MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Anyone Find Any News In Here?

The LA Times went out on a limb and did a Tm Cruise/Scientology story on Sunday… but is there anything in there?
I’m not being snarky or disrespectful to the reporting. I just don’t see anything in there and really would like to know if you do.

Be Sociable, Share!

38 Responses to “Anyone Find Any News In Here?”

  1. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    I started to read but got bored quickly and instead visited Pink is the New Blog for the third time today to laugh at their hilarious new images of Tom and PREGNANT Katie Holmes ICE SKATING! And also photos of them celebrating Kate’s birthday with the word SHAM printed across it.
    I too will only believe this when DNA evidence confirms it is his and that is is human.
    incase u didnt know

  2. EDouglas says:

    Yeah, pretty boring, although I do think that losing Nicole Kidman and replacing her with Katie Holmes must have been a huge loss for the organization, and note that Kidman only found her greatest success after splitting with Tom and the Church.

  3. bicycle bob says:

    holmes is also more than a decade younger than nicole. good for the future planning.

  4. Bruce says:

    Since when does the LA Times take shots at big players in the industry? Making enemies with Scientologists? They better know what they’re doing.

  5. BluStealer says:

    I really enjoy anything written on Scientology. I find it fascinating that people openly support a cult lead by a science fiction writer.

  6. DanYuma says:

    Well, really very little in there that wasn’t already covered far more comprehensively in the Radar magazine expose earlier this year, a terrific and not a little bit frightening piece (the website has, or had, a bonus article on Scientological abuses of its less famous members).
    But this is one thing that I don’t remember even Radar printed that the Times does: “a multimillion-dollar mansion that former members say was built for the eventual return of [L. Ron Hubbard].” Holy crap, I didn’t know that that notion had entered their canon. And the last line from a Scientologist who basically says that Cruise is channeling Hubbard from beyond the grave, there’s something vaguely chilling about it. I suddenly have the oddest feeling that if Cruise had converted to Islam instead, he’d have become a suicide bomber, or if to Judaism, he’d be a Netanyahu-like hard-liner. Or if to Buddhism he’d probably think he was the new Dalai Lama. One thing I do sort of get out of the Times piece is the veiled impression that Cruise thinks of himself, in the absence of Hubbard, as Scientology’s principal messiah.
    I don’t know if this is true or not, but I’d read years ago that Hubbard actually created Scientology on a bet with another SF writer (Ray Bradbury? Richard Matheson? Jerry Sohl? I can never remember who and can’t confirm it anyway). Hubbard’s thesis was that he could create a brand new religion that was beyond bizarre and actually get people to believe in it. I guess it possible that somewhere along the line, he started to believe in it. Has anyone ever seen the reportedly enormously gory movies Hubbard produced and directed in the 1970s? They weren’t meant for commercial distribution, just to be seen within the church, but I can’t imagine that there aren’t bootlegs. There’s a tremendously comprehensive Hubbard biography online but I don’t have a link for it, will have now to go search.

  7. LesterFreed says:

    The topic of the year on the Hot Blog.

  8. Crow T Robot says:

    We need to have a Hot Blog Awards. Where all the “regulars” send an email to Poland with 6 picks followed by their call sign.
    Winners will be announced on the 28th. A porn/MP3-stealing reception will be followed afterwards.

  9. PandaBear says:

    Make sure the porn is quality and I’m so in.
    My vote is for Spike Lee’s autuer status. LOL.

  10. Josh says:

    The Anti Jew tone from a few here is my pick and my regret. You’ll never zap away anti Jew feelings no matter how many movies you put out, Mr Spielberg.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    You make it sound like not only has the movie already come out and offended the world, but he knocked down the Wailing Wall, and then made ten more movies to atone.

  12. Josh says:

    Mr Spielberg seems to make some movies to atone for the bad things in the world. To make peace. Especially amongst Jews. That’s fine. And I usually really like all his movies. And I can’t wait to finally see Munich and see for myself what the deal is. My point here was the general anti Jew tone in here from a few people. Not my cup ‘o tea.

  13. jeffmcm says:

    Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you were bashing Spielberg. Never mind.

  14. frankbooth says:

    “I suddenly have the oddest feeling that if Cruise had converted to Islam instead, he’d have become a suicide bomber, or if to Judaism, he’d be a Netanyahu-like hard-liner. Or if to Buddhism he’d probably think he was the new Dalai Lama.”
    You left one out. But if he converted to that one he’d be…Mel Gibson.

  15. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Has anyone seen that American Express ad where Richard Gere buys a whole bunch of doves from an Indian storekeeper using his trusty AmEx card? That always gets a hearty laugh in the cinema (sorry, the Dalai Lama thing reminded me).
    Story of the year on the blog? the Brokeback to-and-fro

  16. Eric says:

    Hey Dave, can we get a fresh thread to post these Hot Blog story-of-the-year comments? This is fun.
    So far, my favorite bit of business was the back-and-forth between Dave and “Chester.”
    I also liked the big shocking Tom Cruise story that never actually broke.

  17. Krazy Eyes says:

    . . . or the lingering anticipation of DPs mysterious trainwreck of a film. Will he ever fess up or has it already been spun into oblivion?

  18. Crow T Robot says:

    “No, no… I’m sorry… the correct answer is ‘Who Gives A Shit?'”
    – Triumph The Insult Comic Dog

  19. bicycle bob says:

    as sad as it is i really wanna know the movie dave is talking about too.

  20. LesterFreed says:

    Had to be Aeon Flux.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    It’s something that hasn’t come out yet.
    That’s why it’s still a mystery.

  22. Stella's Boy says:

    Could be Rumor Has It. As I said somewhere else here, it’s awful, save for MacLaine. It’s Alex & Emma Rob Reiner, not When Harry Met Sally Reiner.

  23. Angelus21 says:

    Should we cut Reiner some slack since he was signed (or whored on) on to this the day before shooting started?

  24. Eric says:

    Yeah, what’s the story with that, anyways?

  25. Mark Ziegler says:

    Whatever the story is, he has turned in a major turd. Jennifer Aniston needs to hire a new agent. Her choices have been terrible post Friends.

  26. Stella's Boy says:

    I think writer and original director Ted Griffin was fired something like six days into filming because of clashes with the actors. It was something like that. Either way, it’s a really bad movie that just reeks of problems behind the scenes while you’re watching it. Even Costner just sort of flounders, thanks to a weak script. It’s not even close to his great work in The Upside of Anger.

  27. joefitz84 says:

    I like Costner the actor. I don’t like Costner the 9 hour movie director/star.

  28. Stella's Boy says:

    I like Costner the actor too. He is superb in The Upside of Anger, among others. The material lets him down in Rumor Has It, and he coasts through it. He didn’t have much to work with.

  29. jeffmcm says:

    The story I heard wasn’t clashes between Griffin and the actors, it was clashes between him and Aniston specifically, who thought he wasn’t spending enough time pampering her and giving her close-ups.
    Just a rumor.

  30. martin says:

    i heard he was spending too much time with the cinematographer and that production was behind schedule. But who knows. The fact that he’s no longer associated with this turd might be a good career move.

  31. Sanchez says:

    He was good in The Postman.

  32. Cadavra says:

    “Jennifer Aniston needs to hire a new agent. Her choices have been terrible post-Friends.”
    They were terrible pre-“Friends” as well. She was in three or four flop sitcoms before it (and wouldn’t have been in “Friends” if “Muddling Through” had been renewed). Face it: she’s a mildly-talented actress who won the lottery, but she never has and likely never will open a movie, and the sooner the studios realize it, the less dough they’ll be flushing down the terlet.

  33. Angelus21 says:

    What actress can open a movie on Jan 1, 2006?

  34. jeffmcm says:

    Jodie Foster, Julia Roberts, and Nicole Kidman…but each only in the right projects.
    There is no female Will Smith who can open hit movies across genres, I don’t think.

  35. Bruce says:

    When was the last time Julia Roberts was even starring in a movie? And Kidman didn’t exactly light the world in fire in “The Interpreter”, “Birth”, “Bewitched” and “Stepford Wives”.
    Females just don’t have box office pull.

  36. jeffmcm says:

    Obviously she hasn’t been in a movie in a while, but Julia R. still has the drawing power to open a movie if it was another Runaway Bride or Erin Brockovich.
    And even though all those Kidman movies were crummy, we’re talking about OPENING here. Stepford Wives opened to $21m with crappy reviews. Interpreter opened to $22m with good reviews and Penn. Bewitched opened to $20 with awful reviews and Ferrell. Seems like a pretty consistent opener to me.

  37. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Agreed on Kidman. Although I think a lot of people are forgetting that The Interpretter was pretty decent. I love it how some movies are remembered as critical failures months are they were released to positive acclaim.
    If Jodie Foster made more movies she could become the most popular actress again. Yes, she can still open a picture – but her most recent have been audience friendly genre-pics. I hope for the day that Foster returns full time and gives Meryl Streep a run for her money.

  38. jeffmcm says:

    You are right, Stepford and Bewitched were both BAD but The Interpreter was merely mediocre.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon