|
Don't get me wrong Cruise is 100% out of his loving mind, but he's still pretty drat good at being an actor and most of his movies have either been excellent or at least enjoyable. He also hasn't Battlefield Earth'd or After Earth'd us yet.
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 01:12 |
|
|
Yeah, I'm pretty torn. I really don't want to support anything Tom Cruise, but...he's in some damned good movies.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Tom Cruise loves sci-fi so much that it is literally his religion.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Tom Cruise loves sci-fi so much that it is literally his religion. I like this explanation a lot. It also explains why he's such a good actor, he literally thinks these things are actually happening to him.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I like this explanation a lot. It also explains why he's such a good actor, he literally thinks these things are actually happening to him. Can you prove they aren't? 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Man. I hadn't seen that Scientology promo video in a while. I love how it's such a perfect ego-cult. The guy is like a human onion of layers of crazy, crazy poo poo. Just imagine him being in charge of something serious, it's legitimately terrifying. And he actively peddles this brain poison to others. I don't think I want to do anything that causes him to receive money.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Scientology is pretty harmless as far as religions go. Sure there's been a few people die and they're shady as hell, but they've still got a lower body count than any other religion I can think of, and they have the advantage of being based on thoroughly modern bullshit instead of clinging to the bullshit of an ancient society. Plus they're just so drat wacky and entertaining. If you judge an artist based on their personal life you'll run out of artists to like REALLY fast.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Can I dissent from the Tom Cruise is a Good Actor consensus? He might have been at one time, but these days I find irrespective of the movie it's Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise. It's not an uncommon problem when actors becomes massively successful; these days it's always Robert De Nero plays Robert De Nero, but the difference being that while De Niro's roles might be repetitive he's not coming across as somebody I want to push under a bus after thirty seconds. The concept for this movie sounds interesting, but him as the leads pretty much ensures I'll skip it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Can I dissent from the Tom Cruise is a Good Actor consensus? He might have been at one time, but these days I find irrespective of the movie it's Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise. It's not an uncommon problem when actors becomes massively successful; these days it's always Robert De Nero plays Robert De Nero, but the difference being that while De Niro's roles might be repetitive he's not coming across as somebody I want to push under a bus after thirty seconds. Sure, he's not a good actor in the way that, like, Kevin Spacey is. But he does do some entertaining acting, and he's good at doing it so that's probably why people say he's a "good actor".
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:Scientology is pretty harmless as far as religions go. Sure there's been a few people die and they're shady as hell, but they've still got a lower body count than any other religion I can think of, and they have the advantage of being based on thoroughly modern bullshit instead of clinging to the bullshit of an ancient society. Plus they're just so drat wacky and entertaining. No, Scientology is actively damaging and harmful. They may not have the sheer numbers or history to match the body counts of other religions but they are extremely and incredibly aggressive and do a lot of active harm.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Well, MC doesn't die in the end. He survives. And only one of them needed to die; that's why they started fighting each other. Whoever was the best fighter would survive. I need to reread it as well, but I don't understand how having both of them alive would trigger a loop when they killed the mimic, but having only one alive wouldn't trigger a loop. I thought it was implied that Rita was a receiver AND it is possible that in some time loops, Rita killed the receivers, and the antenna, which, while not explicitly mentioned in the book, could suggest that she was also a victim of the time loop thing herself (entirely separate from what Kiriya is experiencing). But since in the book we are only able to observe the perceived reality of one character...or at least, up until the point where they are both deciding whose reality will become the dominant one. If Kiriya died, in Rita's reality the time loops would end, but if Rita dies, then the book progresses as it does. Rita probably appears to know exactly what she is doing because Kiriya is observing, from his perception of reality, how she is at the end of her time loops, and his actions are changing things around them, which causes the randomness, and Rita can only respond so well to someone that isn't following the script. I'm probably overthinking this. And yes, I fully intended to lurk with this account, but I loved the book this movie was based off of, so I couldn't resist commenting. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 03:11 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Can I dissent from the Tom Cruise is a Good Actor consensus? He might have been at one time, but these days I find irrespective of the movie it's Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise. It's not an uncommon problem when actors becomes massively successful; these days it's always Robert De Nero plays Robert De Nero, but the difference being that while De Niro's roles might be repetitive he's not coming across as somebody I want to push under a bus after thirty seconds. Nah he's a good actor even though he's reprehensible as a person.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
lurker1981 posted:I thought it was implied that Rita was a receiver AND it is possible that in some time loops, Rita killed the receivers, and the antenna, which, while not explicitly mentioned in the book, could suggest that she was also a victim of the time loop thing herself (entirely separate from what Kiriya is experiencing). But since in the book we are only able to observe the perceived reality of one character...or at least, up until the point where they are both deciding whose reality will become the dominant one. If Kiriya died, in Rita's reality the time loops would end, but if Rita dies, then the book progresses as it does. Hmm. I don't think you're quite right, but you may have cleared it up for me. Rita went through exactly the same thing Keiji did, but managed to break free. Then this time both she and Keiji end uplinking to the same network, so...[spoiler] Actually, wait. gently caress, that doesn't make sense either. [spoiler]Rita mentioned that she loops just about every battle. I don't think she intentionally relinks herself to a network each time, I think she's "permanently" part of any that's within range. And in any case, both Rita and Keiji are linked to the same network in Keiji's loop. Why wouldn't the loop retrigger when Rita died? Argh, wait. The loops happen when either they die or the server mimic dies. Does that mean they were both acting as servers, too? If so, then any of the trio dying should trigger the loop. Or if they weren't, then...gently caress it. Do we have a thread for the book? I need someone to explain this to me.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
Lets! Get! Weird! posted:Nah he's a good actor even though he's reprehensible as a person. I don't even think he's particularly reprehensible. I mean, compare him to people like Woody Allen or Roman Polanski, who actually did terrible things to people, and Cruise looks like a pretty nice guy. He just has a particular weakness for religion, and Scientology capitalized on that.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:I don't even think he's particularly reprehensible. I mean, compare him to people like Woody Allen or Roman Polanski, who actually did terrible things to people, and Cruise looks like a pretty nice guy. He just has a particular weakness for religion, and Scientology capitalized on that. That's probably fair. He's not violent or hateful like Gibson or something, he's just wacked out of his gourd. Unfortunately that leads to him supporting an organization that is, in fact, violent and hateful.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:That's probably fair. He's not violent or hateful like Gibson or something, he's just wacked out of his gourd. Unfortunately that leads to him supporting an organization that is, in fact, violent and hateful. Yeah, that's the relevant difference for me. He's a part of something I dislike, but I haven't heard any stories about him doing anything actively hateful or cruel because of it. He's just a strange egomaniac who was recruited by a self-improvement cult. Meanwhile, Mel Gibson says things like, "Jews started all wars" and that he hopes his ex-wife "gets raped by a pack of niggers." On the scale of assholes in Hollywood, Tom Cruise is way below that threshold. Orders of magnitude below it. (I feel bad, because although I think Mel Gibson is scum, Apocalypto was sort of awesome...)
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:That's probably fair. He's not violent or hateful like Gibson or something, he's just wacked out of his gourd. Unfortunately that leads to him supporting an organization that is, in fact, violent and hateful. It's kind of difficult to not support an organization that is not violent, hateful, or corrupt in some way. I support Hollywood by going to see movies every now and then, even despite the rumors that some folks in the industry liked to have sex with little kids. Should I pirate movies so that I am not supporting child molesters?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:I don't even think he's particularly reprehensible. I mean, compare him to people like Woody Allen or Roman Polanski, who actually did terrible things to people, and Cruise looks like a pretty nice guy. He just has a particular weakness for religion, and Scientology capitalized on that. I mean you're right but on the other hand a lot of people defended Roman in here (as in CD) when it looked like he was finally gonna answer for his crimes. So I guess Cruise is actually even nicer then.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Xealot posted:Yeah, that's the relevant difference for me. He's a part of something I dislike, but I haven't heard any stories about him doing anything actively hateful or cruel because of it. He's just a strange egomaniac who was recruited by a self-improvement cult. Meanwhile, Mel Gibson says things like, "Jews started all wars" and that he hopes his ex-wife "gets raped by a pack of niggers." On the scale of assholes in Hollywood, Tom Cruise is way below that threshold. Orders of magnitude below it. Weirdly, I have a lot more pity for Gibson than Allen or Polanski. He's an alcoholic who, by all accounts, didn't grow up under the most loving, accepting circumstances, and he hasn't said anything awful *super* recently. He's one of those people who I can see potentially changing or at least learning to deal with his issues. I mean, if RDJ and Jodie Foster still work with the dude... I try my hardest to not let people's actions affect what movies/art I see and like, but I still really don't like watching Woody Allen on screen, because it's so hard to separate him from his characters, because he's essentially playing himself. It'd be like watching Curb Your Enthusiasm if Larry David suddenly came out as a cannibal or something.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:I try my hardest to not let people's actions affect what movies/art I see and like, but I still really don't like watching Woody Allen on screen, because it's so hard to separate him from his characters, because he's essentially playing himself. It'd be like watching Curb Your Enthusiasm if Larry David suddenly came out as a cannibal or something. That would make for a fantastic episode though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Lets! Get! Weird! posted:I mean you're right but on the other hand a lot of people defended Roman in here (as in CD) when it looked like he was finally gonna answer for his crimes. So I guess Cruise is actually even nicer then. Count me among them. Polanski is amazing, and putting his personal life in the same basket as Woody Allen is pretty loving disingenuous.* Mel Gibson is a loving nut, but Apocalypto was pretty tight. Tom Cruise is a nut, and Scientology is atrocious, but them sci-fi movies... Anyways, prolly gonna see this movie real soon. [edit]   *addendum / I acknowledge that the whole culture surrounding a lot of those people was pretty hosed at the time. Hell, isn't it common knowledge that Mia Farrow was deflowered by Sinatra? BeanpolePeckerwood fucked around with this message at 07:17 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
second-hand smegma posted:Count me among them. Polanski is amazing, and putting his personal life in the same basket as Woody Allen is pretty loving disingenuous. Hmmmmm
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:Cruise's intensity is hard to replicate. The man gives it is all and is always brilliant. Did you know he did all his own stunt driving in Jack Reacher? Also, nobody casts Tom Cruise. He decides what films he wants to be in and gets them made. The second part is what's important here. Cruise has the star power to make sure he always gets the best of everything (directing, production, music, etc.) so even if he's not one of your top actors you can usually depend on him not to headline a bad movie at least.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
I too have a severe allergy to Tom Cruise but this was easily the best trailer before Godzilla tonight and I think I may have to see it now. (directed by the producer of I Just Want My Pants Back… motherfucking SOLD)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Tom cruise's run is a national treasure and I will not miss a movie that has him full out power armor sprinting multiple times.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Book was great, this looks terribleIMB posted:Still infuriates me that I live in a timeline where this movie didn't get made. It got flagged for production again after Pacific Rim
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Democratic Pirate posted:Tom cruise's run is a national treasure Now all I'm imagining is Tom Cruise in National Treasure..
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
TryAgainBragg posted:Now all I'm imagining is Tom Cruise in National Treasure.. Now I want National Treasure 3 to be a nation-wide treasure hunt between Tom Cruise and Nic Cage. I'd watch that movie a billion times.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Is there a reason the people in power suits don't have helmets or is that just to fool us into thinking we're watching actors rather than CGI cartoons during the action sequences?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Now I want National Treasure 3 to be a nation-wide treasure hunt between Tom Cruise and Nic Cage. I'd watch that movie a billion times. Shutupandtakemymoney.gif
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Is there a reason the people in power suits don't have helmets or is that just to fool us into thinking we're watching actors rather than CGI cartoons during the action sequences? They do have helmets Tom Cruise just stops wearing his at a certain point. Don't need to protect your head if you'll just come back to life 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Aw man I got an invite to the premiere in London at the IMAX but I can't go because it's at 9am on a Wednesday morning due to someone having the bright idea of holding three simultaneous world premieres. Booooooo.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
second-hand smegma posted:Count me among them. Polanski is amazing, and putting his personal life in the same basket as Woody Allen is pretty loving disingenuous.* You seem to be unaware of what he did. He drugged and raped a child (and then when he fled to Europe he started loving a 15 year old). Lets! Get! Weird! fucked around with this message at 04:49 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 04:46
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:It got flagged for production again after Pacific Rim Wait, really? Was that thing about him abandoning it because Prometheus was basically the movie he wanted to make a rumor?
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:Scientology is pretty harmless as far as religions go. Sure there's been a few people die and they're shady as hell, but they've still got a lower body count than any other religion I can think of, and they have the advantage of being based on thoroughly modern bullshit instead of clinging to the bullshit of an ancient society. Plus they're just so drat wacky and entertaining. Nah, Scientology is pretty actively horrible. I mean they don't have the Crusades under their belt but it's a relatively young cult, and they are very very active in harrassing/suppressing people who speak up about them. There was a megathread here on SA awhile back (Anonymous vs Scientology?) that really went into detail on it all. That said, you can like Tom Cruise the actor without supporting Tom Cruise the nut. It's not like all those sci-fi movies wouldn't have been made without him if he didn't exist, they just would have had different leads.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Lets! Get! Weird! posted:You seem to be unaware of what he did. He did, and I'm pretty sure he's openly operated under the specter of his actions since 1977, eventually settling with Samantha Geimer (who would later claim that she felt raped moreso by the media and the judge than she ever did Polanski). Polanski literally lives in open shame, and admits so in interviews. He's also a holocaust survivor, a man who's wife, 8 1/2 months pregnant with his child, was stabbed to death 16 times by a cultist. None of that absolves Polanski, but it adds a bit of perspective. The 15-year-old is Nastassja Kinski, daughter of Klaus (who I wouldn't want to gently caress with). Nastassja denied the relationship happened: "There was categorically no affair... There was a flirtation. There could have been a seduction, but there was not. He had respect for me." So yeah, if we're to believe what Mia and Dylan Farrow have to say, then I think it's disingenuous to stick Polanski and Woody Allen in the same bag. edit; I personally think Polanski is an amazing director, though it's sometimes and unpopular opinion BeanpolePeckerwood fucked around with this message at 09:03 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
second-hand smegma posted:edit; I personally think Polanski is an amazing director, though it's sometimes and unpopular opinion The unpopular opinion is in any way, shape, or form allowing someone's directing talent to cause you to excuse them for their actions, and no matter what argument you're making, this is what you're doing. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 09:10 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:So your argument is that it is okay to drug and rape a child as long as you feel bad about it and had bad things happen to you. Nice stealthy edit, and excellent misinterpretation of my post. Let me guess, you read Lolita and thought it was pornographic. ImpAtom posted:The unpopular opinion is in any way, shape, or form allowing someone's directing talent to cause you to excuse them for their actions, and no matter what argument you're making, this is what you're doing. I don't excuse his actions. I think he deserves the shame he lives under with regard to raping a child. In addition he happens to be an amazing director. My argument was, since I first posted about it, and remains: it is disingenuous to put his personal life in the same basket as that of Woody Allen. But yeah, I'm probably going to go back to talking about sci-fi now. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
second-hand smegma posted:Nice stealthy edit, and excellent misinterpretation of my post. Let me guess, you read Lolita and thought it was pornographic. I tried to be less agressive but I regret it now. What the gently caress are you talking about? That is in fact pretty much exactly what you said. How does him being a holocaust survivor and having a horrible event occur in his past provide 'context' to him drugging and raping a child and then fleeing the country? quote:I don't excuse his actions. I think he deserves the shame he lives under with regard to raping a child. In addition he happens to be an amazing director. You think he deserves the 'shame he lives under.' Which involves being wealthier than most people will ever be and having tons of people defend him or excuse him. The 'shame' which involved him fleeing the country because he thought he was going to get additional jail time. Even if the judge acted improperly in the case (and there's a lot of arguments to be made there), it doesn't change the fact that his 'shame' didn't actually extend to anything that would do more than mildly inconvenience him. There is nothing separating him from Woody Allen except that you like his films. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 09:29 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 01:12 |
|
|
I... kinda agree, I think? Polanski has at least faced some kind of consequences for what he did, even if he hasn't faced as many as he should. His public image is absolutely destroyed except among a select few film-industry people who lack perspective, his career is functionally over, he will never be able to return to the US for the rest of his life, and even the important films he's made will be forgotten as a result of what he did; he's not rotting in a jail cell, but I imagine his life still isn't exactly fun. Allen, meanwhile, has gotten off completely scot-free for every single horrible thing he's ever done, of which there are many. The most he's lost from any of the hosed up things he's pulled has been a marriage, that he presumably didn't want to continue anyways. They're both lovely, and tiering this kind of shittiness is basically splitting hairs, but Allen definitely makes me a lot angrier.
|
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 09:33
|
|