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.

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.

Perhaps, but you can go talk to any catholic about the details of thier faith without paying huge sums of money.

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.

Sir’s, its been a pleasure.

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.

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’.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

I would like to understandi its foundation.

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.