Tom Cruise Goes All Xenu Upside Matt Lauer's Head

iGary said:
I tried to find it, but most of the links are dead. Katie wiped the floor with her, believe me.
Click to expand...

It looked even to me. Though Ann seemed off her game.

There was a breakdown in communication between the two. Ann's complaint was about the way the story was teased. Katie's defense was that they were just quoting.
 
clayj said:
Tom Cruise has LOST IT. The only reason I'm going to see War of the Worlds is because Steven Spielberg directed it... same reason I went to see Minority Report (Spielberg) and Eyes Wide Shut (Kubrick). But I'm pretty much done with Cruise after this... no matter who directs the movie. I have ZERO respect for him.

Heck, I'd prefer to watch Hayden Christensen act... and that's saying something. :)
Click to expand...

Maybe he spent to much time hanging with vamps. :D
 
jared_kipe said:
I think it's funny how much Lauer was letting [Tom Cruise] ramble on and on then says "it's interesting to talk to you, you've done your homework and really know the subject" which Cruise thanks him for, when Lauer's comment was perhaps the most patronizing comment of the year.
Click to expand...
Yes! It's been several days now since I saw the video of the interview, but my impression was not that Matt Lauer "wimped out" by not being more confrontational. What I saw was Matt just sitting back and letting Cruise (as you put it) ramble on, making a fool of himself on national television; I thought he played it perfectly.
 
Lyle said:
Yes! It's been several days now since I saw the video of the interview, but my impression was not that Matt Lauer "wimped out" by not being more confrontational. What I saw was Matt just sitting back and letting Cruise (as you put it) ramble on, making a fool of himself on national television; I thought he played it perfectly.
Click to expand...

You don't get to Lauer's position in the news/entertainment business and keep it for as many years as he has by being stupid. He certainly knows how to manage and pace a conversation/interview -- how to draw people out and, as appropriate, provide them with all the rope they need.
 
It's Live TV, so how Matt handled the situation was exemplary. I would have smacked Tom upside the head.
 
mac_2005 said:
You don't get to Lauer's position in the news/entertainment business and keep it for as many years as he has by being stupid. He certainly knows how to manage and pace a conversation/interview -- how to draw people out and, as appropriate, provide them with all the rope they need.
Click to expand...
Indeed, Lauer was doing it well enough. Everyone who watched the interview should come away with exactly the same ideas we now have about Tom Cruise.
 
broken_keyboard said:
Why? I don't understand why people think he was such a loon...
Click to expand...
I think it's Tom Cruise's beliefs about Scientology, and some of his recent unusual behavior (e.g. jumping up and down on the sofa at Oprah's) that are leading people to believe he's looney.

Nothing that he said during his interview with Matt Lauer was particularly crazy (as far as I can remember). Provacative, you bet, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. For example, I think it's reasonable to say that a lot of Americans who aren't into Scientology are uncomfortable about the widespread use of drugs like Ritalin, especially for young kids. However, in the process of defending his position(s), Tom came off as quite a jerk -- the kind of guy who, as Lacero put it, you'd like to smack upside the head. He was extremely condescending, whereas Matt was very polite throughout the interview.
 
Lyle said:
I think it's Tom Cruise's beliefs about Scientology, and some of his recent unusual behavior (e.g. jumping up and down on the sofa at Oprah's) that are leading people to believe he's looney.

Nothing that he said during his interview with Matt Lauer was particularly crazy (as far as I can remember). Provacative, you bet, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. For example, I think it's reasonable to say that a lot of Americans who aren't into Scientology are uncomfortable about the widespread use of drugs like Ritalin, especially for young kids. However, in the process of defending his position(s), Tom came off as quite a jerk -- the kind of guy who, as Lacero put it, you'd like to smack upside the head. He was extremely condescending, whereas Matt was very polite throughout the interview.
Click to expand...

People have made fun of Cruise for years. He's good-looking and charming enough, but I suspect he's not exactly the scholar -- if you know what I mean.

Also, few people -- when asked to articulate an opinion -- resort to the type of argument that Cruise did on the Today Show. "You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do." is the kind of retort you expect on the playground. So coming from a 42-year-old adult, it really is a statement that invites ridicule.

Cruise seems to be forgetting that he's an actor -- one whose only known source of information is the CoS, an organization founded by a known paranoid schizophrenic who wrote openly to his wife about the drugs he was taking while developing his "OT III" materials. His "knowledge" of psychiatry may conform to Hubbard's teachings, but it isn't the acknowledged history of an accepted medical science.
 
mac_2005 said:
People have made fun of Cruise for years...
Click to expand...
Sure, but he seems to be getting more and more out of control as of late. Or maybe we're just talking about it more now. I heard that at some point in the recent past Tom fired his previous public relations (PR) assistant and replaced that person with his sister. The previous PR assistant was apparently good about keeping Tom in check, and advising him when to keep his mouth shut. Tom's sister, however, is more "lenient" and that may be why we're seeing more of the "real" Tom now.
 
Lyle said:
Sure, but he seems to be getting more and more out of control as of late. Or maybe we're just talking about it more now. I heard that at some point in the recent past Tom fired his previous public relations (PR) assistant and replaced that person with his sister. The previous PR assistant was apparently good about keeping Tom in check, and advising him when to keep his mouth shut. Tom's sister, however, is more "lenient" and that may be why we're seeing more of the "real" Tom now.
Click to expand...

I got the impression that the CoS is pretty strict about its members distancing themselves from non-Scientologists, and that this was related both to his firing his previous publicist and the collapse of his marriage to Kidman. There was some speculation that he had reached a higher "level" that requires him to be more strict about these things.

One of the commonly-recognized features of a cult is that it requires its members to confront or avoid critics -- including family and friends -- of the cult's leaders and beliefs. Maybe that's the stage he's reached now. He doesn't seem particularly dangerous, just loopy.

Katie's loved ones should probably be concerned. After all, in the long term, he can easily afford all the cash required to participate in Scientology, whereas her career doesn't seem to have much potential at this point. And if her family doesn't support her beliefs, they could find themselves cut off from her. Oh, and there's the brainwashing thing too.
 
Lacero said:
What? A lot of people believe in extraterrestrial life.
Click to expand...

i Know i certainly do, i find it impossible to believe there is not a single population of bacterium living of hydrogen sulfide somewhere outside of our atmosphere, having said that cruise is nuts for reasons other than this :rolleyes:
 
In the example using Tom Cruise specifically, I think that their biggest success has been in convincing Tom Cruise that his success has been attributable to Scientology's influence. TC has a natural talent for acting, this has always been apparent. Constant support from Scientology lackeys may have kept him focused, but I think he started to believe in them more than himself far too much. He may genuinely think that Scientology has something to offer, but for the outside observer, the inconsistencies are all too apparent. The same sort of delusions are not unique to Scientology though.

Scientology's allowance of this behavior suggests that they are also somewhat detached from reality, the public reaction cannot be what they were hoping for. Unfortunately, that reaction does not seem to be universal. Scientology is a relatively new religion though, and this may just be apart of the process, they are unlikely to go away anytime soon. And for religion, rewriting or reinterpreting the actions and reactions to individuals is not something that is taboo. TC's actions and the public reaction can always be retold at a later time. Depending on whether Scientology advances, or whether it does not. All indications so far suggest that it is going to continue to spread, and with more followers comes more influence, especially with people like TC.

Something to keep in mind for all of those who are religious. No matter how grounded your religion may seem, instances like this are probably not uncommon. Though as technology advances, history is harder to rewrite, I hope. Whether or not people are privy to this information is another story, whether or not people are willing to accept a dissenting view is different again.

Since Scientology chooses to be recognized as a religion though, comparisons can be made, and some of the similarities are not all that surprising. For me at least, for others maybe.
 
Xtremehkr said:
Since Scientology chooses to be recognized as a religion though, comparisons can be made, and some of the similarities are not all that surprising. For me at least, for others maybe.
Click to expand...

The CoS adopted this approach for tax purposes. It's well-documented that L.R.H. boasted that he could write sci-fi novels at a penny a word or rake in millions by starting a "religion."
 
mac-er said:
Ok..Tom is officially nuts..

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/29/cruise.aliens.reut/index.html

Its great he believes in the all the nutty stuff he believe in, but he is just so arrogant about it.

Just because he is Tom Cruise and it's coming out of his mouth...its true.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more with scientology, but to believe that there are other forms of life in the universe is quite sensible, and certainly not 'nutty' (and scientology goes way beyond this with the whole xenu and other insanities).
That doesn't mean that aliens hover around in flying disks abducting people, just that in the trillions of worlds out there there are likely a lot of 'lifeforms', some of which possibly sentient.
I don't 'know' if they exist or if we'll ever contact them, but it is certainly a more reasonable and logical position than believing that some old uberbored guy sitting on a cloud created us out of clay and then proceeded to try to make our life miserable in every conceivable way. but a lot of people seem to be happy believing that (with minor variants).
 
Italian Artist said:
Yeah, you actually might want to dust of that old copy of Dianetics, and you might actually want to read it. Give you some information. And if you did read it and didn't get it, make sure to clear and misunderstood words you have in the book, because that is the result of your non-understanding.
Click to expand...

I love how dianetics is made up of unintelligible jargon and that understanding is based on a dictionary. What a load of cr-p. The reason for non-understanding, another non word by the way, is that l ron h. was a raving lunatic with a desire for immediate wealth.

My brother was totally destroyed by his organization. Psychiatric assistance could well have solved his problems but he was preyed upon by money sucking idiots who have slowly but surely destroyed him.

On a side note, I refuse to watch any program with a scientology member, or buy any magazine that contains its advertisements and let those that do know my feelings.

tom is a **** and will be devoured by the org as soon as he really and truly goes off the deep end. Let's hope it's sooner than later.
 
mac_2005 said:
The CoS adopted this approach for tax purposes. It's well-documented that L.R.H. boasted that he could write sci-fi novels at a penny a word or rake in millions by starting a "religion."
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that neither changes the fact that it is now considered a religion, nor that it will continue to be recognized a religion with all the ferocity that all other religions are considered to be religions. If this were a few decades ago, you may be saying the same thing about Mormonism. Ultimately, Mormonism has survived to become a recognized (and fairly well respected, depending on where you are coming from) religion that is unlikely to go away. Given the lack of provable evidence, how does one religion become more credible than another? I guess the time it has been around and the number of followers have an influential role in this. Scientology has made great efforts to recruit those who they think will influence others to join, give them a few decades and based upon the possible number of followers, who is going to argue?

I would say that it is already virtually impossible to deny the fact that Scientology is going to become an influential religion. Socially or otherwise. In fact, given some of their recruits and the fact the we are discussing it, they already are an influential religion, cult, business, or however you choose to recognize them as an individual organization. How potentially influential the become may rely upon how well the separation of Church and State survives.

Something for those opposed to Church and State separation positions to consider. No?
 
I wish somebody would have read the printed label on Tom Cruise's tongue.

"Warning: Do not brainwash in hot water, shrinkage may occur."
 
Xtremehkr said:
Unfortunately, that neither changes the fact that it is now considered a religion, nor that it will continue to be recognized a religion with all the ferocity that all other religions are considered to be religions. If this were a few decades ago, you may be saying the same thing about Mormonism. Ultimately, Mormonism has survived to become a recognized (and fairly well respected, depending on where you are coming from) religion that is unlikely to go away. Given the lack of provable evidence, how does one religion become more credible than another? I guess the time it has been around and the number of followers have an influential role in this. Scientology has made great efforts to recruit those who they think will influence others to join, give them a few decades and based upon the possible number of followers, who is going to argue?

I would say that it is already virtually impossible to deny the fact that Scientology is going to become an influential religion. Socially or otherwise. In fact, given some of their recruits and the fact the we are discussing it, they already are an influential religion, cult, business, or however you choose to recognize them as an individual organization. How potentially influential the become may rely upon how well the separation of Church and State survives.

Something for those opposed to Church and State separation positions to consider. No?
Click to expand...

Scientology is not considered a religion outside of the CoS or Scientologists. Legally, in the United States, it is a nonprofit organization. (In Europe, several countries have declared the church a business attempting to use "religion" as a means to drive sales.) It is the CoS that insists it is a religion, and Scientologists who concur.

By every definable measure, the CoS is a cult and nothing more. (Surely you can't be serious about equating legitimacy with longevity and the number of followers.)

Also, "Mormonism" is not a religion. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but Mormons would consider themselves Christians and do not put their faith in Joseph Smith -- rather, they see him as a prophet who revealed Jesus Christs' teachings to people living in North America. (In fact, Mormons call their church "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.")

One can argue the practices and theology of one particular faith over another. That's not the issue here.

Instead of rallying around the idea of religion and the free practice thereof, look into the CoS a bit further. Read the letters of L.R.H. that are now readily available and listen to his lectures. Then check out his FBI file. Consider his business practices and the $200 million the IRS contends he skimmed off the top and laundered to offshore accounts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Christ, nor Allah nor the Buddha charged a fee for the path to enlightenment.
 
mac_2005 said:
Scientology is not considered a religion outside of the CoS or Scientologists. Legally, in the United States, it is a nonprofit organization. (In Europe, several countries have declared the church a business attempting to use "religion" as a means to drive sales.) It is the CoS that insists it is a religion, and Scientologists who concur.

By every definable measure, the CoS is a cult and nothing more. (Surely you can't be serious about equating legitimacy with longevity and the number of followers.)

Also, "Mormonism" is not a religion. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but Mormons do not put their faith in Joseph Smith -- rather, they see him as a prophet who revealed Jesus Christs' teachings to people living in North America. (In fact, the Mormon church is called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.)

One can argue the practices and theology of one particular faith over another. That's not the issue here.

Instead of rallying around the idea of religion and the free practice thereof, look into the CoS a bit further. Read the letters of L.R.H. that are now readily available and listen to his lectures. Then check out his FBI record. Consider his business practices and the $200 million the IRS contends he skimmed off the top and laundered to offshore accounts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Christ, nor Allah nor the Buddha charged a fee for the path to enlightenment.
Click to expand...

Given time these positions change. That is the point, especially when they have many influential members who are going to attract people to that religion, or whatever you wish to name it.

However you wish to frame Mormonism, it has become a distinct and influential part of christianity as a whole. Not only does it have a solid hold here the in US, it has become an internationally recognized sect in many countries. So has Scientology.

I don't know where you are coming from personally, but Scientology is established, recognized, and influential as a religion.

Whether they charge or not is irrelevant to me, because even religions based upon the same source have found reason to hate and kill each other, so charging for whatever the rewards are seems well within the realms of what religions can ask of followers. Most religions depend upon the material support of their followers in one way or another. Scientology more directly than others in a lot of ways, but overall that changes little.

I am not an advocate for Scientology, I view all religion with a healthy amount of skepticism, though I see the good that can be done through religion and am against banning it. My skepticism of religion as a whole, though, leads me to treat all of them in the same light. That being a reluctance to see any one becoming a major societal influence through government.

There are a lot of subtle differences that exist between all of the religions that are recognized, but basically anything can be a religion as far as I know. When I was in the Navy there were more than 1600 recognized religions. So, it is not beyond the pale that Scientology is recognized as such. You may dispute the language used, but aren't all religions recognized that way?

Consider it a cult or not, I don't care, I have seen different sects of christianity here accuse the other of being cults, here on MacRumors. The fact is, they exist and will continue to exist as a religion as far as I know, whether I like it or not. And it is their right, as it is mine not to be apart of a religion.

Given the definition of religion, it is hard to say what can be a religion and what can't be without impinging upon freedom of religion. Whether I agree with Scientology or not, it has the right to exist. And from what I know of religion as a whole, it is no more ridiculous than some of the other belief systems I have come across. As long as people are able to join and leave of their own free will, I don't see what say I have in the matter. I just want to have separation so that people of different (or no) belief systems can coexist peacefully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top