Sometimes You Just Gotta Say, "What The Fuck"

July 9, 2005 11:50 AM

Tom Cruise Is Nuts dot com.
posted by fandango_matt (65 comments total)

If people would just ignore this guy, he'd go away.
posted by cmonkey at 11:56 AM on July 9, 2005

I merely point out that www.tomcruisesnuts.com seems to be still unregistered.
posted by Wolfdog at 11:58 AM on July 9, 2005

jamesdobsonisnuts georgebushisnuts lronhubbardwasnuts saibabaisnuts where do you stop? Tom Cruise is just another fucking Scientologist.
posted by kozad at 12:03 PM on July 9, 2005

Why go through the bother of setting up a web site when the message comes in loud and clear via network television interviews?
posted by clevershark at 12:06 PM on July 9, 2005

So, is this FPP going to pick a fight with the one right before it?
posted by clevershark at 12:16 PM on July 9, 2005

tomfilter.
I'm thoroughly sick of him (and the majority of celebrities).
I definately liked him more when he attacked reporters who hounded him.
It seems like the media's drafting him into a reality show of it's own, unscripted creation.
posted by Busithoth at 12:27 PM on July 9, 2005

"People go for help, but their lives don't get better because of those [psychiatric] drugs. They get worse. They feel numb and they're told that's a good thing. It's how you degrade a society -- by drugging the piss out of it."

I'll buy that one...
posted by nervousfritz at 12:38 PM on July 9, 2005

I suppose, nervous. OTOH, it's not like Tom is doing all that well on the Scieno scam: he's nuttier than ever. That boy could do with some heavy medication!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:51 PM on July 9, 2005

I haven't been watching mr. Cruise's recent adventures very closely, but i've still heard every quote on that page tons of times. It's pretty much just transcripts from two interviews or so, cut into soundbites and arranged over a site, right?
Doing a website about Tom's nutty ramblings is a potentially funny idea, but this one just seems lazy...
posted by svenni at 12:53 PM on July 9, 2005

I should, in the name of full disclosure, state that I have thoroughly been enjoying "Tom Cruise kills Oprah" daily since its inception.

but I agree with svenni. nothing on a linked page from the menu was new to me.
posted by Busithoth at 12:57 PM on July 9, 2005

Kill. All. Celebrities.
posted by Citizen Premier at 12:59 PM on July 9, 2005

War of the Worlds has been out for two weeks. It has made $237M worldwide.

Nuts like a fox.
posted by gwint at 1:11 PM on July 9, 2005

Yeah, cause nobody would have wanted to see a summer Spielberg movie about aliens and stuff if Tom Cruise wasn't acting all crazy and promoting Scientology during his publicity appearances. It was required in his contract.
posted by spock at 1:32 PM on July 9, 2005

Tom Cruise Is Nuts dot com.

this guy has a firm grasp of the obvious dot com.
posted by jonmc at 1:41 PM on July 9, 2005

If a person went to see WotW I would hope they would buy a ticket to a different movie.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 1:43 PM on July 9, 2005

Nuts like a fox.?

Fox like a Nuts

Nuts like a Fux

Fuxs like a Nut.

Fux Nut.

...ooops aliens are coming!
posted by Mr Bluesky at 1:43 PM on July 9, 2005

How come this site deserves a MeFi FrontPager and Feed Lindsey.com doesn't?

Oh yeah, Lindsey's movie hasn't made $237M.

And, officially, "War of the Worlds" has fallen about 10-20% below industry expectations, at least in the U.S., and it looks like Spielberg will lose his private bet with George Lucas over who'll make more money this summer.

I have zero tolerance for the massive fraud called Scientology, but Cruise's manic attacks seem to have actually led to some light being led on that pseudo-religion, as I've noticed articles that are matter-of-factly talking about stuff that the Scientology scammer have worked very diligently to hide...

...denounced by critics as a cult that extracts tens of thousands of dollars from its followers.
Central to its adherents' beliefs: Earthlings were invaded millions of years ago by alien souls sent here from outer space.

posted by wendell at 1:44 PM on July 9, 2005

Ok, I think I get the (ridiculous) tenets of "scientology". I can sympathize with many criticisms of psychiatry. But this vendatta grudge they have against it... is just plain weird.

Did L Ron have some bad therapy sessions or what?
How to explain this?

Or did they just realize early on that the psychiatrists must be swifty undermined before they are rightly diagnosed as nutcases?
posted by dreamsign at 1:52 PM on July 9, 2005

They definitely need to get a better scriptwriter for Katie, if the W article is anything to go by--unless Tom wrote it for her?
posted by amberglow at 1:58 PM on July 9, 2005

dreamsign, I paid the 10,000 to get to the higher level of the order of Scientology, and I'll share my knowledge with you: the psychiatrists are direct descendants of the aliens!

or

L Ron was jealous of all the money he saw going into their pockets.
posted by Busithoth at 2:01 PM on July 9, 2005

Hmmm. I know next to nothing about Scientology, but I'm now noticing that in the new WoW, the aliens came to earth millions of years ago and left their machines deep underground. Then, in the present, the invaders are somehow beamed-in to the their machines via lightning flashes. It's all starting to sound a little familiar . . .
posted by washburn at 2:10 PM on July 9, 2005

As a SciFi author, Hubbard wasn't good enough to create anything with any pychological depth...

(I will, however, gladly become a disciple of any religion invented by Cory Doctorow or John Scalzi)
posted by wendell at 2:12 PM on July 9, 2005

boring-starfucker-meme.com
posted by MaxVonCretin at 2:19 PM on July 9, 2005

See how the Scientology Diet helped Nicole Kidman lose 180-200 lbs!
posted by brownpau at 2:26 PM on July 9, 2005

For the record, I found this recent W Magazine profile of Katie Holmes (via Defamer) to be about the creepiest glimpse of celebrity culture I've seen since Bobby Brown kept cutting in on Whitney Houston's Barbara Walters interview. And found it to be all the more surprising for showing up in the pages of a celebrity-mongering fashion rag.

And to those who've stopped in to yawn or jeer at the pathetic spectacle of displaying even a passing interest in Tom Cruise's ongoing meltdown, let me just say I'm in awe of your unwavering gravitas.
posted by gompa at 2:33 PM on July 9, 2005

I liked the design of the site. Is that bad?
posted by OmieWise at 2:35 PM on July 9, 2005

posted by quonsar at 2:44 PM on July 9, 2005

I don't get it -- No Google ads OR cheap cafe press t-shirts?
posted by Robot Johnny at 2:59 PM on July 9, 2005

i know gompa! her beautiful green eyes focused on nothing in particular says it all--they should at least give her some stage direction, no?

; >
posted by amberglow at 3:06 PM on July 9, 2005

Tom Cruise is nuts . . .

As any 12 year old would tell you, "duh!?"
posted by caddis at 3:38 PM on July 9, 2005

Well that was dissapointing.

There weren't any pictures in the Tom on Brooke and Brooke on Tom sections...
posted by Stauf at 3:44 PM on July 9, 2005

Celebrity has opinions.
Celebrity voices opinions.
Punters make a big deal out of it.
Repeat.
posted by signal at 4:36 PM on July 9, 2005

I don't get it -- No Google ads OR cheap cafe press t-shirts?

when the site first launched they were selling hats & shirts with the caricature of Tom, but his lawyer apparently threatened to sue them.
posted by pruner at 5:10 PM on July 9, 2005

Just wondering, but...

Is anyone here on Metafilter a Scientologist?
Does anyone here know anyone, you know, normal, that professes Scientology as their chosen path?

I don't. I understand it is a cult that insulates it's members away from the 'unwashed masses' so to speak, but I see a Scientology Center in almost every town...
posted by Balisong at 5:13 PM on July 9, 2005

Oh, wait..
Maybe that's a Christian Scientist Reading Room.

I get those confused, sometimes.
posted by Balisong at 5:15 PM on July 9, 2005

The lede from that aforementioned W article:
The statistics on arranged marriage are surprising. In every country where it is still common practice, including Afghanistan, India, Iraq, Iran and, to a lesser extent, Japan, an arranged marriage has a higher success rate than a so-called "love marriage."

Oh, you mean, those countries where women can't divorce their husbands?
posted by Airhen at 5:58 PM on July 9, 2005

well no shit dot com
posted by Kloryne at 6:54 PM on July 9, 2005

Quick question: what's the difference between a religion and a pseudo-religion?
posted by snarfodox at 7:28 PM on July 9, 2005

Evangelizing. Real religions don't have or need recruiters/salesmen.
posted by fandango_matt at 7:59 PM on July 9, 2005

I always assumed scientologists were against psychiatry for the simple reason that if they allowed their followers to get treatment, they might feel better and realize how nutzo scientology really is and leave the cult^h^h^h^religion?
posted by Larzarus at 8:20 PM on July 9, 2005

Is anyone here on Metafilter a Scientologist?
Does anyone here know anyone, you know, normal, that professes Scientology as their chosen path?

The CEO of my company knows one.

Supposedly the reason that Scientologests hate psychiatry is because L.Ron tried to get them on board with Dianetics, and they ignored him.
posted by delmoi at 8:29 PM on July 9, 2005

Hmmm. I know next to nothing about Scientology, but I'm now noticing that in the new WoW, the aliens came to earth millions of years ago and left their machines deep underground. Then, in the present, the invaders are somehow beamed-in to the their machines via lightning flashes. It's all starting to sound a little familiar . . .

Well, to be fair that was the orgional story in the book, right? Not that L-Ron was much of an orgional thinker (and they may have chose it due to the similarity)
posted by delmoi at 8:43 PM on July 9, 2005

Does anyone here know anyone, you know, normal, that professes Scientology as their chosen path?

The husband of one of my coworkers is a scientologist. I spent the day with the two of them at Magic Mountain and he seemed normal in every way I could tell. My cousin's husband's mother is also one and he was briefly as well. He sure has some stories to tell.
posted by euphorb at 9:35 PM on July 9, 2005

But nothing closer to home, huh?
Are Scientologists coached not to speak about it directly?
Unless you are a high profile celebrity, that is..
posted by Balisong at 9:42 PM on July 9, 2005

Once again I must state categorically that everyone who wants to be informed as to the nature of Scientology, must read A Piece of Blue Sky, the definitive insider's report of the church.

It is downright unnerving, and you really should make yourself informed as to the danger of this cult.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:58 PM on July 9, 2005

i hope you know that everybody here who said something bad about scientology is going to get sued now.
posted by troybob at 10:10 PM on July 9, 2005

delmoi:

No. In the book, the martians are observed almost every step of the way. Astronomers see the launch, the landing vessels crash into the earth. Inside of these capsules, were the raw materials for the fighting machines.

IIRC, the tripods, death rays, and buffet tables were assembled at the landing site and often while people were watching.

Haven't seen the movie yet and I hope they're not using a plot device of "invasion fleet buries itself millions of years ago on the vague hope that the mammals eventually evolve into something capable of making digital watches and at that point we'll wake up and have a barbeque"
posted by pandaharma at 2:27 AM on July 10, 2005

Quick question: what's the difference between a religion and a pseudo-religion?

To clarify:
A cult is an unpopular religion.
A religion is a popular cult.
A pseudo-religion is therefore a cult that presents itself as popular.

I can't really say that I find scientology that much worse than your average religion/cult. That's not an endorsement, mind you.
posted by spazzm at 3:56 AM on July 10, 2005

Also, for those interested in the dark side of Scientology, here's Operation Clambake - a site so offensive that even Google tried to delist it.
posted by spazzm at 4:02 AM on July 10, 2005

gompa, that's simultaneously sickening and worrying.

"I can do splits too," Holmes says, jumping down and splaying herself across the floor. On that note, I suggest, we should probably get the photo shoot started.

"On that note," she replies, "I love him."
posted by nthdegx at 4:03 AM on July 10, 2005

can't we just let these dim-wits burn their candles out already?

and FFF, thanks for reminding me of that blue book. I've downloaded it and will start it soon.
posted by Busithoth at 6:08 AM on July 10, 2005

I don't know if religion is really the same thing as insanity, although there are certainly similarities.
posted by pterodactyler at 6:18 AM on July 10, 2005

fandango_matt said: Evangelizing. Real religions don't have or need recruiters/salesmen.

So then, what you're saying is.. That there's no such thing as a "real" religion? Not that I would disagree, it's just that your comment was a bit unclear....
posted by rabble at 11:59 AM on July 10, 2005

Well, any religion whose subscribers actively seek to convert/recruit people isn't a religion; another litmus test would be pamphlets--if it's got a "Become a _____!" pamphlet, that's a pretty good indicator.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:24 PM on July 10, 2005

Ok, but I'm still confused; Wouldn't your religious litmus tests rule out EVERY religion? Or is that your point?
posted by rabble at 2:25 PM on July 10, 2005

No, not really. When someone hands me a pamphlet or tells me I need to join his or her ideology because my soul is in peril--well, I don't know what that is, but it sure isn't anything holy. Like I said earlier, the only religions worthy of consideration are the ones without salesmen and brochures.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:57 PM on July 10, 2005

Ok, let me try from this angle then:

Just exactly what religion is it that DOESN'T participate in these "unholy" practices? I certainly can't think of any....
posted by rabble at 3:38 PM on July 10, 2005

Sorry, but I'm not going to support or condemn any group with sweeping generalizations and I've already given you the criteria with which I judge religions of all kinds. If a group needs to recruit people with salesmen and brochures, then I have to wonder why they need to do so. Think about it.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:57 PM on July 10, 2005

So, in other words, you can't think of any either, right?

Either that, or the only acceptable religion is the one you believe in.

I mean, I hate to make assumptions, but your refusal to answer the question leaves me only to guess.

If you're willing to make the claim that there are such things as "real" (and, by inference, "unreal") religions, please at least take the time to back it up with logic and examples.
posted by rabble at 4:14 PM on July 10, 2005

i've always understood that one of the tenets of buddhism is that buddhists do not evangelize. buddhists don't seek out people to convert (to the extent that accepting buddhist teachings is any form of conversion), do not tell people they should be buddhist, don't tell people they're doomed if they don't become buddhist, and don't seek to take the place of other forms of religious belief--one can be of any denomination and also be a buddhist. they teach to those who seek to learn, by word and by example.
posted by troybob at 4:34 PM on July 10, 2005

...and i'm talking evangelism here in the sense that the evangelism is part of the official teachings of the belief system or the organization...it's natural that there would be personal, one-on-one sharing of beliefs

...i don't think judaism is evangelical...
posted by troybob at 4:49 PM on July 10, 2005

So, in other words, you can't think of any either, right? Either that, or the only acceptable religion is the one you believe in.

Wrong and wrong. I can think of several, none of which I will name out of respect to readers who may be members, nor will I engage in your would-be pissing match of examples.
posted by fandango_matt at 5:13 PM on July 10, 2005

one can be of any denomination and also be a buddhist. they teach to those who seek to learn, by word and by example.

Strictly speaking, some of the words they teach could be said counter-religious. It's pretty hard to be a good catholic buddhist and reject books, gurus and other forms of dogma in favour of personal experience, as the Buddha did (apparently).

"If Buddhism is attractive, it's only because it suggests that by belonging to it you can touch the infinite, and you can have joy without concrete religious obligations,' Ratzinger said. ``It's spiritually self-indulgent eroticism.'
posted by Sparx at 5:30 PM on July 10, 2005

for the record, i respect jews and buddhists, though i named them as examples :-P i don't think that was disrespectful in any case...

Strictly speaking, some of the words they teach could be said counter-religious.

I was speaking from the point of view of buddhism...they don't deny the beliefs of other religions in favor of their own, and don't state that one must give up other beliefs in order to practice...and unlike ratzinger (whose statement of 'belonging' betrays a misunderstanding of buddhist philosophy--unlike in catholicism, believers don't 'belong' to a system...the teachings belong to them), they don't insult other belief systems...buddhism says it's okay to be catholic and buddhist; whether catholicism does is another matter...
posted by troybob at 5:49 PM on July 10, 2005

Again, while they specifically don't say you can't, and wouldn't stop you from calling yourself a catholic buddhist...

(the above is generally speaking- there are many, many buddhist sects that believe slightly different things so this may not be universally true)

...they might be be very surprised if you persisted in doing so as you moved along the path, as the very things that make buddhism, well, buddhism, are antithetical to the exclusiveness of other types of religion. Buddhists themselves often describe buddhism in a 'meta' sense - a basket that contains the fruit of other religions, or the blind man that has touched all the elephant, and can thus see the truth of what the other blind men, who have only touched a part, say, while being amused at the intensity of their conviction that their interpretation of elephantism is the only correct one. Adherence to one spiritual vision only could be seen as an obstructive attachment.

That said, they probably wouldn't be that worried about it. You'll figure it own on your own, eventually.
posted by Sparx at 8:28 PM on July 10, 2005