinemas on their toes.

It's a vertical monopoly where studios own the cinemas and the distribution. Worse, the studios and cinemas collude to ensure minimum competition and maximum revenue from their films.

Blockbuster cinema houses starve out independent cinema houses, then for the mostpart refuse to air local content which might not fill the seats. It's a rape of our culture and funnels money out of the local economy and right into Hollywood.

The revenues are used to empower legal teams to change copyright legislation so as to artificially protect their intellectual property. The rights which copyright gave them to make their bililons of dollars is just not enough for them.

In a world of six billion people, we should see more films and creative content than ever in the history of the earth, but for some reason, all we care about is the production of a few films from these big corporations.

In other words, George Lucas is a role model for Americans to screw the little guy.

duckula
03-07-2005, 12:19 PM
The answer is alternate delivery methods. Sell your film over the net or sell it to tv (there is a lot of good tv). Cinema (as in the buildings) is losing relevance and won't regain it until it changes (3D perhaps).

hasselbrad
05-07-2005, 01:47 PM
The quote Liam posted is exactly why they are complaining about being in a slump. When hundreds of millions of dollars enter the equation on the production end, you can be damn sure every person involved is interested in only covering their own ass.
Part of me thinks it is a cycle, like most business. The medical industry has gone through the same "consolidation" efforts, only to realize that it costs more money than it is worth to have "all" of the business.
Part of me thinks that the large budget Hollywood blockbuster will soon go the way of the dodo. Reality programming is cheap to create and makes boatloads of money. I'm sure the beancounters in the media conglomerates have noticed this fact, and I wonder how long it will be before the budgets begin being rolled back.
Oh, and celebrities telling me what to do with what little money I have can kiss my ass.

DragonRat
05-07-2005, 09:25 PM
I just find it amazing how Cruise, a devout Scientologist (believe me, the oxymoron is most humorous), could convert his girlfriend Holmes (born and raised Irish Catholic) to the pseudo-religion. I mean, it's because of Scientology that Battlefield Earth was made, and you can't let that slide one inch. Though if a sequel ever came out starring both Cruise and Travolta, I think I'd give that a shadow of a doubt.

I don't find his sudden optimism really scary or even funny. I don't even know if it's some strange publicity stunt (which it probably isn't, because I hear his PR are turning their eyes). Maybe, he's just really happy. I mean, if I were making that much money and boning Katie Holmes, I think I'd have some reason to smile. (But then again, I'd've been ecstatic, were I still with Nicole Kidman...)

Anyway, I don't think Tom Cruise is crazy. Maybe he's an extremely wealthy, eccentric kook. Or maybe he's been taking Sunday school classes at the local First Church of Scientology, learning how to open up to people and express his happiness outwardly, toward other people, by holding their arms and jumping up and down hysterically.

Ashley
05-07-2005, 09:51 PM
I don't find his sudden optimism really scary or even funny. I don't even know if it's some strange publicity stunt (which it probably isn't, because I hear his PR are turning their eyes). Maybe, he's just really happy. I mean, if I were making that much money and boning Katie Holmes, I think I'd have some reason to smile. (But then again, I'd've been ecstatic, were I still with Nicole Kidman...)

I was watching some Extra Hollywood Affair... whatever, a while back and it was said that he had fired his old PR person and hired a member of his family. So the woman who used to keep him quiet and normal looking to humanity was put out so his sister or someone like that could have a job... obviously she's doing a top notch job.


Richard: Cat On A Hot Tin Roof is an excellent movie. That's a tough role to play I'd think as well, being I saw it on stage and was bored out of my mind. I think Liz Taylor is a fantastic actress, but her life off screen leads me to think she could be quite a hoot at a party.

iwilltrashyou
06-07-2005, 09:10 PM
I just find it amazing how Cruise, a devout Scientologist (believe me, the oxymoron is most humorous), could convert his girlfriend Holmes (born and raised Irish Catholic) to the pseudo-religion. I mean, it's because of Scientology that Battlefield Earth was made, and you can't let that slide one inch.


:icon_lol: thank you!