Liked the first one. Hated the second one. The reviews I read seemed to indicate that the third movie addressed the problems of the second, so I went.
I liked it.
It isn't The Tom Cruise Show!!! the way the second one was, which was completely wrong for a movie based on a classic show about a team. He's more vulnerable, he screws up, he gets saved by other people at times, and there are no silly CGI motorcycle stunts.
Decent story, if a bit light. Some good misdirection. Cruise's abilities are back to merely incredible, instead of superhero level, And you finally get to see how they make those masks so fast.
The issue of whether to support Cruise's movie because he's a nutjob wasn't an issue for me - I don't let my opinion of an actor affect my opinion of that actor's work.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'll probably go see it. Not going would be like failing to read the 3rd book in a trilogy...even if the 2nd and 1st books were terrible.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I haven't seen any of the MI movies and have no plans to. Not because Cruise is a nutjob but simply because I didn't care for the original series and so the movies didn't appeal.
I think the last Cruise movie I saw was probably Magnolia. Oops, take that back. Minority Report. His character in Magnolia did definitely turn me off, and yes I know it's a character but I wonder if there's a seed there.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Not liking the original series should be no impediment to liking these movies, as they are nothing like the original series. I won't even tellyou what heresies they do to Mr. Phelps.
But, meh, it's not like they're very good movies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought the first one was pretty clever, and I liked it. But I thought the second was a horrible follow up.
I'll see this one if I can get in to see it for free, but it fails what I consider to be the most important test for a movie: Am I willing to pay $7.50 to see it?
Has nothing to do with the fact that Cruise is a whack job these days either. I half expect him to jump out and say "You've been punked!" to all of America one of these days. But I don't care how crazy the person is who makes the movie, I judge it on its merits, or lack thereof.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
yeah, I kind of feel that way about several actors who are far better than Tom Cruise at portraying a chacter.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why is there this idea that Cruise is crazy these days? The media may cast him as such a lot of the time, but in general I think it is almost always unwise to assume famous people actually are the way gossip reports make them out to be.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Let's see... how about the couch jumping episode? Or the verbal attacks on Matt Lauer and Brooke Shields? Those certainly didn't need the gossip sheets to get around.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'll see this one if I can get in to see it for free, but it fails what I consider to be the most important test for a movie: Am I willing to pay $7.50 to see it?
Wow, movies where you live only cost $7.50? That's cheap. I wish I only paid $7.50 for a movie.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He is an idiot, and I won't see this....or at least I won't pay money for it. I don't care if anyone else does, I just refuse to support his ego any further after his recent ignorant, insulting diatribes.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Why is there this idea that Cruise is crazy these days? The media may cast him as such a lot of the time, but in general I think it is almost always unwise to assume famous people actually are the way gossip reports make them out to be.
Yah, the media totally misconstrued the way he said that he has the ability to cure people of heroin addiction in three days. Also they cast him in a really unfavorable light when he married a woman half his age, then they totally boned him when he jumped on a couch and screamed about it. Then they totally blew out of proportion the fact that he bought an ultrasound machine to watch his child.
Its obvious this is the media's fault, not Cruise for rubbing his craziness everywhere he goes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'll see this one if I can get in to see it for free, but it fails what I consider to be the most important test for a movie: Am I willing to pay $7.50 to see it?
Wow, movies where you live only cost $7.50? That's cheap. I wish I only paid $7.50 for a movie.
Used to be $9.50 when it was owned by Loews, but they were bought out by AMC, so it was lowered to $8.50, but with a student rate of $7.50. It's a moot point, I don't pay for movies that often anyway, but I AM glad they lowered it. Almost ten dollars was ridiculous.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Let's see... how about the couch jumping episode? Or the verbal attacks on Matt Lauer and Brooke Shields? Those certainly didn't need the gossip sheets to get around.
Anywhere these things are reported as legitimate news stories is gossiping, as far as I'm concerned.
Half the people I know do stranger things than these all the time. The difference is that they aren't in the public's eye while doing them. Celebrities are called crazy for doing the things that normal people would get away with doing every day. Look at how Bush gets portrayed as stupid when he does things like choke on a pretzel or mix up a word - things that are not unusual among reasonably smart people. While these people do typically get to be rich and famous, that doesn't justify drawing conclusions about how they are bad people from a handful of news stories, when you have never even met them. It's gossiping on a junior high level - but for some reason it's considered okay for adults to draw such conclusions publicly when it comes to famous people.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Personally, I'd prefer NOT to see famous people in the public eye outside of their actual performances. I have no interest in who married who, who's having kids, who's getting a divorce, any of that stuff. But as long as people keep buying Hello and OK and People and Entertainment Weekly in the quantities they do, that type of "coverage" will never go away. Or maybe when the celebs start putting their collective feet down and refusing to get into personal details that have nothing to do with their jobs. And I only can justify a small portion of the appearances on shows like Letterman. The part that specifically pertains to a coming movie or TV show or concert tour. Getting into what should be their personal lives? No thank you.
Were movie stars always covered this intimately? I don't know, but somehow I think not. How long did it for the news that Rock Hudson was homosexual to become public, for example? So what changed - and why? Why did we as a society lose respect for the fact that these people have private lives? Was it because the stars were ramming it down our throats or because interviewers kept pushing for details?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Tres...they weren't just reported, he DID them on TV, during either shows or interviews, so there isn't any sort of spin possible.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Just for the record, I buy Entertainment Weekly for the movie reviews.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I tend to avoid anything with Tom Cruise in it, and have for a lot longer than he's been acting nuts. I just don't like him. The only thing I've ever seen him in that I liked was "Born on the Fourth of July", which I only saw because I had read the book and liked it a lot.
On the other hand, this new film has Philip Seymour Hoffman in it. I like him a lot. So, I might end up breaking down and seeing the stupid movie.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote: The issue of whether to support Cruise's movie because he's a nutjob wasn't an issue for me
He's an actor. It's a movie. All I care about is his performance.
That was pretty good. Whatever else I might have to say about him, Cruise is a reasonably competent actor.
The script, on the other hand, lacked stuff like plot and characterization that no amount of acting or direction could make up for. IMO. It was like a made-for-TV movie-of-the-week with a 50-million-dollar effects budget.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I'll probably go see it. Not going would be like failing to read the 3rd book in a trilogy...even if the 2nd and 1st books were terrible.
I don't want to support a franchise that never should have made it to #2, and certainly not to #3.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QUOTE]
Half the people I know do stranger things than these all the time. The difference is that they aren't in the public's eye while doing them. Celebrities are called crazy for doing the things that normal people would get away with doing every day. Look at how Bush gets portrayed as stupid when he does things like choke on a pretzel or mix up a word - things that are not unusual among reasonably smart people.
Bush wanted to become the President of the United states. You don't give somebody the benefit of the doubt when he's trying to be the most powerful person in the world.
You think these celebrities don't use and cultivate all this press? You think they don't feed all the gossip and the magazines and TV shows to get publicity? This is playing with fire, you get burned just like a normal person would, but you were the one that wanted to be famous, you were the one that wanted all that money. Celebrities shouldn't whine and complain that they have lost the ability to manipulate the public to their advantage. They started it. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Palliard:
quote: The issue of whether to support Cruise's movie because he's a nutjob wasn't an issue for me
He's an actor. It's a movie. All I care about is his performance.
That's like buying a book and saying the only thing that matters is that its well written. It matters who wrote the book and why, and who that person is and what they believe in should affect the book. I'm not saying you need to exlude an author based on who or what they are, but you do need to know things like that too, in order to understand where the writing (or in this case the performance) is coming from. Isn't this the reason why DVD commentaries and documentaries have become so popular? It gives you an idea of where the film is coming from... otherwise we might as well just develop computer programs that can write our movies for us and do it all with CGI. If the performance of a computer is on par with a human, and that is all you need, then why not.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Early morning show for you cheapskates like me. Two people, $10.50. I liked it. I honestly think it's hilarious that people have such polar opinions when it comes to Tom Cruise. Sure, he went completely off topic when he went to show a preview for War of the Worlds.
I think it's silly that people won't go see a movie because an actor said something they dislike. Tom Cruise doesn't play himself on screen, he plays Ethan Hunt, ok? If you don't like Ethan Hunt, don't go see the movie.
To the important stuff: Mi1 was awesome. Mi2 had some cool stuff in it but overall was a dissapointment in many ways. Mi3 I think takes more of the cool stuff from the 2nd and puts it in the style like the 1st. Overall I thought it was a well done action movie. And definately worth $10.50 to go see it.
Orincoro: I disagree. A person can make many types of works that are completely unrelated to their own values and tastes. It's unlikely to have a sole author do that, but when you have a script and a director, it would be pretty hard for him to act like he has done on TV as himself. That's not his goal, his goal is to be someone else.
If someone were to write a book because someone commissioned it from them and had specific guidelines on how to write it, you could get away with the same thing. You're almost comparing apples to oranges there.
Next, to mention your comment about CGI vs Human acting. Look at any CGI movie, Take any Pixar film as an example, you'll see that they are good on screen actors, even though they have human voices.
I'm probably misunderstanding your comment about that, because I can't say I really understand what you are getting at by saying that.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'll probably wait until Netflix. I hate to give Cruise money because it supports the idea that these inane publicity stunts are beneficial. If you encourage Tom Cruise to act crazy and insult people and spew a bunch of garbage, you'll have more and more actors doing it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Only if you wouldn't have seen it otherwise.
Russell Crowe as a human being interests me not at all, he seems to be a jerk with anger control issues. Russell Crowe as an actor is someone I'll pay to see. From all reports actors like Dustin Hoffman and Val Kilmer are incredibly difficult to work with, yet the end result is often wonderful.
Or, to go another direction: I am not Mormon. I do not agree with any of the beliefs specific to Mormons and I have no interest in supporting the Mormon religion with my money. Doesn't stop me from buying OSC's stuff the day it comes out, even the stuff that has heavy Mormon themes in it.
Your mileage may vary, of course. I just don't see the point in denying myself entertainment because of differing beliefs.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Others do, apparently. Seems MI:III made 10 mil less than expected, which means that "only" making 48 million on the opening weekend was somehow a disaster even though it wasn't a holiday weekend or anything.
I wish Serenity had made "only" 48 million the first weekend...
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
MI:II totally turned me off to Cruise. My wife and I saw this in the theater (with my mom who is a diehard Cruise fan) and we had to stifle our laughter at the increasing un-believability of what was on the screen.
I understand that MI:III fixes some of those issues, but I still won't pay to see it. If someone gives me the III DVD someday, then I'll watch it... maybe.
It was because of Cruise that I still haven't seen War of the Worlds.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I saw it last night. It was fun. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually I think I saw MI:III in spite of Cruise being in it. I remember not having the slightest interest in The Last Samurai or War of the Worlds.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Liked the first one. Hated the second one.
Same here (although there's a plot hole that still bothers me about the first one). The trailer for III didn't get my interest, so I'll be waiting for the DVD.
Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
See, for me, with Russell Crowe, I can forget it's him, he's just whatever character he plays. I forget it's him. I'm finding it increasingly hard to do that with Cruise.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's an interesting point. I noticed that when he was using disguises in MI3, his essential "Tom Cruiseness" was still there. I didn't believe him in any of the disguises, whereas I did believe his IMF teammates.
However, I did believe (and really like) Cruise in Collateral. So he can do it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres...they weren't just reported, he DID them on TV, during either shows or interviews, so there isn't any sort of spin possible.
That's how spin always works. The incident may be public, but the spin comes afterwards, from the way people talk about it. There's nothing crazy about jumping around couches on Oprah, other than that celebrities don't usually act that way on TV. But when people start to gossip about it as if it is, then people come to believe it is.
quote:That's like buying a book and saying the only thing that matters is that its well written. It matters who wrote the book and why, and who that person is and what they believe in should affect the book.
No it doesn't.
A good book is a good book no matter who wrote it or where it is "coming from". It's value is determined by it's impact on the reader, which is not determined by where the author is coming from, but rather by how good of a book it is and by how the reader comes to approach it.
If a computer could write a great novel, then there'd be nothing wrong with that. The trouble is, no computer has yet been able to.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Tom Cruise doesn't play himself on screen, he plays Ethan Hunt, ok?
In most movies I've seen him in, he wasn't playing any part other than Tom Cruise.
Tom Cruise in a figher plane Tom Cruise in a race car Tom Cruise with an autistic brother Tom Cruise in the future Tom Cruise as a spy Tom Cruise as a boxer/immigrant
He seems to play almost exactly the same character in most movies, just with different cool stuff they get to do.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
If I avoided movies, music, or books because the actor(ress)/singer/author said or did something in RL that made me think they were an idiot, I'd have to take up knitting or something.
Edited for mph: Not that there's anything wrong with knitting is or anything
[ May 08, 2006, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I thought it was okay. The franchise could use De Palma again though.
That film has aged really well.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Cruise's episode with Lauer has actually made me more favorably disposed toward him, but he still really creeps me out. To be fair, I still hold "Eyes Wide Shut" against his then-wife. I also never go to the movies anymore.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I'll probably go see it. Not going would be like failing to read the 3rd book in a trilogy...even if the 2nd and 1st books were terrible.
And this is why Hollywood could care less about making good sequels.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm with BQT... MOST actors are complete and utter nutters. Most singers are too.
I think you have to be a little insane to be good at any art.
Still, try as I might, there are some actors I simply can't forget and forgive and enjoy watching them act =/
Cruise isn't one of them.
Pix
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: That's like buying a book and saying the only thing that matters is that its well written.
It is!
quote:If the performance of a computer is on par with a human, and that is all you need, then why not.
Thus far, that conditional has yet to be satisfied. But when and if it is, bring on the computer-generated entertainment! (I, for one, welcome our new silicon overlords.)
Posted by dawnmaria (Member # 4142) on :
I may have to go see it for Philip Seymour Hoffman. I adore him. But the fact Cruise is in it is turning me off. I've never really cared for him but when he started going off about post partum depression he lost me for good. I wish actors would just act and leave the doctoring to the doctors. I hope his fiancee doesn't have any problems. But I am sure if you have to give birth in silence that talkig about your feelings is right out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: If I avoided movies, music, or books because the actor(ress)/singer/author said or did something in RL that made me think they were an idiot, I'd have to take up knitting or something.
You say that as though it's a bad thing.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But when people start to gossip about it as if it is, then people come to believe it is.
While I do agree that this might be true of the majority of people in general, I don't believe this to be true for the majority of people that have posted here on this topic.
quote:There's nothing crazy about jumping around couches on Oprah, other than that celebrities don't usually act that way on TV.
If it's not crazy, it's at least a little weird. I don't know any adults that jump on their couches in the privacy of their own homes, let alone in front of millions of viewers.
I get irritated with him when I watch his interviews, hear his public statements on certain issues, and see his very public actions. OK, maybe that doesn't make him crazy, but it certainly makes me not like the guy.
That said, I wouldn't let that stop me from watching a movie that he's in. If anything, it's the characters that he plays that turn me off to his movies.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
There are people who start campaigns to damage my father financially because they don't agree with his opinions, too. I think those people are jerks.
I love Tom Cruise's work, and I'll keep watching him, even if he is a bit eccentric. I don't see why I should "refuse to support" him in ... what? Being a bit crazy? Believing strange things? There are millions of people who do those things who take home a good paycheck every day and deserve it. Despite his personal eccentricities, he makes great movies, and as long as he sticks to that last bit, I'll be in the audience.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
In most movies I've seen him in, he wasn't playing any part other than Tom Cruise.
True. So the interest for me comes in when he's put in a difficult situation where I can see how Tom Cruise the character will react.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That only works if you enjoy Tom Cruise the character.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There are people who start campaigns to damage my father financially because they don't agree with his opinions, too.
*laugh* Seriously? I've heard a few people in the industry complain about his opinions, but I've never seen an orchestrated campaign -- even a recommended boycott -- of any kind. When did it happen?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
True. Which is why I generally only watch him when he's playing a cocky, over-confident person who's in over his head. When he's a cocky, over-confident character in a situation where he's not really threatened, such as in a poorly written drama or an action movie where he is apparently invulnerable (or, say, when he's being interviewed by Matt Lauer), I couldn't care less.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm sure that if EG ever becomes a blockbuster hit, there will be plenty of people who come across one of OSC's essays, or hear he's a Mormon, etc. and come to the conclusion that he must be a religious neoconservative wacko. I'd guess that sort of thing happens a lot when most people hear only your most outrageous aspects from the news and think they can then make judgements about your character without ever having met you.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Chris, did you see Collateral? If so, what did you think?
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
If I can't even remember the first two movies in a series, I'll rarely go see the third one. All I remember about either previous MI movie is exploding sunglasses.
Ni!
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
I liked Cruise in Risky Business and Minority Report. That's it.
Every movie by Russell Crowe that I've seen is an instant entry on my favorites list. I don't know anything about his private life or political views; I don't wanna know.
I don't have much respect for the actor-class that uses their celebrity status to push their own private issues. Its a job, get over yourself already.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Oh, right, Minority Report! I forgot that was even Tom Cruise, which I guess speaks well for his role in the film. I liked that movie. Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I really didn't like MI2, so I won't bother with seeing the 3rd in the theater. I'll likely see it when netflix gets it though.
I do think Tom Cruise is a nut...but, I dislike the personalities of many actors...but still like their movies. I think Tim Robbins is a nut as well, but love the Shawshank Redemption. Judging by his interviews, I think Russell Crow is an arrogant jerk...but I see every movie he is in because that man can seriously act.
I just don't think Tom Cruise is in the same league acting wise. He has some great movies (Top Gun is one of my favorite movies), but for the most part I think his acting ability is uninspiring.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
[QUOTE]That's like buying a book and saying the only thing that matters is that its well written. It matters who wrote the book and why, and who that person is and what they believe in should affect the book.
No it doesn't.
A good book is a good book no matter who wrote it or where it is "coming from". It's value is determined by it's impact on the reader, which is not determined by where the author is coming from, but rather by how good of a book it is and by how the reader comes to approach it.
The fact that you had to edit out my explanation of that point proves to me that you saw something in it which was valid, and didn't want to admit it. Please don't do that, I explained what I meant, and you reacted to it as if I had said something completely different.
Ps. A categorical denial of a point which has some merit on the whole, is not going to advance your side of the issue, but keep me from wanting to engage you at all, since it seems you don't care for listening to what people actually say.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: That's like buying a book and saying the only thing that matters is that its well written.
It is!
quote:If the performance of a computer is on par with a human, and that is all you need, then why not.
Thus far, that conditional has yet to be satisfied. But when and if it is, bring on the computer-generated entertainment! (I, for one, welcome our new silicon overlords.)
This is exactly my point. If you could have a computer write a book which speaks to you on as many levels as a human written book, or was even BETTER than a "real" book, what does that say about the value of literature? If you base everything on the enjoyability of the experience, you miss the whole point of art, which is supposedly to be mirror on life. That mirror, IMO isn't real if a computer makes it up according to what you'll like and respond well to. That's an Orwellian nightmare to me.
This kind of society, where we only respond to the enjoyability or ease or virtuousity of a performance, would inevitably lead to decay, almost immediately. While there is nothing at all wrong with liking enjoyability, pleasure, virtuosity and computers, there is an inherent tendency to entropy in such a sense-heavy system. I think eventually a society that prides itself on nothing but workmanship and show, and all other surface qualities -(because make no mistake something totally computer generated would be ALL surface value)- will have no artistic or intellectual base at all.
Is that where you arrive from not caring what the person who writes your books actually believes about life? Maybe. The answer I'm afraid, is not a categorical no; you have to consider the implications of any trend. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The fact that I edited out the rest of your explanation only proves that I don't like to quote whole posts. It's too long. You just did the same thing to my post, leaving out my response to your computer argument. Does that prove that you see how it shows I am right and just don't want to admit it?
I did respond to your explanation, where you argued that we need to know where an author is coming from. Here is what you wrote:
quote:I'm not saying you need to exlude an author based on who or what they are, but you do need to know things like that too, in order to understand where the writing (or in this case the performance) is coming from. Isn't this the reason why DVD commentaries and documentaries have become so popular? It gives you an idea of where the film is coming from... otherwise we might as well just develop computer programs that can write our movies for us and do it all with CGI. If the performance of a computer is on par with a human, and that is all you need, then why not.
I, in turn, pointed out that this simply isn't true - that "value is determined by it's impact on the reader" rather than "where the author is coming from", and that I find nothing wrong with a computer writing a great novel, if one could do so.
If you want further proof of this, I'd point to my enjoyment of Ender's Game. I had no idea who OSC was or what he was intending when I read Ender's Game, yet I knew it was a great novel nonetheless and I don't understand it better now just because I know where OSC was coming from when he wrote it. I did not need to know anything about OSC to understand Ender's Game, and thus it must be false to say you need to understand where an author is coming from in order to understand a book.
To take an even more clear example, consider The Illiad and The Odyssey. We have no idea who wrote these - we simply call that person Homer, although it could even be different people. Nevertheless, we still do understand them, still do appreciate them, and still do consider both to be great works. Hence, it is false to say understanding where the author of those works is coming from matters, at least insofar as the value of reading them is concerned. It is the book itself that determines its worth.
Finally, a categorical denial of a point does not advance my side of the issue, but it does explain to you what about your argument I don't accept as a given. I don't accept as given that it matters where an author was coming from when he wrote a book. You have asserted this, offering the computer example that I disagree with as the proof.
Keep in mind, as I've argued in past threads, I think a story exists in the reader's mind, and is not controlled or ruled by the author's views on what it ought to be. Art should be a reflection of life - but fiction should be first and foremost a reflection of the reader's life, not the author's. What a story tells us about an author is not really significant to me, the reader. But what a story tells me about ME is quite important to me. A computer-generated novel could allow me to reflect on my life just as well as a human-authored novel, provided the novel is well-crafted by the computer.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I, in turn, pointed out that this simply isn't true - that "value is determined by it's impact on the reader" rather than "where the author is coming from"
Huh. I just always assumed that a little of both is true. Some books seemed more meaningful to me once I understood the author or the purpose a little better. Sometimes a story will have more of an impact on me if I feel that I can relate in some way to the author. Of course, most of the time I know very little about the author, but that doesn't prevent me from creating my own message from the story.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I don't follow actors personal lives. I know alot of people who do and they miss good movies simply cause they don't wanna see actors they think are jerks or crazy or whatever. Some examples I've run into: I have a lot of friends who refuse to see movies with Russel Crowe in them. Even A Beautiful Mind. I had a friend who thought Matt Damon was a useless pretty boy and refused to see any movies with him in them. Even Good Will Hunting. If you judge actors from their personal lives you'll likely miss some very good movies.
That said, I haven't seen MI:3 yet and doubt it's very good. But I plan to see it anyway eventually.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The fact that I edited out the rest of your explanation only proves that I don't like to quote whole posts. It's too long. You just did the same thing to my post, leaving out my response to your computer argument. Does that prove that you see how it shows I am right and just don't want to admit it?
No, I shortened it but didn't ignore what you were talking about. I didn't respond much to your post at all except to say that I felt you needed to take my point in the spirit I intended it. Just as now, I knew you would point out that I had taken only part of your post, but in that case I did take a complete idea and didn't edit out your support for the argument. In my case I felt I was taken out of context and shot (to mix metaphors).
To respond to the rest of your post, I am saying really, that I think there needs to be an author coming from SOMEWHERE. You make a valid point that you don't necessarily need to know where, (although I think it helps you understand a work better), but surely you concede that it should come from somewhere. Then again maybe you don't, if you think you are master of all art in the world as you interpret it, (and I have said before I think your silly for thinking that).
A computer comes from nowhere human, and I think "art by committee" is a bad thing. That's what hollywood does often times, and the result is work that seems to come from somewhere, but really doesn't come from anywhere. I do think there is something in what an author intends which effects the value of the work.
There was a thought experiment of a kind in Douglas Adam's book "Life the Universe and Everything" (I think it was that one). It was about a poet who lived in the swampy woods of an isolated planet and wrote without the benefit of education or correcting fluid on dried leaves. He wrote three epic poems and was known as the greatest poet in the galaxy, of all time. Later on correcting fluid companies transported him from the past to do commercial spots and interviews, and he became so future-popular that the girl who inspired his most epic work never left him, and his work was never written. As a result he was sacked up in a cottage over a weekend to recopy his work from a late edition (with mistakes corrected with fluid).
Adams posed the question in his book, as to whether the works were still meaningfull. I think the most important part of this is the warning about what advertising, technology and consumer culture can do to damage artistic and cultural growth. Sure a computer in some far-off future might write what feels like the best book ever written, but what work does it represent? What mastery of thought created it? The programmer? The person who told the machine to do it? Tools are useful in some things, but I am afraid we may become the tools, when our tools have more use of us than we do of them.
edit: and be sure, if we stopped relying on fellow humans to write books and create art and music, then we would fall apart as a culture. There wouldn't then be any need to understand the difference between good and worthless expression, virtuosity and pleasure versus dissapointment and squaler. If you have no creative impetus except in your own personal thought process, then IMO you can be made to believe anything is good, or worthwile, simply because you are told it is. If you believe it enough, you will convince yourself that the world knows something you don't know. It took me most of my adolescent years to realize that it wasn't that I didn't "get it" about things I found painfully stupid and useless... those things really were painfully stupid and they were useless. My worry is that if I had never found that out by being exposed to a different level of expression and thought, what would I be then?
[ May 08, 2006, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I fail to see how Matt Damon is a pretty boy... but that is beside the point.
If I refused any entertainment offering simply because the artist/writer/actor was a crackpot/jerk/whatever I would be kinda bored, I think.
I may see MI:III, but it will probably be for PSH.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Olivet: Ben Afleck(sp) is much handsomer.. but he's all 0.< too.
Anytime Matt Damon comes up in conversation around my husband, he breaks into Team America's Matt Damon....
hmm... since only 6 people in the entire world saw that movie...two of whom were my hubby and me... I guess I should point out that every time the Matt Damon puppet came on screen he said his own name in a voice resembling a learning disabled individual.
Pix
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QB]
quote:Tres...they weren't just reported, he DID them on TV, during either shows or interviews, so there isn't any sort of spin possible.
That's how spin always works. The incident may be public, but the spin comes afterwards, from the way people talk about it. There's nothing crazy about jumping around couches on Oprah, other than that celebrities don't usually act that way on TV. But when people start to gossip about it as if it is, then people come to believe it is.
Treas, once again you show us the futility of using logic to get a point across.
Thanks.
I didn't need the press to tell me he was acting wacky.
His beliefs are public record, as is his behavior...unless you would like to try to "redefine" those terms as well. He is an idiot, and unbelievably arrogant, and has made a point of discussing those views in public, unsolicited.
He really believes it all, I am sure, which only strengthens my feelings about him.
I don't particularily like him as an actor, although I HAVE enjoyed some of his movies a lot, but I have the right to spend MY money wherever I want, and I feel strogly about not supporting his movies anymore.
You want to see it, fine...but I probably won't, at least not in a theater, and we won't buy any DVD with him in it.
Spin is how someone TALKS about what happened...I didn't need spin to notice what an ass he was, I saw it myself. I turned off his interview where he talkied about Brooke Shields in disgust myself before any spin happened...and was grateful that for once the "spin" was in aliginment with my personal views of his beliefs, actions, and behavior.
Celebs use the press all the time, or at least try to, so I don't particularly care if something they do becomes public knowledge, as long as it was intended to be public when it happened. All their griping is because THEIR spin wasn't accepted as the "truth", someone elses was, and to me it is all part and parcel of their career choices.
If something is stolen and released to the public, that is different, but if I went on TV and acted like that, I would not have a right to be pissed about other peoples reaction to me.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote: ...what does that say about the value of literature?
It's subjective, and the author's intentions can frequently be irrelevant.
What a form of entertainment means or is worth is not solely, or even mostly, a factor of its origin. It's a factor of the audience.
So there's no particular reason any work can't be judged solely on its own contents. Where it came from is only important if you think it is.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:*laugh* Seriously? I've heard a few people in the industry complain about his opinions, but I've never seen an orchestrated campaign -- even a recommended boycott -- of any kind. When did it happen?
I was referring to small-scale actions. Picketers or flyer-distributors at his signings, encouraging people to stop buying his books because of his opinions. And this was happening BEFORE he even had a weekly column to annoy people with Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
But anyway, on the subject, I can understand boycotting a book or a movie or a video game if the proceeds are being donated to Al Qaeda, or if the art was printed using slave labor in sweatshops, or if the studio forced its people to work unpaid overtime. By denying money to those who fund such art, you are making a statement about a serious political issue, and are potentially improving people's lives.
But boycotting something because the actor is weird? I just don't get that. Where is the grand statement, and what is it saying? Whose life is it improving? "I won't stand for other people being WEIRD!" What? Why not? Why shouldn't people be allowed to be weird? If I made great movies and entertain billions of people, I'd damn well better be allowed to be weird.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*raises hand*
May I please be allowed to be weird without making great movies or entertaining billions of people? Pretty please?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
No, only celebrities are allowed, nay, expected to be weird.
Every one else must conform. CONFORM!
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!!
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It was "III" that scared me off.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Geoff, boycotting someone because they go on national TV and lambast someone who suffered from PPD, then caliming all sorts of impossible medical claims that fly in the face of everything we have learned about human biology and psychology...
Well, it is a little more than him being weird.
I am not making any request that others do the same, only explaining why he offended me, and why I dislkie him enough to avoid seeing his movies.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Palliard: What a form of entertainment means or is worth is not solely, or even mostly, a factor of its origin. It's a factor of the audience.
So there's no particular reason any work can't be judged solely on its own contents. Where it came from is only important if you think it is.
Here I went to all the trouble of explaining why I feel that way... I didn't realize we could just make declarations at eachother! Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Treas, once again you show us the futility of using logic to get a point across.
Well, yes, it often does seem like people are not convinced by solid logic, but I'll keep using it nonetheless...
quote:I didn't need the press to tell me he was acting wacky.
Then you, in particular, haven't been spun. Nevertheless, that still doesn't mean the conclusions you draw about the character of a man you've never met from a few TV appearances are accurate enough to warrant not only disliking them but boycotting their work. The man has some weird opinions and does some weird things. It doesn't make him a wacko. I'm sure I'd do plenty of weird stuff on TV too if they kept putting me on TV.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:But boycotting something because the actor is weird? I just don't get that. Where is the grand statement, and what is it saying? Whose life is it improving? "I won't stand for other people being WEIRD!" What? Why not? Why shouldn't people be allowed to be weird? If I made great movies and entertain billions of people, I'd damn well better be allowed to be weird.
I think it's the word 'boycotting' that's giving you a problem. Boycott, to me, implies some sort of organized and public refusal to participate in a particular activity/event. People not seeing a movie because the actor leaves them with a bad taste in their mouth isn't boycotting, it's exercising their right to choose which movies they see.
This happens with every movie, and book, and comic book, and newspaper, and radio show, and TV show. There's a limited amount of time and money that the average person can devote to these activities, so you can't see and read everything. If you're on the fence about seeing a movie, the actor's offscreen behavior may be enough to convince you not to see it, especially when said behavior is weird enough, even by hollywood standards, to creep out the vast majority of the public. Image is important to your livelihood, and everyone in Hollywood knows it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:it often does seem like people are not convinced by solid logic, but I'll keep using it nonetheless...
Or at least you'll think you are.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote: I didn't realize we could just make declarations at each other!
Uhm... I did provide a quality example of my point. I figured restating it would be redundantly redundant. The whole point of hyperlinking is so you don't have to have multiple copies of stuff everywhere. Perhaps you need to upgrade your web browser to one that supports this feature.
Since you apparently don't have one, I'll try to sum up the contents of the linked article: "Shakespeare in the Bush" is an often-reprinted cultural anthropology essay, beginning with a premise much as you propose: that Hamlet's meaning is inherent because it was written by Shakespeare, and not because of anything that actually in the play. However, when she (the author of the essay) tried to tell the story of Hamlet to the elders of the West African tribe she was staying with, they insisted on interpreting everything that happened in the context of their own culture, with the result that the entire meaning of the story was radically changed.
The point was, the meaning of a story depends on who is hearing it; more broadly, any creative work does not exist outside the context of the person observing it... which is precisely why who created it doesn't matter so much.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
This thread now makes me think of the controversial photograph, Piss Christ. It produced quite an uproar, because it was a picture of a crucifix immersed in a vail of the photographer's pee.
The picture itself was interesting, even kinda pretty. A professor of mine, who was a very religious man, said that he found the image and the idea very fitting because Christ chose to make himself the lowest of the low, for our sins. Whether-or-not that was the artist's intent was irrelevant to me after that. The darned profane picture brought tears to my eyes after I learned to see it that way.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I think El JT has it right about the meaning of boycott and choice of movies.
Me - I'm never going to protest outside a showing of a Tom Cruise movie. Or try and convince people not to see it.
But for my own personal viewing, the fact that a movie stars Tom Cruise is now more a detraction than a plus. And so unless I have heard really, really good review of the movie, I'll spend my movie money on something else.
Of course, I live in a country where the weekly magazines still blast Tom for "Our Nicole's" heartache, so I may be conditioned.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree with not only his views, but the fact he feels he has a right to spout them off at people who already have enough to worry about. His "theories" are dangerous and completely false (yes, I have researched the history and beliefs of Scientology), and I dislike being preached at by someone with limited a intellect just because they have unlimited media access.
I think he asked for a boycott, to be honest, and he deserves what he gets (if not more).
[ May 09, 2006, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: lly disagree with not only his views, but the fact he feels he has a right to spout them off at people who already have enough to worry about. His "theories" are dangerous and completely false (yes, I have researched the hsitory and beliefs of Scientology), and I dislike being preached at by someone with limited a intellect just because they have unlimited media access.
I think he asked for a boycott, to be honest, and he deserves what he gets (if not more).
Until I saw the scientology reference, I thought we were talking about Michael Moore. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I try to be respectful of people's deeply-held beliefs, even when I do not share them, though I confess that Scientology strains that resolve somewhat. *makes Daffy Duck backflip noises*
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Kind of interesting. Although I'm not sure how reliable of a story it is, it basically says that the people are buying dozens of tickets to Mi-III at a time at the theatre closest to the Scientology branch that Cruise belongs to.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Palliard: [QUOTE] The whole point of hyperlinking is so you don't have to have multiple copies of stuff everywhere. Perhaps you need to upgrade your web browser to one that supports this feature.
I'm afraid a hyperlink can't speak for you. If you have an opinion I'd like to hear your reasons for it, not be referred to your research. Support your own opinions, its more interesting that way. There is nothing wrong with providing a link, however it is also impossible for me to respond to, because it isn't you who wrote that peice.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I disagree with not only his views, but the fact he feels he has a right to spout them off at people who already have enough to worry about. His "theories" are dangerous and completely false (yes, I have researched the history and beliefs of Scientology), and I dislike being preached at by someone with limited a intellect just because they have unlimited media access.
I think he asked for a boycott, to be honest, and he deserves what he gets (if not more).
Until I saw the Scientology reference, I thought we were talking about Michael Moore.
And while I agree with a lot of what Moore says, I dislike his tactics and refused to go see Fahrenheit 9/11 as well. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Moore was very promising after Bowling for Columbine, he seemed to be dedicated and intelligent. I think its a shame he started treating his audience like they were stupid. For instance, asking congresmen why they don't "send their sons to war," as if this was at all fair or even relevent. Like you can send your children off to war these days. I don't like feeling manipulated.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote:If you have an opinion I'd like to hear your reasons for it, not be referred to your research.
I'd prefer to be referred to your research, as opposed to hearing your opinions. I suppose we have reached an impasse.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't need to research my own opinions, nor do I need someone else to tell me what to think about something like this. I don't know why you feel the need to insult me, since I had at least enough respect for you to ask you what you actually thought. If you take my prompt as some kind of an afront to you, you shouldn't. This is an opinion forum, we don't need, and I certainly don't want, to read a bunch of outside material which "represents" your viewpoint. The only person who can represent your viewpoint best is you.
The fact that you've been unable to communicate your reasons for thinking anything, leads me to believe that you aren't thinking about much at all. As such, I don't feel particularly bad about having you disagree with me. If you feel like being part of a reasonable discussion, I won't run away.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It is my opinion that space ponies DO exist, and any beliefs otherwise are obviously part of the massive NASA coverup of their space pony sweat shops on the moon.
Discuss.
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Where's your research pH? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think its a shame he started treating his audience like they were stupid. For instance, asking congresmen why they don't "send their sons to war," as if this was at all fair or even relevent. Like you can send your children off to war these days. I don't like feeling manipulated.
See, THAT part of it was brilliant. It didn't involve lying, or warping the truth, and it raised the point that part of the reason these congressmen are willing to go to war is that their families aren't harmed by it. It is mainly the poor and disinfrancised of all races that enlist and they might be insulated from the direct concenquences or war; namely death.
Most of that movie was buunk, but that question cut right to the heart of the matter, IMO.
They have no problem sending off poor black kids to die for their couuntry, while their Ivy League kids get to party, do drugs, and get elected President.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:See, THAT part of it was brilliant. It didn't involve lying, or warping the truth
It absolutely did, as it implied that the congressmen got to decide who signed up for the military and who didn't, or that if their sons had signed up for the military, they wouldn't have supported military action.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, I don't think it did. I think it raised a very good point about who actually fights the wars they declare.
I was not poor, or black, but still joined the Army, so I am NOT saying it is all or nothing, or that every person who signs up for the armed services is disadvantaged.
I am saying that there is a very real dicotimy between those who make political decisions and those who die because of those decisions, and that that needs to be at least acknowledged and addressed rather than being ignored and denied.
Moore is an idiot, but he at least raised some good points of discussion. Even if he himself is more likely to just shout his version of events to all who are near than actually debate anything.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't like seeing Moore get off on asking congressmen questions that don't actually invite answers.
The thing was, he might be right in principle, but that wasn't really an invitation to debate or dialogue, it was just an attack. You don't score any points in my book by being a troll and lobbing unanswerable questions at people.
That part of it really made me resent him, because that is the kind of guy he is, and that isn't a good thing.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The fact that you've been unable to communicate your reasons for thinking anything, leads me to believe that you aren't thinking about much at all.
This doesn't follow.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It makes sense to me. If I feel someone can't adequately support an opinion they've made, in their own words, then I have to assume they don't really have a well formed opinion.
You must hear from people like this all the time- its all about who who they've read and who they agree with, but then when it comes to actually articulating anything themselves, they're groping in the dark. There are people, unfortunately, who don't think an opinion is valid until they've seen it in print with a fancy by-line. Such people are often shy with their own opinions, or else they just don't have them.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It's just as reasonable, and much more generous, to assume that they DO have a well-formed opinion and simply haven't been able to express it in a way that convinces you. In fact, it's just as possible that they've expressed their opinion perfectly, but that you just don't get it.
Hence, it does NOT follow that the failure to communicate the reasons for an opinion to you implies they have no such reasons.
Truthfully, I've found that there is very little correlation between the ability to express oneself and being correct. Many people are very good at making wrong things sound reasonable, while many others know exactly what they are talking about but can't seem to convince everyone.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
*pshaw*
Allow me to sum up:
"Your idea is invalid. Example over here."
"Reading is teh hard."
"Uhm... okay. Here's the loathesome Reader's Digest condensed version."
"That's still teh hard. You suck."
It's like trying to communicate with the Iraqi Information Minister.
"There IS NO Tom Cruise! It is all a Zionist plot to discredit Galactic Overlord Xenu! The infidels who spread these lies should be beaten with shoes! Hail Xenu!"
I yeild to your obstreperousness.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Where's your research pH?
I don't need to research my own opinions.
Clearly, you are one of the NASA minions. JUST LIKE PALLIARD!
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Palliard:
It's like trying to communicate with the Iraqi Information Minister.
Oh God forbid I shouldn't like to be buried in an avalanche of your own personal reading choices just so you don't have to actually show that you understand something by trying to express it yourself. Nothing at all fascist about your insistance on everyone doing the same research you've done. I don't tell you what to read, but if I had to make one recommendation, it would be a Churchill history.
My not wanting to take my recommended reading from you doesn't say anything about what I think of reading... only what I think of your reading choices.
If I thought reading was too hard to do- why would I be participating in an author hosted forum? Unlike some people, I didn't stumble across it through a google search for nice rack on which to set my hat. Tante
Ps. "Your idea is invalid. Example over here."
"Reading is teh hard."
Is that how you saw the conversation unfolding? You don't remember me giving any other reasons why I wasn't going to read it? Nothing? No? Alright.
Tresophax
quote: Hence, it does NOT follow that the failure to communicate the reasons for an opinion to you implies they have no such reasons.
I would agree with that if you said "doesn't necessarily follow." In fact it may very well be the reason, but your right if your saying it doesn't HAVE to be. I do think in this case, that it is. And I can't help but be reasured by Palliard's responses, none of which contain anything substantive. (only IMO, of course. If you see something there, have at it.)
Now I too have been drawn from the important part of the discussion. I'll have to go back and think about it some more.
[ May 11, 2006, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Sabrina (Member # 9413) on :
I suppose this is an inappropriate time to mention that I would like to have a space pony...
(also saw the movie, as I have thought Tom Cruise was a nut for years anyway)
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I can't help but wonder if Cruise prefers the current rumors that he's insane to the more long-standing rumors that he's homosexual. (Not that there aren't plenty of people who probably suspect he's both.)
--Enigmatic
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by andi330:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'll see this one if I can get in to see it for free, but it fails what I consider to be the most important test for a movie: Am I willing to pay $7.50 to see it?
Wow, movies where you live only cost $7.50? That's cheap. I wish I only paid $7.50 for a movie.
Used to be $9.50 when it was owned by Loews, but they were bought out by AMC, so it was lowered to $8.50, but with a student rate of $7.50. It's a moot point, I don't pay for movies that often anyway, but I AM glad they lowered it. Almost ten dollars was ridiculous.
It's only six dollars here. Four dollars for a matinee.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: I can't help but wonder if Cruise prefers the current rumors that he's insane to the more long-standing rumors that he's homosexual. (Not that there aren't plenty of people who probably suspect he's both.)
--Enigmatic
Ah, yes. I all the craziness I had forgotten that particular rumor. I suppose in a way he has been able to deflect all that by seeming really honest lately. Hey this me, I am honestly not gay, just out of my mind generally!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Heh. I haven't been to a movie in a while because we've been having trouble finding a reliable babysitter.
I have to sheepishly admit I'm more interested in seeing Silent Hill than MI3. Which I'll probably have to go to alone. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
We're going out tonight and hubby asked if there was a movie I wanted to see, but when I looked at what was playing I had to say no. It costs so much I'm not going to spend that kind of money unless I know for sure I really want to see it.
I'll say my movie-going money for Pirates of the Caribbean in July.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Saw it last night. Entertaining flick. Not watching it because you don't like what Tom Cruise says is like a conservative Christian skipping out on Star Trek 1-6 because George Takei is gay. Get over it and enjoy the movie. Sulu is not hitting on guys, and Ehtan Hunt isn't going on about anti-depressants.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Baoqing- it isn't exactly the same thing. Not seeing ST because Sulu is gay is a judgement against Sulu for something that isn't even bad or his fault IMO. Cruise on the other hand, says hurtful and biggotted and stupid things to and in front of the public, and seems to have no respect for his viewers. This is a bit different.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not to mention . . .who the hell do you think you are, telling people what is and is not important? That would vary depending on the person.... If you disagree with their choice, fine, but just making a blanket statement like "get over it" is ignorant and rude.
Go waste your money if you want, it's your choice.
I'll pass.
Kwea
[ May 13, 2006, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well I think Kwea, that you are reacting more to a society which uses that blanket statement to cover alot of its ills. "Don't judge," being a popularly meaningless phrase, in which we are told to enjoy the things which are provided to us without question of taste or artistry or general relevence. "Everyone is a unique snowflake," except snowflakes are worthless so who cares?
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I adore MI:I. It is one of my favorite movies. I like action mysteries like that.
But I am not going to see MI:III because I think Tom Cruise is nuts and his acting has started to stink over the years. I hated him in Collateral and without Jamie Foxx, I think that movie would have tanked. I am not not seeing it as a way to deny him my money. I simply do not want to spend 2 hours watching him on screen since all I will be thinking about is what a butthead he is off screen (referring to how he treated Brooke Shields) since his performance is probably not good enough to keep me entertained.
If everything the media says about Russell Crow is true, I wouldn't really want to see him either but his performances are so good that I can forget all that while I am watching the movie. If he were as bad as Cruise, I would be thinking about what the media said about him rather than what was going on in the plot. Does that make sense?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well I think Kwea, that you are reacting more to a society which uses that blanket statement to cover alot of its ills. "Don't judge," being a popularly meaningless phrase, in which we are told to enjoy the things which are provided to us without question of taste or artistry or general relevence. "Everyone is a unique snowflake," except snowflakes are worthless so who cares?
So speaketh the ultimate authority on artistry?
You can't really fault taste. It's an individual thing. You really need to accept that not everyone is going to agree with you, and some people are going to like things that you consider "bad" and not like things that you consider "good."
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote: I hated him in Collateral and without Jamie Foxx, I think that movie would have tanked.
I hated Collateral altogether. It frustrated me. Unless I'm thinking of a different movie, which is very possible.
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: You can't really fault taste. It's an individual thing. You really need to accept that not everyone is going to agree with you, and some people are going to like things that you consider "bad" and not like things that you consider "good." -pH
I agree, but being totally accepting of things you hate is not necessary. Many people act as the acceptance and diversity police in society today, where others should feel free to say they don't like something. The thing is yes, you don't have to like it, but you do get to say you don't like it, and that is as valid an opinion as any other.
I get tired of having people say that if I don't like something, I don't have an opinion on the subject, but I DO, I DON'T like it for a reason.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That's fine...but according to the amount of respect you accorded me above, my response to you would be. . .
Get over it.
Other people may not agree that your opinion is valid...some opinions are more valid than other opinions, IMO.
I also don't think snowflakes are worthless, BTW.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Individual snowflakes are pretty, but next to worthless. A million snowflakes, however, can be useful-for throwing rock-and-glass-studded snowballs at Tom Cruise's overprotected face!
Tee-hee-hoo
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Cool Popular Science article on how to capture and save an individual snowflake. Just sayin'. Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Let's encase Tom Cruise in superglue, and leave him in a freezer for two weeks.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Can we force-feed him antidepressants?
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'd rather not. Could exacerbate mania in somone with bipolar issues, and he's quite manic enough for me already. (I'm "just sayin'." )
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Other people may not agree that your opinion is valid...some opinions are more valid than other opinions, IMO.
I also don't think snowflakes are worthless, BTW.
Well in an intellectual sense- a single snowflake is closer to worthless than to anything else.
I agree, some opinions are better formed than others. There are 2 problems that I can see. First is that there are those who believe that all opinions are exactly equally and we are all a bright and individually beautiful snowflake... and second is that some people think you should only say "nice" things. Why was I brought up being told by my mother: "if you don't have anything nice to say..."
What kind of a world would it be where there was no actual sharing of criticism and honest evaluation. There are those who get up in arms about hearing negativity because (imo) they are afraid negative reactions will sully things. Well I think metiocrity sullies things pretty well on its own.
I once told someone I went to school with that I maintain an internalized impression of how important certain people's opinions are. This will be determined by their intentions, their intelligence, and their actions. He actually got all up in arms because he felt that I should never judge people based on these things.... What can I actually judge people on? I don't know.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Why was I brought up being told by my mother: "if you don't have anything nice to say..."
Actually, the main reason people get told that is because it is easy to complain, but complaining by iteslf doesnt' cahnge anything usually. It is a lto harder to be nice, but in cases where people have to/want to live and/or work together that approch works best because it fosters a team mentality.
Complaining or bitching just because you don't like something/someone is pointless; offering an opinion about something because someone ASKED you is different.
Or to put it another way, why should I care at all what you think unless I asked for your opinion?
Also, in an "interlectual" soese, snowfalkes are among the most valuable things on the planet. Without snowfall, which is made of indivisual snowflakes, life as we know it would probably cease to exist. Snow replenishes lakes, rives, and the water table, and without the water in it we would find huge expanses of currently populated areas of the earth unliviable.
It all depends on how you look at it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Kwea, everybody knows that Orincoro has a monopoly on intellectualism.
-pH
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
On something, anyway. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
Or to put it another way, why should I care at all what you think unless I asked for your opinion?
Also, in an "interlectual" soese, snowfalkes are among the most valuable things on the planet. Without snowfall, which is made of indivisual snowflakes, life as we know it would probably cease to exist. Snow replenishes lakes, rives, and the water table, and without the water in it we would find huge expanses of currently populated areas of the earth unliviable.
There are many ways to ask for opinions. For instance, anything posted here is begging to be ripped apart by someone who doesn't agree. Also anything given as an offering to the artistic, literary, intellectual, or spiritual world invited criticism and skepticism. There is no "take it or leave it," except from the most metiocre and unconfident people. If your proud of what you do, you should be proud to accept criticism; not that you have to be a masecist for it, but you should acknowledge it if it is relevent, and use it if it is useful.
BTW, that is what I would call a "practical" sense. Intellectually a snowflake is nothing. Practically snowflakes do all those things, but as an intellectual tool, I think its a bunch of balogna (which is itself more useful to me, intellectually if not nutriciously).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Kwea, everybody knows that Orincoro has a monopoly on intellectualism.
-pH
What is that supposed to mean? Your like the two girls in the school yard who look at me and wisper in each other's ears. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Omgz, that Orincoro is sooooooo dreamy....*twirls pigtail*
-pH
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Baoqing- it isn't exactly the same thing. Not seeing ST because Sulu is gay is a judgement against Sulu for something that isn't even bad or his fault IMO.
Of course it's not exactly the same thing. That would be the point of an analogy Seriously though, I wasn't talking about your opinion, or mine- but a hypothetical conservative Christian who thinks homosexuality is bad and is his choice. This person would be condemned for being closed-minded, judgemental, etc and then told to get over it and watch the movie. I'm just suggesting that people get over the fact that the man is obnoxious and choose to see the show or not based on it the merits of the show.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
My point was that the differences between being gay and being a total raving nutjob are great enough that the same argument can't really apply. Its a doomed analogy because it presents two genuinely different scenarios. I for one would feel perfectly justified boycotting cruise, but not Tekei, and I feel I have good reasons.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ori, you might think that anything posted here is " begging to be ripped apart by someone who doesn't agree", but most of us here have a different opinion. Your view of it just reinforces your own immaturity, and proves to me that your opinion is worth far less to me than even the plainest snowflake.
In a practical sense snowflakes have value; and more than one person has mentioned their own fondness for them for more "artistic" reasons as well.
Your opinion seems to have little to no value in either regard. Then again, you obviously feel you know everything, so what does it matter what I think. . . at least to you.
Personally, I would rather be the type of person who respects others opinions than one who feels he "knows better" most of the time.
Being both condesending and ignorant is not an attractive combination, nor does it foster good communication. I have not noticed anything you have said as being particularily relevent OR useful, or I would have said I had.
Kwea
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Ori, you might think that anything posted here is " begging to be ripped apart by someone who doesn't agree", but most of us here have a different opinion. Your view of it just reinforces your own immaturity, and proves to me that your opinion is worth far less to me than even the plainest snowflake.
I'll ignore your hostility in the rest of the post because I think it is founded on an incomplete picture of what I am saying. I agree with you.
I think though, that you misread my meaning above. "begging to be ripped apart," was not intended as a comment on the value of any post, but meant to say that any post invites scrutiny and argument. That is the nature of the public forum right? You submit your idea and then watch it get torn apart based (sometimes) on the smallest of inconsistencies. This happens to me ALL the time, and that's fine, even when I disagree. In fact, especially when I disagree. The particularly odd thing here is that I agreed with you from the beginning.
Why that view of the nature of a post is immature? I am not sure. Should I instead view every post as having equal value no matter what? Clearly you don't do this, since you say that my posts are worth less than snowflakes. Do you become the judge of value now that I have submitted that value can be judged? I for one have not asserted, to the best of my knowledge, that the opinion of any particular person here is inherently less valuable because of who they are. Do you make that assertion about me?
If you think I intend to make myself the final judge of which opinion is valuable and which is not- then no. I do decide which is most valuable to me, and I sense that you have done the same here. Fine. However it seems that we are in strong agreement on all these matters: you can judge my value in a conversation and I can judge yours. In your observation that this view of the world is immature, you are pointing out your own similar immaturity. Why?
I for one think it is perfectly mature to weigh the value of a person's contribution. This assertion obviously bothers you because you believed that saying it about me would hurt me. So you contradict yourself in order to hurt me, using the device which you claim to be unfair. Interesting.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I lived in the midwest for 8 years, and I can tell you that snowflakes are not special and beautiful, but hazardous and hateful. They make you cold to the point of trying to kill you, they destroy your car, break trees, cause power outages, and traffic accidents. They're malicious little devils, and if they ever make a movie, I'll boycott it.
On the plus side, they haven't brainwashed Katie Holmes, forced her to have babies, which will no doubt be short and crazy, and acted like a lunatic while rallying support against the use of viable treatments for mental disorders.
Snowflakes may be evil little turds, but at least they're not crazy mofos.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ori, I did misinterpet what you meant then. Tone is hard to interpet on a message board, and it seemed to me that you were being overly dismissive of other peoples views, and your comment about "ripping" their views being inherant to this board in particular rubbed me the wrong way.
One thing though...I was NOT saying anything that was contrary to my own opinion at the beginning of this post. I have been arguing that people ARE allowed to make up their own mind about things, such as choosing to not see a Cruise movie, based on things OTHER than that specific movies worth.
I also wasn't trying to hurt you at all, but to let you know how you were comming across in that post. While some people DO get ripped consistantly, it is usually because of a lack of maturity in their posts, or logical flaws in their arguments. Sometimes it is because of their choice of subject matter as well, if it something that other people feel strongly about.
I completely agree that people have the right to decide what is of value to them, and if that is all you meant then I am sorry for laying in to you above. It just seemed to me that you were being very dismissive of both the value of others opininons and of this board in general.
To most of us here though I don't think that that is the sole, or even main, purpose of this board. Conversation and honest debate is different than getting "ripped".
I still like snowflakes, though. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, as to the level of maturity comment....
I was referring to what I thought was your view of this board. If the only reason for posting here was to rip other people a new one constantly, and to have your own opinion ripped apart in turn, I would not be here at all.
I HAVE met more than a few people on line who DO thing that is a primary function of message boards, and I have found their view of it to be very immature.
You clarified a bit, and I agree a little more with what you meant to say than what you first typed.
I still feel that anyone who comes here solely to slam other people is immature though, and have no problem dismissing them most of the time. Even if they have thought of a point I haven't (which is very rare in these cases), I don't want to encourage that type of behavior.
Debate is one thing, a flame war is another.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I saw the movie a few days ago, and though it was a Swiss cheese of a plot, it was enjoyable enough as a popcorn flick.
I was pretty sure I couldn't divorce my antipathy for the actor's prior comments from my experience of the character he now played. I was right. I couldn't. However, the character spends most of the movie looking befuddled and gets walloped on by Phillip Seymour Hoffman (whose chops just get better and better), so I was okay with it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The only reason I am sorry I won't see this movie is PSH. I thought he was excelent in Capote, and have liked his acting for a long time.
You are right, he IS gettong better and better.
I will probably go see his next one. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Kwea, are you still online?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Kwea- It seems like we understand each other perfectly now- awesome. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Damn you . . . getting my hopes up! Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
CT, I actually liked the plot, not the whole plot, but the last aspects. I'm intrigued by, "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't" arguments. The turncoat's dilemma also raises questions about the burden of securing evidence for procedural justice. I'm sorry if this is confusing, but I tried not to include any spoilers and I'm not very good at that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have to admit that I'm a little baffled by all the antipathy against Tom Cruise. Sure, he's crazy, but he's certainly no more crazy than Jane Fonda, Ted Nugent, or Goldie Hawn.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
That's what I've been trying to get across all along Tom. Furthermore, I'm firmly convinced that every single person has a few crazy ideas. If they were given the public spotlight, voiced these ideas and let the tabloids chew on it for months, we'd realize that everyone in the world is pretty much off their rocker.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Irami, those weren't the parts of the plot I had problems with. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SPOILERS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1) Why did the following helicopter not just fly above the windmills? Surely the pilot could still see the first copter from right above. (See also: Return of the Jedi scooter race through the forest)
2) Why on earth would Ethan believe that what's-his-name would spare the life of his sweetie just because she'd never seen his face. Hello? Woman gets kidnapped by shady characters with husband getting killed, etc. etc., and she's not coing to go to the police and/or Oprah? They'd have to kill her to keep prying eyes away.
3) Why did the Chinese guys sitting at the table point out where the bad guys were? Strange Western guy comes barreling through the door -- and again, you've never seen him before, so for all you know he could be on either side of the bad guys, pro or con -- so you direct him to the scary dudes who've set up shop next to you? Um, no.
TomD, from my reading, Cruise has funded and promoted Scientology-affiliated help programs for firefighters from 911 (and thus disouraged them from getting evidence-based psychological help for PTSD), dismissed post-partum depression as anything more than a vitamin imbalance & incorrect thinking, etc. I'd feel just as annoyed if any other actor seemed to be harming others as much as I think he has, albeit (I'm sure) with the best intentions.
Be crazy all you want. When your particular brand and method of craziness has far-reaching ill effects (IMO) for others, then I'll get mad at it, too.
[Edited to add: Note, I'm not advocating to stifle Cruise's free speech or even arguing for boycotting him. I'm expressing irritation and frustration, and then trying to piece through how this affects my (limited) interaction with him as a viewer.]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I'd feel just as annoyed if any other actor seemed to be harming others as much as I think he has, albeit (I'm sure) with the best intentions.
Be crazy all you want. When your particular brand and method of craziness has far-reaching ill effects (IMO) for others, then I'll get mad at it, too.
So you can't stand to watch Jane Fonda on screen either then, right?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not really, but I have no problem with Vets who won't. I understand where they are comming from. Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Ahhhh, so Cruise really just offended/caused harm to a larger group of people- most women and those on meds as opposed to vets and their families.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Dude, you'd be offended, too. It offends me no matter who says it.
-pH
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
...dismissed post-partum depression as anything more than a vitamin imbalance & incorrect thinking...
<aside> This has confused me for some time. Psychiatrists (who talk you through understanding your problems and how to view them) and drugs that balance seretonin levels are evil, but Auditors (who talk you through understanding your problems and how to view them)and vitamins that balance the body's chemicals are good. Wha? </aside>
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I'd feel just as annoyed if any other actor seemed to be harming others as much as I think he has, albeit (I'm sure) with the best intentions.
Be crazy all you want. When your particular brand and method of craziness has far-reaching ill effects (IMO) for others, then I'll get mad at it, too.
So you can't stand to watch Jane Fonda on screen either then, right?
Um, in case you didn't notice, there were spoilers for the movie in that same post. So she obviously watched it.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Pardon my phrasing. Would "When a movie comes out with Jane Fonda in it, do you try to piece through how [her public statements and actions] affects your (limited) interaction with her as a viewer" be better?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I don't really understand you Bao. If I were an athlete, and I saw a world class, idolized athlete publicly doing something bad that was going to lead to thousands of idol-worshipping kids going down a bad path, I'd be incensed. I'm not an athlete, so although I would be annoyed and disapproving, I might not feel quite as personally irritated at the athlete. If I were a vet, or were older than, say, 5 years of age when Jane Fonda did her thing, I'd probably take it more personally too.
As it is, I am in health care. Therefore, when I see a hugely famous person making terrible, misleading statements about depression and ADHD that might lead to thousands of people to turn away from mental health care and seek alternative therapies that don't work, I AM incensed.
That's just the way it is, Bao. CT probably feels similarly. So might anyone who has a problem with mental illness or a friend or family member with mental illness. I can take his statements personally if I want to. He is a national figure and his words carry far greater weight than an ordinary person. He has the ability to cause great harm to many people when he carries on like this.
I'm actually thinking of seeing MI3 anyway.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Ahhhh, so Cruise really just offended/caused harm to a larger group of people- most women and those on meds as opposed to vets and their families.
lol
BTW, I am a vet. I was also an EMT/Medic.
Fonda hasn't made a movie in years, and what she did was decades ago. She also apologized more than once, although they were half-assed apologies.
Cruise is far more dangerous than Fonda is now.
Also, I said every person has the right to decide if it is important enough to them to boycott these movies. I also said I understood why some vets would still boycott Fonda, and have no problem with it at all.
You know nothing about me, really, nor do you have a very good grasp of why this matters to me, so please stop trying to put words in my mouth. My reasons are good enough for me, and if you can't grasp that then the problem lies with you, not me.
Enjoy the video.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Would you be surprised if people were offended when a public figure said that, say, no one should seek medical treatment for high cholesterol, diabetes, hormone imbalances, arthritis, epilepsy...or any other number of ailments?
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ...dismissed post-partum depression as anything more than a vitamin imbalance & incorrect thinking...
<aside> This has confused me for some time. Psychiatrists (who talk you through understanding your problems and how to view them) and drugs that balance seretonin levels are evil, but Auditors (who talk you through understanding your problems and how to view them)and vitamins that balance the body's chemicals are good. Wha? </aside>
[Edited again to clarify: I am not disagreeing with the lovely Chris Bridges, just expanding further on the topic.]
Psychiatrists should be willing to prescribe (evidence-based) medication on top of therapy when warranted. In some cases of depression, talk therapy is not going to help until you first do something to adjust the neurotransmitter balance. In many cases, talk therapy on its own or in combination with proper medication will help. However, this is not always feasible.
Granted, the evidence for common anti-depressants is establised to be quite strong in only some groups (and, in other, risks may outweigh benefits). But the established evidence for vitamin therapy, in all cases, is nil.
And -exactly- what Theca said. (Thank you, Theca.)
---------------
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Pardon my phrasing. Would "When a movie comes out with Jane Fonda in it, do you try to piece through how [her public statements and actions] affects your (limited) interaction with her as a viewer" be better?
I can't make any sense of this which doesn't presume things about your motives in asking it that are, themselves, quite insulting.
Of course I don't mull over everything anyone in the mass media does or says. (That would be a ridiculous assumption on your point, so you must not be making it. I am, you see, applying the Principle of Charity to you. Certainly I expect you to do the same.)
I do, however, react to things which catch my attention, as does, well, everyone. And TC's statements have been discussed on my professional newsgroups. Topics are flagged which patients might bring up, as most physicians (at least, the ones I know) tend not to watch much pop media.
*still puzzled at the comment/question/wordstring, although some of the words do seem to flow together in an aesthetically pleasing manner
[ May 18, 2006, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*hugs CT*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*laughing
I futzed up my pelvic girdle/lower back again, and I've gone all surlified.
*warm squeeze
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I was not getting "surly" out of that. Possibly good-natured annoyance. But then, I can't measure your posts on my scale because I skew much eviler. Hmmmm.
Feel better, dear.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I will. And I will call you tomorrow, just because I'm sick and whiny, and I miss you. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I was going to call you, but I mislaid the bit of paper I had your home number on. I think I have about seven of the numbers right, buT I don't have the nerve to risk it. *is lame*
*wish I could make you tea, and fluff your pillows*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Are you putting the boys to bed right now? Do you have a minute, or would tomorrow be better? (I'm actually doing okay, having done various astonishing maneuvers to correct the proble. I didn't know I bent that way!)
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:fluff your pillows
This phrase has cracked me so consistently up ever since Roxanne.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Am falling asleep. The wine, hot pack, and ibuprofen have proven stronger than me.
Hey, I'm all about getting my pillows fluffed.
... ba-dum-dum.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*snort* I'm free at the moment, but the boys will bedding down in about a half hour. I'd love to chat though. Whenever. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*snerfle*
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Hey, I'm all about getting my pillows fluffed.
... ba-dum-dum.
LOL
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Fonda hasn't made a movie in years, and what she did was decades ago.
I thought she was in last years "Monster-in-Law"
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
But she's (Fonda) not showing up for discussion in CT's medical newsgroups. I think we can forgive her(CT) for not being up on every little pop culture thing, what with the medical research and all. Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theca: I don't really understand you Bao. If I were an athlete, and I saw a world class, idolized athlete publicly doing something bad that was going to lead to thousands of idol-worshipping kids going down a bad path, I'd be incensed. I'm not an athlete, so although I would be annoyed and disapproving, I might not feel quite as personally irritated at the athlete. If I were a vet, or were older than, say, 5 years of age when Jane Fonda did her thing, I'd probably take it more personally too.
As it is, I am in health care. Therefore, when I see a hugely famous person making terrible, misleading statements about depression and ADHD that might lead to thousands of people to turn away from mental health care and seek alternative therapies that don't work, I AM incensed.
That's just the way it is, Bao. CT probably feels similarly. So might anyone who has a problem with mental illness or a friend or family member with mental illness. I can take his statements personally if I want to. He is a national figure and his words carry far greater weight than an ordinary person. He has the ability to cause great harm to many people when he carries on like this.
I'm actually thinking of seeing MI3 anyway.
I understand that he's a public figure. But he's an actor, not a health care professional. IMO, his views are definitely out there. I just don't take him seriously. I'm beginning to understand why there's such a campaign/backlash against him though.
quote:Therefore, when I see a hugely famous person making terrible, misleading statements about depression and ADHD that might lead to thousands of people to turn away from mental health care and seek alternative therapies that don't work, I AM incensed.
Is it the fear that if his image isn't destroyed then people will actually believe the stuff he says?
I just view TC as another celebrity that can be enjoyed for his product while his personal views can be ignored. For example Tool extolls illegal drug use. Barry Bonds shows that you can use steriods to get to the point where you are breaking world records. Gangster rap promotes violence and murder not only in their lives, but as part of their product.
I understand that Tom Cruise's statements were offensive and possibly dangerous. I guess what I didn't understand is that people out there consider doing what he says simply because he's a box office star.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I dislike Bonds, gangsta rap, AND Tom Cruise, and don't support any of them if I can help it.
Color me silly, I guess.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Bao, these things are not unconnected. You really can't just say: "Hey I like the music," if you think what they're singing about is horribly wrong.
There is that happy medium of ridiculous I have heard described many times, I think the last time in the book "1984" : It is that thing which any sensible person can immediately recognize and dismiss as utter garbage, but which is just credible enough to insite fear that the more suggestible mind may be taken in by it.
Ironically 1984 puts this medium in the opposite light, the teachings of Goldstein, which the party members are taught to abhore and lash out against in the 2 minutes' hate.
Now here is a question for you. What purpose do Cruise's nonsensical rantings actually serve? So far each of us here as done this same thing: dismissed them as lunacy, and yet expressed concern that lessers among us may actually believe them. So far none has sighted anyone who actually DOES believe these things that Cruise says, but are any of them out there?
I for one, also find TC to be ridiculous, spoiled, and downright laughable. I am also not terribly concerned that anyone is going to believe his ideas, but I would like to discourage something different. I would like the entertainment industry to stop engaging in what I see as insidious manipulation of the culture climate. The entertainment proclaims, and thus it comes to be: no matter how stupid and obvious, the entertainment industry will sell ANYTHING if they can.
We first need to stop buying it, that is the claim at least from the sensible economist who understands better than I, the workings of supply v. demand. But more than that, the supply defense does not justify the souless, scrupleless, mindless selling out that is going on, and has been going on for so long in our culture. My 2 pennies, just don't go and see the movie, a stand on principle is still a stand.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Cruise's personal views are kooky, in the same way that most cultists are viewed as kooky. He only gets attention because he used to be an attractice sex icon/film star who DIDN'T act kooky.
I won't NOT see a movie that he's in, just because of his personal views. But I'll refuse to give his personal views any attention of legitimacy.
Does anyone SERIOUSLY take him for anything other than a crackpot actor with a big mouth? I don't get what the big deal is about him.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My issue with Cruise and others who give really crappy mental health advice is that there is already SO MUCH misinformation floating around about mental illnesses.
-pH
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I see patients every week who have a firm, unshakable belief that antidepressants are evil. Many more think ADD meds are evil. They get these ideas from partly, at least, from alternative medicine practitioners, books, and friends. I firmly believe that many people would let TC's views sway them. Especially if they are already distrusting of traditional medicine. Some people are very impressionable and confirmation from a superstar is sometimes just what they don't need to hear.
I had a patient this week who refuses to go on a single medication for her diabetes. Her good friend was a diabetic and finally let her doctor put her on medication and she got worse and then her kidney failed. So my patient is firmly convinced that diabetic meds cause harm and her health will be better if she refuses meds. She doesn't have the willpower to stay off the sweets, and her sugars are slowly rising. I spent a half hour describing the complications of diabetes and the mechanisms of injury and by the end she was crying, because her son and her mother are both diabetic and both already have the complications I mentioned. Her son is only 40.
She still won't take medication.
Seems crazy, but I see things like this all the time. People ARE greatly influenced by their friends and by poorly written books and articles. The views of national figures like movie stars and Princess Di definitely have an affect on people too. I can't say I've met anyone so far who was definitely negatively influenced by TC, but I know they are out there.
[ May 20, 2006, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Theca ]
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Is it the fear that if his image isn't destroyed then people will actually believe the stuff he says?
This phrase means nothing to me. Has anyone here said they are afraid or they want his image destroyed? I just want him to shut up about mental health and Scientology and just be an actor, husband and father.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Is it the fear that if his image isn't destroyed then people will actually believe the stuff he says?
I don't understand your hyperbole about this. It's like you are having a separate conversation. (Not trying to be rude here -- I'm honestly puzzled.)
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theca: I can't say I've met anyone so far who was definitely negatively influenced by TC, but I know they are out there.
How do you know they are out there?
Being influenced by friends, family, and 'alternative medicine' practitioners is different than being influenced by a stranger on the street who happened to make a few movies.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Because I know. I'm surprised you are so skeptical.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Is it the fear that if his image isn't destroyed then people will actually believe the stuff he says?
I don't understand your hyperbole about this. It's like you are having a separate conversation. (Not trying to be rude here -- I'm honestly puzzled.)
I'm not refering to you or anyone in reference to the destroying his image. However, what I see in the media is certainly negatively impacting his image. I'm not saying he's not the root cause of that. I'm just wondering if part of the reason there continue to be articles about how wacky TC is might be that people feel that his statements will cause genuine harm to people if he is seen as credible.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Bao, these things are not unconnected. You really can't just say: "Hey I like the music," if you think what they're singing about is horribly wrong.
Sorry if that's how I came across. What I was trying to get at was examples of the medium not being directly related to what the artist does. Admittedly, some were poor examples.
OSC might be a better one. People come here for the most part because they love his writing. However, many (if not most), differ wildly from his political views. Should his books not be read because of his views on homosexuality? Psychologists may suggest that some of the views he puts forward on how to deal with homosexual impulses are harmful to homosexuals.
All I'm trying to get at is that I just don't see people taking medical advice from an actor. I don't see people taking relationship advice from Bill Clinton, moral guidance from Ted Bundy, or political views from the Dixie Chicks.
I understand intellectually that there are people that can't see the guy in an action movie without thinking about his anti-depressant rant. It just doesn't bother me personally at all, which is probably why I'm coming across as super-dense.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't know if you understand how pervasive these negative attitudes towards medication and psychiatry really are, Bao. Or the devastating effects they can have.
-pH
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Keep in mind that at least part of my problem with his acting at this point is that I DO think of that every time I see him now because ti angered me that much. I wouldn't be able to see him in any role other than an ass at this point, and that would affect my enjoyment of the movie as well.
My main reason for refusing to see his movies at this point is that he is attempting to use his publicity to influence people about very complex, dangerous situations about which he has no knowledge or expertise. I see it as poetic justice when people use that same fame against him and his message. It is one of the only ways non-famous people can get any publicity for their disagreement with him and his views, because individually we AREN'T famous like he is.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
OSC might be a better one. People come here for the most part because they love his writing. However, many (if not most), differ wildly from his political views. Should his books not be read because of his views on homosexuality? Psychologists may suggest that some of the views he puts forward on how to deal with homosexual impulses are harmful to homosexuals.
I see your point as well. I would suggest that in that case OSC is attempting to put forward his views (however wrong they may be) in an honest way. He doesn't (for the most part) use his books or his fame as an author as a pulpit for his beliefs, but instead tries to express them as a nearly seperate part of his life. He at least understands that he would be asking far too much of his readers to simply spout his beliefs overtly, but instead he invited them to a website where those beliefs find their proper context.
I suppose too that TC comes across so badly because he is uneducated and his ideas are not well thought out. If he had given more time and energy to at least trying to appear as if he had a clue about anything, then I wouldn't feel so manipulated by people like him.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I may not like all of OSC's views, but he doesn't use this board or book signing sessions to try and "convince" me to follow his example, against everything I know personally to be true.
Plus, while I don't agree with OSC, I at least understand his points and respect his intelligence.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I don't like feeling manipulated.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)