Scientology: Bad for business?
Ever since the days of Fatty Arbuckle, Hollywood studios have worried about how the personal affairs of their stars would affect their business. The first impulse was always to cover up. But when you couldn’t do that, you ran away.
The canning of Tom Cruise is unusually and perhaps refreshingly public. Paramount mogul Sumner Redstone told the Journal that he was firing Cruise for acting crazy and stumping for Scientology.
This morning on Howard Stern, Elijah Blue Allman talked about Scientology since his mom, Cher, dated the young Mr. Cruise and since Sonny Bono was also a Scientologist. Allman said it started as an effort to have a Hollywood version of the Masons: a club with a secret handshake. But clearly, it is more than that. I wonder, though, whether stars will start tiptoeing away if the realize that their “religion” could cost them at the box office.
I would like to think that we have reached the end of our cultural rope with stars acting crazy and all their entourages being afraid to tell them they’re nuts. Tom Cruise. Michael Jackson. Mel Gibson. I’d like to think that, but I doubt it.
: LATER: Nikki Finke gets mad a Paramount for urging the dogs on. I disagree. It’s time for Hollywood to start expecting sanity.
: LATER STILL: The HuffingtonPost continues its surprisingly rousing defense of Scientology.
And just what are the scornable consequences that Scientology has fostered?That car bomb planted by Sunni insurgents in Iraq against innocent Shia?
The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, the pogroms, the Holocaust?
The atrocities committed against Christians and animists in the Sudan?
The wars between Hindu and Buddhist in Sri Lanka?
The several decades of religious wars in Northern Ireland?
The mutual bloodshed in Lebanon?Oh, and was it Scientologists who flew planes into the World Trade Center?
Oy.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Elijah Blue Allman is married to Cher?! That’s kinda gross cuz Cher is also his mom!
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:44 pm
It’s wrong to discriminate against someone because of his religion. Imagine the uproar if Cruise was Jewish, Muslim or Christian. I am no fan of Scientology, but if Redstone is playing Tom Cruise’s religion against him, he’s flat out wrong.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:08 pm
rich….. oops. thanks…
brooklyn…. yes but it’s his effort to turn movies into opportunities to recruit that was the problem….. it’s the behavior around the religion, whatever the religion….. i could say that mel’s caused him some problems, if by a tangent.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Long time coming this, hopefully the fall in followers of this wacko religion will mean future South Park episodes are left alone.:)
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:50 pm
1. Tom hates all psychologists. Not true. Was good friends with Dr. Anthony Kidman. Yep, Nic’s father was a clinical psychologist.
2. Became over excited when he was on Oprah. ooooohhhhh, thats crazzzzyyy…
3. Didnt want some south-park episode to air on TV. Do you really blame him? Remember the movie - Eyes Wide Shut - Ya know the part where all the boys are callin him a homo and askin him to take it in the ass? Yeah, this is an old joke.
4. Spoke out against MAJOR DRUG COMPANIES….If you don’t think that what tom said about drugs held some truth, youre the crazy one..
5. Tom is not even in the same ballpark as Mel, the drunk-drivin alocoholic antisemite.
6. Mike’s not crazy. You’ve never met the man nor have you ever see one ounce of evidence to prove he’s guilty of any crime. Yet, you call him crazy. Listen up. The man wrote a song that inspired so many to give so much. What the hell have you done in your life…
Throw yourself off a bridge.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Brooklyn, Scientology is a notoriously bizarre organization.
This book, available for free on the Internet, should give you a pretty good idea of what’s involved with Scientology.
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm
In the early 90s, Scientology sued a computer bulletin board operator for carrying USENET messages written by a former Scientologist that disclosed secrets the cult would have preferred to have kept hidden. It was a really nasty case and it could have been me — I ran a strikingly similar system at the time. Any “benefit of the doubt” I might have given Scientology vanished when I learned about this incident, which was extremely destructive to say the least.
D
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:01 pm
$cientology is not a religion, it’s a corrupt and dangerous cult that wraps itself in the mantle of religion in order to avoid taxes and prosecution. A correct analogy to Cruise would be a star who was fired for being a vocal member of the American Nazi Party or some similar organization.
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:31 pm
And what rank have you reached in the “church,” Riky?
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:50 pm
tom still has his millions. its not like he’s gonna have to seek work at mcdonalds.
tom can make millions if he blogged.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:14 pm
The main problem I have with Scientology is not that it ripped off Lovecraft, it’s that it ripped off Lovecraft so badly.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Im not a scientologist, Jeffrey. You think he’s a freak and thats your ’strumpy business’, but dont confuse it with the real issue here. ($$) Why would Viacom terminate the relationship with the Cruiser with all that possible cash flow? Im sorry but jumping on a couch and clownin on Brooke does not justify a major company like Viacom flushing 2 billion dollars down the toilet. Bottom line- Tom, makes fat cash. Seems to me that Tom decided to get out of the relationship a long time ago. It just wasnt easy…
Anyway, your the smart one who’s got it all figured out, eh? btw, that was a nice post Cuban wrote about you . I laughed my ass off.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Will take Sumner longer to clear his engrams.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:23 pm
The real story here is how stupid Sumner Redstone is. Cruise, all by himself, has made nearly $3 billion dollars worldwide for Paramount — more than any of their other major stars combined! Yeah, Cruise was acting like a total idiot this summer, but how is that different from most other Hollywood types? They say M:I3 was a failure, but after worldwide gross and DVD sales are combined, this one film will probably bring in more than half a billion dollars for Viacom; how many other films have done that for Paramount? The real winner, at least on a business level, will be Cruise. He’s already set up a deal with a private equity firm that will give access to nearly $300 million in funding. Redstone was a fool.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Jimmy,
Sir, exactly. “Tom was *acting* like a total idiot.” ALso, I agree with you- Redstone, is trying real hard not to look like a fool.
It is baffling that in the body of this post, Mr. Jarvis does nothing but regurgitate ‘internet blahblahblah’ and lump it in with the current trend. I thought better of you, Jeffrey. Try thinking for yourself.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Or course Scientology is bad for business. Somebody, anybody, explain it in semi-rational religious way.
I would like to understandi its foundation.
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:21 pm
C’mon folks. Let’s get real here. This is post-negotiation posturing. It never was about Tom’s behavior embarrassing Sumner. From what I’ve read, Redstone seems to be incapable of embarrassment anyway. And you don’t have to look too far down the Viacom hallway to find “unacceptable” behavior.
Tom’s detractors will pile-on about being mean to Brooke and the Scientology stuff and Sumner’s critics will blather on about him walking around the parking lot in his pajamas muttering something about Lucy rerun revenues, but …..
Nah. This was all about money. It always is. Tom wanted more. Sumner didn’t want to give it up. Period.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Of course it’s about the money and this is post-negotiation posturing. Sumner didn’t think Tom was worth the money - so the question is “Why?” Because Tom’s coin with the audience has diminished. He’s not as popular any more.
Just as Hollywood isn’t as popular any more. We expect weirdness from Hollywood, but it doesn’t mean that we have to watch it. There are actors and actresses I don’t watch because they’ve soured for me due to their behavior. It’s a choice they make, so it becomes a choice I make. Turn me off, and I vote with my feet and the star is not worth as much.
If they want more money, they can act with class and try not to offend. If they want to express themselves freely, that’s fine, but no howling later when they make less. It’s the price they pay.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:42 am
“Because Tom’s coin with the audience has diminished. He’s not as popular any more.”
1. Minority Report
2. Collateral
3. War Of The Worlds
4. Mission Impossible3
5. ?
Please, stop being such a moron and just look at the facts.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:08 am
Jeff writes: The canning of Tom Cruise is unusually and perhaps refreshingly public. Paramount mogul Sumner Redstone told the Journal that he was firing Cruise for acting crazy and stumping for Scientology.
You don’t really believe that do you?
Jeff continues: It’s time for Hollywood to start expecting sanity.
Why?
I’d rather see Hollywood express concern about the quality of its product on screen. What actors do offscreen should be evaluated in the context of their offscreen activity. I don’t look to Cruise (or any celeb) for advice and guidance on personal matters. I’ll bet most folks don’t.
From what I’ve read in the British press Cruise isn’t an especially nice guy. He’s not the sort of guy I’d invite over, but so what? As sane as I believe most of my friends to be, I doubt many could achieve TC’s standard on camera.
I have had more than a few sane friends ask me to read their poetry. For the most part, what they write is an agony to read. Webster, Ben Jonson (a convicted murderer) Byron (immoral to the core), Poe, Pound (fascist), and Yeats (a spiritualist and fascist nutter), were all of questionable character, but their poetry and drama is first rate. I’d rather spend an hour reading any of these unbalanced artists, than ten minutes reading the work of most of my wonderful friends.
How many sane folks sing like Judy Garland or act (on camera) like Vivian Leigh?
As for Redstone’s candor, bunk. If he believes that Cruise’s star is on the decline, fair enough. He may be right, but let’s not pretend that his is more than a commercial decision.
One last question, was Arbuckle really quilty as charged? Or was he the victim of bad press? (Just curious)
Maybe Yeats’ lines best describe today’s actors and journalists:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. W.B. Yeats
August 24th, 2006 at 6:32 am
Wow, it’s not often that Cruise is mentioned in the same sentence as Keats, Byron and Poe. Though i’d always put Top Gun up there with The Raven.
August 24th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Jim Karna writes: Wow, it’s not often that Cruise is mentioned in the same sentence as Keats, Byron and Poe.
Jim,
Minor correction: Keats isn’t mentioned at all, and Cruise isn’t mentioned in the same sentence.
There is a parallel between Keats and Cruise: both have been love-sick puppie dogs.
Tom
August 24th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Riky said: Please, stop being such a moron and just look at the facts.
OK, let’s do just that.-
Movie- Gross Box Office*/ Production Budget*/ Profit
————————————————-
Vanilla Sky (2001)- 100.6 million/ 68 million/ 32.6
Minority Report (2002) – 132 million/ 102 million/ 30
Last Samurai (2003) - 111.1 million/ 140 million/ -28.9
Collateral (2004) - 101 million/ 65 million/ 36
War Of The Worlds (2005) - 234.2 million/ 132 million/ 102.2
MI 3 (2006) - 133.5 million/ 150 million/ -16.5
(Please note that these figures don’t factor in expenses such as advertising and prints and income such as overseas box office and DVD.)
VANILLA SKY, MINORITY REPORT and COLLATERAL all perform in the same profit region. Cruise’s antics started to become more pronounced on the press tour for WAR OF THE WORLDS, whose success can be just as easily attributed to director Steven Spielberg and public familiarity with Welles’s story.
But the public had a full year of Cruise’s couch-jumping, sonogram-machine buying, complaining-about- nonsense before the release of MI 3, a franchise that the public has a familiarity with. (Interesting that you skipped over LAST SAMURAI on your list Riky, Cruise’s biggest box office disappointment in the past few years.)
Now I know that these numbers aren’t the final word on the total finances of these films, but I feel they are a good indicator of what may have informed Redstone’s decision to dump Cruise.
* All numbers from http://www.boxofficemojo.com
August 24th, 2006 at 8:14 am
As much as I dislike Scientology, it isn’t the reason why Cruise is such a nutball.
You don’t see John Travolta in such a situation as Cruise is. The only judgement of Travolta’s being questioned is his choice of roles. Scientology may have played a role in his bringing “Battlefield Earth” to the screen, but that
The only overtly quirky thing he’s done is his enthusiasm for flying planes, that led him to make a promotional deal with an airline so he could get the opportunity to fly bigger planes. But that’s a passion that people can wrap their minds around it. It makes him human. We may not be able to do what he has, but many people would like to if they were in a similar position.
Cruise however pulled off the impossible. Older men have been with younger women for centuries amongst all classes of people. Cruise’s antics made us think something was amiss, that he was desperately trying to force us to believe what we would have not thought much about anyway.
Either He’s nuts. Which may or may not have something to do with Scientology. Or he’s gotten bad publicity advice.
It’s interesting to note that as all this silliness started, Tom switched publicists to a relative (a sister, I think). I suspect he’d been advised to “Act” head over heels in love with Katie to get that accross to the audience in his Oprah appearance. Without a script, he improvised badly.
Why “Act”? because he wants to do the publicity that requires him to “expose his personal life” to people, but still not actually share that with the public. Nothing new there, but good publicists guide celebrities through the process. Tom had family that may not have known how to do the job well. I hold onto this possibility because it makes sense, with a minimum of “Conspiracy Theory” thinking.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Could we drop this topic and get back to the important issue of JonBenet?
August 24th, 2006 at 9:13 am
David - I aint defendng Scientology, I’m a pretty big critic of any religion that was started as a money making venture. It’s an obvious scam, but there’s nothing wrong with people chosing to believe in it.
Jeff - I’m not sure anything is wrong from stumping for something you belive in. You don’t see celebrities pulling back their political views from the public. And they shouldn’t have to.
But nobody’s gonna blacklist Tom Cruise for being a prostelitizing nutball. He’s a prostelitizing nutball that makes movie studios a lot of money. He’ll get picked up by another studio that is smart enough to perceive Redstone’s mistake.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Brooklin Kitchen writes: Jeff - I’m not sure anything is wrong from stumping for something you belive in. You don’t see celebrities pulling back their political views from the public. And they shouldn’t have to.
Agreed.
Jeff’s hint that Hollywood should somehow evaluate the sanity of an actor’s beliefs and conduct is disturbing. I have little regard for those who would attempt to create a world of ‘cloister’d vertue’.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Studios don’t care about grosses. They care about how much they get.
Spielberg and Cruise get heavy participation (including a cut of DVD sales) so their movies have to do especially well before studios make “enough” money.
MI-3 had both lower grosses and more participation by Cruise, so it wasn’t nearly the success for Paramount that the other ones were.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Does anyone here know the phrase, ‘Where The Rainbow Ends’ and what it means? I’ll give you a hint (scientology)
Sir’s, its been a pleasure.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
You shouldn’t be surprised that the Huffers are defending cults. Arianna is a long-time member of John-Roger’s MSIA cult. Her membership in this cult was one of the reasons her gay ex-husband lost his Senate bid.
Check this link: http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2010
and this one:
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/msia.html
Huffington is protecting herself by having her lap-dog Russell Shaw defend the $cienos.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
[...] Paramount Studios has declined to extend Tom Cruise’s production contract, citing his increasingly erratic public behavior. A big part of this is his constant recruiting for Scientology, of course. So a controversy has erupted over cults in general, and not surprisingly Arianna Huffington’s Post has taken the side of the cults. Arianna, you see, is a long-time member of a cult, John-Roger’s MSIA, and her membership probably cost her gay ex-husband a seat in the US Senate. She’s got Russell Shaw standing up for the cults, which he does about as well as he does anything, not very. [...]
August 24th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Sumner doesn’t like Tom Cruise and doesn’t want the man working for his company. End of story.
August 25th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Are the beliefs of Scientology any crazier than that of Christianity or any other religion from the perspective of a non-believer? Resurrection, water to wine, faith healing, Armageddon, Heaven, Hell, angels, devils. Sounds pretty ‘crazy’, who would join such a ridiculous ‘cult’?
August 26th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Joeskunk -
Perhaps, but you can go talk to any catholic about the details of thier faith without paying huge sums of money.
August 28th, 2006 at 1:04 am
Before taking Russell Shaw seriously you might want to review his complete “oeuvre”: huffingtonpost.com/russell-shaw
I note also that JaneaneGarofalo has officially left her show at AirAmerica. This was after offering two shows in which she and Sc|ngst Leah Remini pimped a Sc|ntlgy curative scheme. I don’t know whether JG is herself a member or if there was any connection to her leaving.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Ryan Frank says “Perhaps, but you can go talk to any catholic about the details of thier (sic) faith without paying huge sums of money.”
Most Catholics I’ve met don’t seem to know much about their faith, beyond what they’ve committed to rote memorization regarding the rituals: when to stand, when to kneel, when to turn and shake hands, what, how and when to say the Lord’s Prayer (Our Fathers), Hail Marys, how to take and hold the Eucharist, what to say during responsorials, etc. Also the Catholic Church was the only one I ever went to that passed the plate three times per hour. The first time was called “tithes and offering,” supposedly ten percent of your gross income (I liked when the priest came to visit your home and left envelopes with your name on them to facilitate putting your “required tithe” in the “offering plate”), the second pass was for something called a “special offering,” and the third pass was described as “to relieve the church debt.” So lets see, that’s six masses a Sunday, plus the midnight mass, three passes of the plate per mass…you do the math.
To Joe Skunk,
You left out transubstantiation, the belief that communion wafers and wine actually change into the body and blood of Christ as part of the ritual of communion, hmm, stripped of it’s context, does this suggest ritual cannabalism to anyone?
Due to the dogmatic nature and foundation on true belief of most religions is it any wonder why people take pot shots at the religion(s) of others? Put simply: people in glass houses…but honestly anyone who wields their religious beliefs as a means to bludgeon others’ beliefs as crazy truly is figuratively blind.