quote:Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.
quote:Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down..
I don't think he ever explicitly mentions violence, but one would assume that's covered by "whatever means". And by definition, you try to kill your "mortal enemies". One could argue that of course he doesn't mean that, but it seems to be an obvious subtext to me.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you are that type of person, you're way too savvy and morally superior to have missed the "OSC is an awful abhorrent hateful nasty bigot" train at this late date.
Which does sorta make me wonder why she bothered writing the article.
I think you do her an injustice here, Dan. For one thing, she's not necessarily promoting a boycott: she's promoting alternatives. Her article is not "here's why you should avoid Orson Scott Card's work," but rather, "if you feel guilty about consuming Orson Scott Card's work, try consuming this work instead or in addition to it." Her list isn't "here are films you might prefer;" it's a list of films that function -- to her mind, at least; I don't happen to agree, but I respect her attempt -- like carbon credits.
I didn't respond to this earlier, but it's an interesting point. I think you're right, to the extent that you're correcting me.
Though I think the concept of carbon credits is pretty absurd and ridiculous, too. Indulgences of the modern age. Worthy of being mocked in their own right, but that's not what I was mocking her for.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: Well, it's good to know that the tone won't change.
Well it's good to know that you'll shrug your shoulders at the contradiction in criticizing people for being rude to Card, but less when he is rude to them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't see the point of this particular thread.
We all know what Card is and isn't. And if his bigotry outweighed his impact as a writer we would not be here.
BB is about to be plagued by a sudden on rush of new posters, many of whom I suspect who will be openly hostile to our esteemed host.
This is the calm before the storm. Prepare to kiss our Hatrack goodbye.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm here to talk about politics and stuff in general with people whose collective experiences and education are very broad and encompass perspectives beyond my own. Card has nothing to do with it.
I found Ornery in 2002 or so after looking around for Ender stuff. That's about as far as that connection goes.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: This is the calm before the storm. Prepare to kiss our Hatrack goodbye.
I've "kissed our Hatrack goodbye" several times at this point. So much so that I have very rarely posted the last several years.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: When I asked a question point blank about it, I recall that your answer was straightforwardly that we are not allowed to disparage religious beliefs. Full stop. For instance, I can't call L. Ron Hubbard a "Con man" because his religion holds that he is not and thus to call him a con man disparages the religion and is not allowed.
Papa Janitor had established the exact same edict, and with absolutely unmistakable language; we can't commit "blasphemy" and we cannot disparage religious beliefs. Those are the official rules as has been described to us when the subject came to be at issue.
In your example though you are talking about a person expressing racist views, and shielding them with religion.
I would be completely comfortable telling such a person (and have) that such beliefs are not protected here. Not to mention posters here are not all white, so having a poster tell another their race makes them subpar at anything is pretty straightforwardly against the TOS.
As for calling Hubbard/Smith conmen, I said this,
quote:We have had many discussions about Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, etc. They have run the full gamut of what could be said about them. I don't have any special sympathies for criticisms about Mormonism. If you want to talk about how Polygamy caused familial problems fine. If you want to note that Joseph Smith believed he could fine treasure in the earth, and was hired to do so prior to finding the Book of Mormon, fine.
But you don't get to discuss those topics in such a manner that you are insulting and disparaging those who believe in those things.
You are more than welcome to note that you believe Hubbard is a con man if it comes up. You can't insult a person for disagreeing with you, nor can you attempt to try and persuade them to abandon their beliefs ala proselyting.
Interesting. Can someone on this forum say Joseph Smith is a con man?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think it should be possible to do so in an acceptable manner (one that doesn't directly insult believers) but in practice would be difficult to do. What the heck, I'll give it a shot.
On second thought, never mind. I just deleted two beautifully written paragraphs that I think most people could agree with but there is always that one or two that would be grievously offended. If I could talk face to face with them, I think they would understand and respect my thoughts on the matter but through text, it would probably turn ugly real quick. So in the interest of peace, I'm going to shut up now Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Here is the article in question.
A couple of relevant quotes:
quote:Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.
quote:Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down..
I don't think he ever explicitly mentions violence, but one would assume that's covered by "whatever means". And by definition, you try to kill your "mortal enemies". One could argue that of course he doesn't mean that, but it seems to be an obvious subtext to me.
I felt the need to post this because I have seen this quote taken out of context repeatedly, here and elsewhere.
Orson Scott Card NEVER advocated for violently overthrowing the government should it "redefine marriage." The "regardless of law" quote is not written in the first person – that is, he is predicting the words of the masses rather than projecting his own intentions. It's kind of like how Jesus said "I came to bring not peace, but the sword" (paraphrased from memory). Not advocating for violence, but predicting violence. See that in the original article, the statement is preceded by "How long before married people answer the dictators thus." The "I" in the quote is not referring to himself, but the hypothetical married people.
In another essay, published just a couple weeks after the one quoted, OSC wrote this on the subject of the people's response to the courts ruling in favor of gay marriage:
I've heard frustrated people talk about armed rebellion, about overthrowing the government. Those of you with itchy trigger fingers, put away your guns. We are committed to democracy, not to violence.
It's clear that OSC is basing these predictions on people he knows, which helps explain why he considers himself a moderate on the issue (he's acquainted with people far more extreme than himself). In a post on Hatrack a while back, OSC based predictions such as these on the fact that those opposed to gay marriage represented a "majority" of Americans, but this is no longer the case. He even allows for this:
quote:Given time, a majority might come to accept the idea of gay marriage.
Much of what OSC has written in recent years (especially in 2008, where his writing on the subject was at its peak) was really about "legislating from the bench," or the practice of courts ruling for the legality of gay marriage without going through a legislature or referendum. Since Proposition 8, many states have started passing gay marriage laws through the legislative branch or through popular vote. OSC has written precisely one essay on a case where gay marriage was being put to a referendum (in his state of residence), and there he does not at all use the civilization-ending rhetoric from previous essays, but instead focuses on how "religious freedom [is at stake]."
All of the points Card makes about judicial power, freedom of religion, and the long-term societal impact of gay marriage can and should be debated with rational, factual points and rhetoric, and it annoys me to see his critics take these cheap shots by quoting the same statements out of context. OSC has indeed made outrageous statements that can be disputed with facts and reason, and has used generalizing invective that is counter-productive to debate, but let's put away the idea that he ever called for a violent revolt.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your stance is that he was predicting that masses of "married people" (a class that includes himself) are going to violently revolt over the gay marriage issue, but that he himself would not?
I'm not saying that you are wrong, but in that case, the belief that the "masses" are more extreme in their opposition of gay marriage than he himself is, has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
Edit: Maybe being on the board of NOM makes for a huge selection bias. Even still, its downright delusional.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry 3CPO, but that is a bunch of bunk. OSC is a writer for heaven's sake! It's his job to make himself clear with the written word. And -if- he meant what you are giving him credit for then that is the worst writing he has ever written!
Because that's not what he said, pure and simple.
I'm happy to read that he is committed to democracy. I'm happy that he changed his mind. But lets not mince words here. He said what he said. And ifin he didn't mean it then it is on him to apologize and clarify.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good post, C3PO. I disagree about your reading of the first person in "I will act to destroy..." - I think that's a rather large stretch - but I think the clarification from the later essay is really useful. We don't have to worry that OSC is going to take up arms or encourage others to do so. It was sloppy of him to suggest otherwise, initially, but it's clear from his later statement that he didn't mean it that way. It seems he meant that he'd use democratic means to try to change the government.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm happy to read that he is committed to democracy. I'm happy that he changed his mind. But lets not mince words here. He said what he said. And ifin he didn't mean it then it is on him to apologize and clarify.
C3P0 is not actually wrong about the context in which OSC wrote what he wrote. And I'll remind you, just in case you've not read that article in a while, he *did* couch what he said, as he usually does, in long strings of subordinate "if and when" clauses, and "barring this or that," qualifications. He did not plainly and simply issue a call to revolt. Single sentences from that article, taken alone, might sound like it, but it *was* all clouded in the specter of a certain set of circumstances.
That being said, I think he should apologize or at least retract those statements for what they still are: a condemnation of our democratic process, only because it does things he doesn't like. And I hasten to add here: the judiciary is a part of our democracy- judges are appointed, yes, but they follow a constitution that we have a power to change, and are appointed by officials we do elect. Anything the supreme court does (literally *anything*, because we can even abolish the court if we want to), the people have a mechanism to reverse. It's an onerous mechanism for a reason, but it's still there.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The "I" in the quote is not referring to himself, but the hypothetical married people.
And even if we granted this, he's still advocating revolt against the government that lets gays marry whether or not he's saying directly that he would participate in it.
This on top of how, y'know, it's plainly ridiculously delusional if he's saying "all these people off on the right of me will destroy the constitution if we let gays marry! thank god i'm so moderate"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out an essential flaw in the title and initial posts of this thread: Alyssa Rosenberg does not hate Orson Scott Card. Or, if she does, she never says so at any point.
Instead, what she is exceedingly careful to say is that she hates his views and his actions towards promoting those views. Nowhere, nowhere does she say she hates OSC. As noted, she credits Valentine for inspiring her to write.
If that's true, how troubling it must be to see that someone who has had such a profound impact on her life holds beliefs she finds utterly abhorent. More than a few people on this board, myself included, have that same conflict.
But, much like OSC when he talks about homosexuals, she is careful to separate the person from the opinions and actions.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say she's considerably more careful, though that can probably be explained by how much more Card has written about homosexuals and SSM supporters and my familiarity with it versus how little she has written and how new I am to it.
Anyway, you're absolutely right, she doesn't hate Card. It's been pointed out in this thread that she doesn't and frankly anyone who suggests she does has to then acknowledge that Card surely must hate homosexuals.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Orson Scott Card NEVER advocated for violently overthrowing the government should it "redefine marriage." The "regardless of law" quote is not written in the first person – that is, he is predicting the words of the masses rather than projecting his own intentions. It's kind of like how Jesus said "I came to bring not peace, but the sword" (paraphrased from memory). Not advocating for violence, but predicting violence. See that in the original article, the statement is preceded by "How long before married people answer the dictators thus." The "I" in the quote is not referring to himself, but the hypothetical married people.
Here's the thing: having read more than a few of Card's books, including some that take a pretty thoughtful look at history and how it works (not the best way to put it, but I think you know what I mean) I have a very difficult time crediting that Card ever believed an armed revolt against the US government over the issue of gay marriage was ever even a dimly remote possibility under any circumstances that have existed in the past, say, generation.
By that I mean that it's almost impossible for me to believe that Card ever thought, these past twenty years, that any combination of likely and even unlikely events would lead to an armed revolt even by a minority of Americans against the US government. To put it bluntly, that kind of chicken@#$t talk puts one in mind of 'second amendment remedies' because the speaker is almost certainly doing just one or two things: either preaching to the choir to cynically rouse support, or is so firmly ensconced in a bubble that they can't see just how extreme they are, or both. I don't believe Card is that far in the bubble.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: But, much like OSC when he talks about homosexuals, she is careful to separate the person from the opinions and actions.
Perhaps your forgetting the (granted now very dated) article, I think from the Mormon TImes, in which he wrote a long explanation of why he felt homosexual lifestyles were flawed, he did denigrate the character of his, albiet shadowy, gay acquaintances and supposed friends. In a sort of general, unspecific way- basically through allusions to the idea that all homosexual sex is lurid, unloving, and detached from the essential human experience. A pile of drivel, to be sure, but the fundamental assumption he makes, that homosexual behavior *defines* the homosexual lifestyle (underlying assumption being that it's a choice), is there.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: To put it bluntly, that kind of chicken@#$t talk puts one in mind of 'second amendment remedies' because the speaker is almost certainly doing just one or two things: either preaching to the choir to cynically rouse support, or is so firmly ensconced in a bubble that they can't see just how extreme they are, or both. I don't believe Card is that far in the bubble.
I agree, and I never took his ranting or allusions to violence seriously. But as a study of, and indictment of, himself as a person, they are very strong words, and they are his own. I think it's perfectly valid to say that even though I don't take his allusions to violence seriously, he is clearly a person who makes allusion to violence on this issue, and that, post hoc, signifies.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I would like to point out an essential flaw in the title and initial posts of this thread: Alyssa Rosenberg does not hate Orson Scott Card. Or, if she does, she never says so at any point.
Instead, what she is exceedingly careful to say is that she hates his views and his actions towards promoting those views. Nowhere, nowhere does she say she hates OSC. As noted, she credits Valentine for inspiring her to write.
If that's true, how troubling it must be to see that someone who has had such a profound impact on her life holds beliefs she finds utterly abhorent. More than a few people on this board, myself included, have that same conflict.
But, much like OSC when he talks about homosexuals, she is careful to separate the person from the opinions and actions.
She calls him an awful person, which is a step that, to my knowledge, Card hasn't taken in any of his articles.
I understand that you're more sympathetic to her because you, too, feel disillusioned by a favorite author not agreeing with your politics. But you're presenting an equivalency here that doesn't quite exist, as far as I can tell.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? You're suggesting Card hasn't said very similar, or even worse, things about homosexuals and SSM supporters, Dan? I just want to make sure before I go reread some of his greatest hits, which will be later when I'm at home but I suspect there are quite a few others who can find examples as well.
A qualifier: I don't see much difference if any in someone saying 'you're an awful person because of your views' and 'you're destroying America and human civilization with your awful politics'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or more to the point, and even worse...'you're destroying America and human civilization by wanting to marry the person you love'.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Save your time finding quotes. You just established that you see equivalency between two very different statements.
You really don't see the difference between them? I mean, they literally mean different things!
I don't think Sam or Blayne are awful people, even though I think their political views are monstrous and they tacitly support policies that could (and sometimes already do) result in death, misery, and poverty. They haven't been persuaded to change their minds yet. Doesn't make them awful people. I generally reserve that label for people substantially worse.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A qualifier: I don't see much difference if any in someone saying 'you're an awful person because of your views' and 'you're destroying America and human civilization with your awful politics'.
I'm not inclined to disagree with your main point, but I do think there's a difference between saying that one's views makes them an awful person and saying that one's views are dangerous and destructive. One is a judgement of character, the other is judgement of outcome.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: She calls him an awful person, which is a step that, to my knowledge, Card hasn't taken in any of his articles.
You mean he hasn't called anyone, specifically, an "awful person?" Because he has used plenty of other words to describe people- many of them far graver than "awful person." And no, his usual (although not universal) couching of this rhetoric in "a person who acts this way is a Nazi," instead of "so-and-so is a Nazi" doesn't make it not the same thing in all the ways that matter.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A qualifier: I don't see much difference if any in someone saying 'you're an awful person because of your views' and 'you're destroying America and human civilization with your awful politics'.
I'm not inclined to disagree with your main point, but I do think there's a difference between saying that one's views makes them an awful person and saying that one's views are dangerous and destructive. One is a judgement of character, the other is judgement of outcome.
Right.
Also, it's judging a person based on a single bad idea they have, or maybe a specific bad idea cluster. But they might have good ideas too!
It's useful not to dismiss them as an awful person, unless they've shown consistently awful ideas across a broad spectrum of issues.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we not tolerant people? Have we all forgotten what tolerance means?
Toleration means to disagree with an idea while still defending to the death that person's right to exist and state their view.
We have a man (not a god or a superman) who has some ideas we may not like.
Are we tolerant; fighting for a fellow American's rights (freedom of speech and thought, religion etc) so he can continue to say whatever he likes?
Or are we Intolerant, arguing to take his rights away, trying to force him to apologize, make him agree with something just because we don't like it?
I will even defend the right to be intolerant because I believe in toleration even if a good many on our country do not.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Card does indeed have the right to be wrong.
The rest of us are under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to coddle him in his wrong beliefs, let him believe that we think those beliefs are a moral positive, or to spend our money on his endeavors. We're not even obligated to refrain from telling people we know that his beliefs are wrong and that they, too, should consider not giving him their money. He has his free speech; we have ours.
quote:Originally posted by lightpaths: Are we not tolerant people? Have we all forgotten what tolerance means?
Toleration means to disagree with an idea while still defending to the death that person's right to exist and state their view.
We have a man (not a god or a superman) who has some ideas we may not like.
Are we tolerant; fighting for a fellow American's rights (freedom of speech and thought, religion etc) so he can continue to say whatever he likes?
Or are we Intolerant, arguing to take his rights away, trying to force him to apologize, make him agree with something just because we don't like it?
I will even defend the right to be intolerant because I believe in toleration even if a good many on our country do not.
---------
Something tedious: when people promoting intolerance insist upon 'tolerance' for their own views and actions, when 'tolerance' in that case means 'permission, lack of challenge, and even endorsement'.
Yes, everyone gets the whole (supposed) contradiction in discriminating against someone who discriminates. It's not a profound revelation. But a few questions.
One, which of Card's rights is being taken away? Two, by what means is anyone trying to force him to do anything? Three, who has challenged Card's 'right to exist' and express his views? Four, since when did death come on the table for this topic? Seems pretty dramatic. Well, you get the idea. All of those are questions you'll have to have an anwer for if you want your 'don't be intolerant' message to be taken seriously.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are we tolerant; fighting for a fellow American's rights (freedom of speech and thought, religion etc) so he can continue to say whatever he likes?
Card can of course continue to say whatever he likes. And people can decide whether they want to continue to give him money.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
It is true that the headline of the article says that. It's seems pretty incongruent with the rest of the piece to me. I actually wonder if that may be some editorial influence. My understanding is that sometimes the journalist isn't the one that comes up with the headline.
But that's just speculation, of course.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
It is true that the headline of the article says that. It's seems pretty incongruent with the rest of the piece to me. I actually wonder if that may be some editorial influence. My understanding is that sometimes the journalist isn't the one that comes up with the headline.
But that's just speculation, of course.
That's a really good point.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lightpaths: Are we not tolerant people? Have we all forgotten what tolerance means?
Toleration means to disagree with an idea while still defending to the death that person's right to exist and state their view.
We have a man (not a god or a superman) who has some ideas we may not like.
Are we tolerant; fighting for a fellow American's rights (freedom of speech and thought, religion etc) so he can continue to say whatever he likes?
Or are we Intolerant, arguing to take his rights away, trying to force him to apologize, make him agree with something just because we don't like it?
I will even defend the right to be intolerant because I believe in toleration even if a good many on our country do not.
Tolerance does not mean he has any claim over a person's decision to give him money or not. Which means, when you look right at it, the issue isn't people are forgetting what tolerance means; you just didn't have a good understanding of the word to begin with.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of all the articles I've seen, does anyone actually know what OSC's deal with the studios even is? Does he get additional money from ticket sales, cable showings** or a flat fee from delivering the script. Who is paid more? Him (through what has to be at least a decade of working on the script) or Harrison Ford? I've also been led to understand (can't find a link) that studios do really weird accounting, and declare movies a loss that should not be, based on ticket sales, depriving certain parties of profits all the time.
**I read Mara Wilson (Matilda)'s very excellent blog and she mentions that the money she receives from her films appearing on cable is about equivalent to her monthly electric bill.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Movie profit models are intentionally opaque and completely misleading. The creative accounting that is used to 'write off' movies as a loss at the box office is particularly egregious and arbitrary considering that practically every single movie made is a massive money-loser at the box office and studios expect to lose millions upon millions of dollars at the box office, no matter what. Yes, nearly all movies. Only rarely is a movie such a breakaway hit that it actually profits in theaters.
Secondly -
No, nobody has demonstrated real knowledge of what OSC's deal with Odd Lot, Lionsgate, Summit, etc, is. All we have are statements by OSC which suggest that he dropped off involvement in the screenplay very early on, and he says that the script is "100%" Gavin Hood's.
However long he has been working on various potential scripts for potential future Ender's Game movies, the end product nearly 100% certain isn't using a script written by OSC.
He may still be credited in some form as a writer or screenplay producer for the movie and even if he wasn't I would be completely surprised if, in actuality, OSC was not entitled to a share of the movie's profits indefinitely.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
as for the question of who wrote Ender's Game the movie, the answer so far is: Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, credited as the Creative Producers and probably are the primary writers of the script that went into production.
(you may know Orci and Kurtzman as writers of movies such as Transformers, Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen, Cowboys and Aliens, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Eagle Eye, 2005's The Legend of Zorro)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
going to stress 'probably' on that last one though. it's impossible to say who has most reworked card's ideas to the screen, but you can bet that anything card wrote has been heavily altered by many hands all the way up to screenplay.
Anyway, since I consider it so completely and incredibly unlikely that card is in no way set up to earn future profit off of this movie, I'd like to know where people are getting the idea that he isn't or where card himself is saying he won't.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Well when Transformers is the best movie in your portfolio then there's a problem.
Of that list, I would probably take Eagle Eye as the best. Not that I liked it, just didn't hate it as much.
But then they also wrote on Fringe, Alias and MI3. Still no favorites of mine but I would put all of those ahead of the listed films.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Mission Impossible 3 is bad ****ing ass.
I liked it and would certainly list it as their best but apparently I didn't love it quite as much as you do.
I think I would like it more without Tom Cruise. I actually like Cruise on the rare occasions he is in something that is NOT one of his personal vehicles.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
