Star Wars VII - Open spoilers

[JonCole]

I don't really think he's that evil or crazy, I think his image has been largely sensationalized. That's not to say that scientology is not insane (which I think it is) or he didn't mistreat Katie Holmes (which I imagine he probably did), but I don't particularly think he's the firebrand or zealot that he's made out to be. It's hard to forget that classic opener for the "Tom Cruise is crazy" era - him jumping on Oprah's couch - but I challenge you to actually find the context for that video and ask yourself if it was really deserving of the ensuing meme.

 

He was recently on an episode of the Nerdist Podcast and really, he just comes off as a super boring dude who happens to be a good actor.

[feelthedarkness]

What does Lindelof have to do with Star Wars?

 

Give it a little time, he'll be called in to execute studio notes!

 

Also, re-Tom Cruise.

I'm totally telling a story out of school, so keep it tight please, but a buddy was at SkyWalker Ranch to see a movie in their sweet viewing room, and while his friend was showing him around he heard something funny from one of editing bays. The engineers were doing post production on Ghost Protocol, and a big part of the job was editing out exclamations of "TOM CRUISE IS ON FIRE!" after he felt he nailed every take.

[Bjorn]

I don't really think he's that evil or crazy, I think his image has been largely sensationalized. That's not to say that scientology is not insane (which I think it is) or he didn't mistreat Katie Holmes (which I imagine he probably did), but I don't particularly think he's the firebrand or zealot that he's made out to be. It's hard to forget that classic opener for the "Tom Cruise is crazy" era - him jumping on Oprah's couch - but I challenge you to actually find the context for that video and ask yourself if it was really deserving of the ensuing meme.

 

He was recently on an episode of the Nerdist Podcast and really, he just comes off as a super boring dude who happens to be a good actor.

 

I think he's crazy because he believes in Scientology, and I think he's evil for advocating that Scientology can "cure" dyslexia and mental illness.  It's the same boat that I put people like Jenny McCarthy in for her anti-vaccine advocacy.  Once someone starts preaching about how their personal religious belief can solve real medical issues, I think they've crossed the line into a kind of evil. (Not to imply McCarthy has a religious component to her beliefs, she's just evil and crazy all on her own).

 

Scientology causes actual harm to people, and Cruise has defended and advocated for it for years.  And the harm that is most likely to be caused by bullshit insane religions is usually to kids, who can't defend themselves from their parents' crazy beliefs.  So yeah, fuck Tom Cruise and his evil beliefs. 

[JonCole]

Are people actually falling for that stuff? I have a particularly negative opinion of Jenny McCarthy because I feel that her cause is actually successful, what with the proven spike in completely preventable, highly contagious infections and diseases. I never got the impression that any normal people were actually buying the Scientology thing, so as an apparently less effective spokesman I feel that Cruise is thus less evil. Not to mention Cruise actually has something artistically to offer while McCarthy has absolutely nothing to offer, which doesn't necessarily negate his Scientology stuff but at least improves his net good stuff to bad stuff.

 

Though I will concede that any kids harmed directly or indirectly by Cruise's advocacy are a kid too many.

[Bjorn]

Realistically, Scientology probably only has a membership in the low 10s of thousands, so no, it's not like it has some massive impact.  And Cruise's rants over the years (particularly the one about psychology and anti-depressants) probably did as much harm to Scientology as anything else has, because of how clearly crazy and off-base it was.  So it's certainly debatable how much actual harm or evil Cruise himself has caused.

 

But, for me personally, those elements of Cruise have ruined him as an actor for me.  Just seeing him in a movie kicks me out of it, as I don't see the character he is playing.  I see a sad, crazy man who says evil things.   I was really looking forward to Edge of Tomorrow until I learned he was in it. 

[Merus]

There used to be more buy-in to Scientology; I think by the 90s it was seen as 'weird but harmless', but Anonymous turning up with their weird-ass protests kind of loosened the floodgates enough that it's not controversial for celebrity gossip magazines to really lay into Scientology where they might have made nice.

[lobotomy42]

Realistically, Scientology probably only has a membership in the low 10s of thousands, so no, it's not like it has some massive impact.  And Cruise's rants over the years (particularly the one about psychology and anti-depressants) probably did as much harm to Scientology as anything else has, because of how clearly crazy and off-base it was.  So it's certainly debatable how much actual harm or evil Cruise himself has caused.

 

But, for me personally, those elements of Cruise have ruined him as an actor for me.  Just seeing him in a movie kicks me out of it, as I don't see the character he is playing.  I see a sad, crazy man who says evil things.   I was really looking forward to Edge of Tomorrow until I learned he was in it. 

 

See, I'm the exact opposite.  I agree that Tom Cruise is definitely crazy and possibly evil.  But I still think he's, if not a great actor, then certainly a very dedicated and intense one.  I truly enjoy watching his movies, possibly even more so now that I have some glimmer of how nuts he is behind the scenes.  Especially given that so many of his early films were dependent on his then-public-image as an all-American hero.  (Crazy to think about now, right?)

 

He was recently on an episode of the Nerdist Podcast and really, he just comes off as a super boring dude who happens to be a good actor.

 

That's the thing, though, right - he works *really hard* to produce that image.  He knows that people think he's crazy, and he knows that the more they learn about his non-professional life, the more people will think that.  So he goes intensely overboard at being this inoffensively normal, relatable human being.  He's like a minor autistic god trying to understand and emulate these mere mortals and their strange customs.

 

Anyway, as someone who loves Star Wars and is fascinated by Tom Cruise, I really hope this actually happens.  I hope he shows up as some kind of crazily-made-up CG'ed over grinning shiny-teethed alien.

[Roderick]

Part of the thing I love about latter-day Tom Cruise is that he's often doing kind bizarre roles, that really play with his earlier squeeky-clean image. The spoiled rich/psycho in Vanilla Sky, the crazy cameo in Tropic Thunder and even in Edge of Tomorrow he's a super smarmy asshat in the beginning. It's fun. And when he does play the American Action Hero (Mission: Impossible), he's so ludicrously intense and in the zone that it's easy to go along.

[Ben X]

Yeah, Rian is the first thing that sparked a little interest for me in Star Wars. Abrams and Lindelof are the worlds luckiest hacks. 

 

 

I can't see how they fit any generally accepted definition of the word "hack". If you think they're bad writers/directors, fine, but hacks?

[Thrik]

I love a bit of Tom Cruise.

I've noticed that in general people either can or can't tolerate actors, artists, musicians, etc when their perception of the individual has been tainted. What's interesting is that in many cases we don't even know what kind of crazy-ass beliefs people we admire hold.

For those who tend to find performances ruined by this kind of thing, imagine finding out that an actor you absolutely 100% love has some dodgy traits — like Christopher Lee being a bit racist. Could you not ever again enjoy his wonderful performances in countless classic films?

I just can't imagine never watching or enjoying certain awesome films again because of some actors' personal life. There'd be too many!

[Thrik]

Also it's interesting that you just changed your name to Roderick, Rodi — Matthew Broderick happens to be exactly one such actor I had in mind due to him killing two women through allegedly dangerous driving.

[Roderick]

Hey thanks for forever spoiling Ferris Bueller! (No you haven't)

 

Broderick is a weird name, that's just Roderick with a goof. As for Rodi, meh, I kinda outgrew it as a nickname.

[Bjorn]

I love a bit of Tom Cruise.

I've noticed that in general people either can or can't tolerate actors, artists, musicians, etc when their perception of the individual has been tainted. What's interesting is that in many cases we don't even know what kind of crazy-ass beliefs people we admire hold.

For those who tend to find performances ruined by this kind of thing, imagine finding out that an actor you absolutely 100% love has some dodgy traits — like Christopher Lee being a bit racist. Could you not ever again enjoy his wonderful performances in countless classic films?

I just can't imagine never watching or enjoying certain awesome films again because of some actors' personal life. There'd be too many!

 

 

There have been similar conversations on here before, one a few months ago about Woody Allen.  I recognize that there are lots of people with shitty ideas, opinions and beliefs.  There are people of whose work I am deeply fond of who have said or done some really questionable bullshit.  But I also don't expect people to react in an entirely rational way about these subjects.  I don't really think that most people are capable of completely rational thought and action a majority of the time, we just like to pretend we are. 

I personally have what can only be called an emotional reaction to seeing Cruise.  Both my wife and kid are dyslexic and I've witnessed the kind of bullshit they have both gone through at times because of something completely out of their control.  I have no patience for people who talk the kind of bullshit that Cruise has about a subject that I care a lot about.  So it's not a kind of rational, thought out reaction.  I see Cruise, and BOOM, I think what a sad, crazy shithead he is. There's no in-between thinking state between those two things.

The Matthew Broderick example is a poor one, if only because we can all sympathize with having made a mistake driving and most of us are super thankful that it was never at that one moment in time that resulted in tragedy.  That's a pretty radically different thing than saying or doing a series of stupid things over an extended amount of time.

A better example might be Mel Gibson (although that still boils mostly down to a couple of events).  I've watched a couple of Gibson's movies since his drunken anti-Semitic breakdown.  He doesn't elicit that same kind of reaction from me.  Sure, I care about anti-Semitism, but it doesn't carry that emotional, personal closeness for me that other issues do.  But I can see how it would for others, and how someone else could have that same level of personal disgust when Gibson walks on screen, how their relationship with Judaism or anti-Semitic bullshit could just always pop up front and center when they see him. 

For most people, there is probably something bad enough, something bullshit enough that it would forever taint an actor for them.  It's just where that personal line is, or what that personal issue is for each person.  I hit mine with Cruise.  About the only two celebrities I can think of that elicit that reaction from me are Cruise and Orson Scott Card.  And with both of those, it's less about one moment and more about a years long effort to alienate people like me, who ought to be fans of their work. 

Slightly related (via anti-Semitic rants and Mel Gibson) it turns out Gary Oldman might be a grade A asshole (Playboy interview, so NSFW technically).  Which is a shame.  But I guess I'll just have to keep liking the movies he hates, just to spite him. 

[Dewar]

That's a NSFW link btw, by virtue of the host at least.

[Bjorn]

That's a NSFW link btw, by virtue of the host at least.

 

Good call, didn't even think about that since it was just an interview.

[Gormongous]

For most people, there is probably something bad enough, something bullshit enough that it would forever taint an actor for them.  It's just where that personal line is, or what that personal issue is for each person.  I hit mine with Cruise.  About the only two celebrities I can think of that elicit that reaction from me are Cruise and Orson Scott Card.  And with both of those, it's less about one moment and more about a years long effort to alienate people like me, who ought to be fans of their work.

 

I always like reading your stuff when it goes over a few paragraphs, Bjorn, because there's always something I like and want to quote. I think most discussions about the relationship between creator and work get tainted by absolutes. Either your opinion of an artist should entirely inform your appreciation of their art or it should inform it not at all. It needs to be said more that most people, even people who argue that they'd never let the evils of an actor or writer taint their opinion of stuff they like, have some kind of threshold, a certain combination of acts and statements that would turn them off from it forever. It lets us keep in mind that the relationship between creator and work is complex, and moreover that it's a relationship, vulnerable to emotions and opinions and instinct, much as we'd like to have a solid rule for when we've become morally compromised for liking something.

 

 

EDIT: Dammit, I don't want my dumb little blurb to bear the burden of a new page.

[brkl]

Also it's interesting that you just changed your name to Roderick, Rodi — Matthew Broderick happens to be exactly one such actor I had in mind due to him killing two women through allegedly dangerous driving.

Little known fact, he changed his name to Broderick from Roderick because he's a bro.

[Roderick]

Then to Matthew because he turned to the bible. His name was originally Broderick Broderick.

[dibs]

It was originally Brodi Broderick.

[melmer]

Concept art, could be considered spoilery? Its nothing you wont see in the trailers/promotional material that'll be everywhere when the film comes out

http://www.millenniumfalcon.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=9508&p=172883#p172883

 

shit looks cool

 

[Arthur]

Oooooohhh baby, this is quite a haul. Good find, Mington! 

I actually live close-by to where they filmed the grassy X-Wing hangars set, and Pinewood Studios. I've spoken to a couple of people who worked on the set for Episode VII, and heard a few morsels of first-hand information, but nothing that is really super-spoilery. Still, it's exciting to know something the internet doesn't...! The excitement is bubbling away inside me, I hope the film is good. 

[melmer]

Those pictures legitimately raised my interest by a factor of 3000. I actually believe it could be.... Good. It's looks dark, maybe they're not aiming these films at 7 year olds like I had expected

[Ben X]

I just PMed Arthur and he told me that one of his friends worked on the "Han Solo grave" set, which is cool.

[Justin Leego]

Oh very good. Did he also promise to get "Ben Xenobi" ad-libbed into the final cut?

[Badfinger]

A better example might be Mel Gibson (although that still boils mostly down to a couple of events).  I've watched a couple of Gibson's movies since his drunken anti-Semitic breakdown.  He doesn't elicit that same kind of reaction from me.  Sure, I care about anti-Semitism, but it doesn't carry that emotional, personal closeness for me that other issues do.  But I can see how it would for others, and how someone else could have that same level of personal disgust when Gibson walks on screen, how their relationship with Judaism or anti-Semitic bullshit could just always pop up front and center when they see him. 

 

Yep!