# Early War of the Worlds reviews



## Desdichado (Jun 27, 2005)

Here's one by Harry Knowles:  http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=20580

Be careful of some minor spoilers in the second half of the review, although he gives you a heads-up before doing them.  Frankly, I didn't think they spoiled much of anything, myself.

And yeah, I know, it's just Harry Knowles, but still -- _extremely_ positive.  I'm excited.  Anyone know any other early reviews?


----------



## fett527 (Jun 27, 2005)

I haven't seen any other reviews and I am looking forward to this movie despite Tom Cruise's antics.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 27, 2005)

Personally, I am hoping Cruise will wreck his carrer with his antics. Scientology is a nasty buisness, not to mention a really bad example of Science fiction (Evil Galactic Overlord Xemu? - How can that not warn people?). Yet he's going around ranting and slamming people over  their use of anti-depressents, claiming that anti-depressants are a fraud and harmful (Oh, the IRONY. OH, THE IRONY!). So anything that helps to reduce its appeal is a good thing.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 27, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And yeah, I know, it's just Harry Knowles, but still -- _extremely_ positive.



So... painful... to... read... his... writing... head spinning....

When Harry Knowles gives a review this positive, klaxons begin howling. Warning! Warning! 

So much for that embargo. :\


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 27, 2005)

I am looking forward to it - no matter about Tom, he is still a good actor, even one with a midlife crisis.


----------



## Darthjaye (Jun 27, 2005)

Ahh, Katie Holmes...Tom's Yoko.  I've actually liked most of Tom's movies, and will probably like War too, but this guy needs a long rest and some of those drugs and psychiatric sessions he keeps slamming and swearing he knows so much about.  I'm wondering if the "water" incident didn't just wipe out the last of Tom's sanity and humor.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 27, 2005)

Eh, the way I figure it, I'd be nuts too if Nicole Kidman dumped me.


----------



## Felix (Jun 27, 2005)

Frankly I'm happy to see WotW; I hope it does well to support his "pseudoscience of psychiatry" opinion. I much prefer mind-over-matter to drugs-over-mind.

Not that I wouldn't see it anyways.


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Jun 27, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Eh, the way I figure it, I'd be nuts too if Nicole Kidman dumped me.




Yeah, even crazier if she dumped you for cheating on her ...

I'll, uh, stop there. Cruise/Scientology not my favorite things ...


----------



## KenM (Jun 27, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Eh, the way I figure it, I'd be nuts too if Nicole Kidman dumped me.




  From the way I heard she chain smokes, I would never look her way in the first place.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 27, 2005)

Anyway, how did this guy see it, anyway? I was under the impression that no movie critics (except one major guy) were given an advance screening?


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jun 27, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Anyway, how did this guy see it, anyway? I was under the impression that no movie critics (except one major guy) were given an advance screening?



If this is true, I consider it a very bad sign.  Movies that won't allow critics to view them are most often doing so because they know the reviews would be bad.

And if this guy is the _only_ critic who was given an advance screening...and he happens to be praising the movie glowingly....well, let's just say my cynic sense is tingling something fierce.


----------



## ender_wiggin (Jun 27, 2005)

Harry Knowles -- what kind of reputation does he have? From what I've read, his comments seem to be "nonformal" and whatnot.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jun 28, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> If this is true, I consider it a very bad sign. Movies that won't allow critics to view them are most often doing so because they know the reviews would be bad.




That is true after the incedent with the water microphone, They said they are not allowing critics to view the movie. Not sure if it has to do with that incedent but it was a few days later they anounced it.


----------



## Krug (Jun 28, 2005)

It's Spielberg. Hoping for a return to form after the nauseting *The Terminal*.


----------



## Renton (Jun 28, 2005)

KenM said:
			
		

> From the way I heard she chain smokes, I would never look her way in the first place.




I'll not touch this comment, except to grin and sympathetically consider her oral fixation.


----------



## The_lurkeR (Jun 28, 2005)

I have the feeling the gag on the previews was to prevent spoilers. I'm assuming (hoping) that Spielberg has changed the "twist" of the story so that the aliens are not in fact defeated by a virus.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 28, 2005)

Regardless of how good or bad the movie is, I predict Tom's recent antics will hurt this movie.  I seriuosly think he's beginning to overstay his "welcome".  I've heard that Spielberg hasn't been too happy that so much attention is on Tom and not the movie.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 28, 2005)

So could someone inform me on the finer points of what Tom Cruise has done to earn people's ire recently?  And could someone explain the oddities of Scientology?


----------



## Poky (Jun 28, 2005)

Scientology  has three major beliefs: 
a person is an immortal spiritual being possessed of supernatural powers
a person has lived through multiple reincarnations
a person is essentially good, but behaves otherwise (and lacks supernatural abilities) due to psychological trauma in their past life

In order to fix this, the believer undertakes "auditing sessions" similar to psychotherapy.

Where it gets weird:
Auditing sessions cost money.
The psychological traumas of past life include alien implants, life as a clam, and for the entire human race, kidnapping by galactic overlords in order to watch a giant 3D movie for 36 days.
Psychiatrists are to be distrusted: they invented pain and sex.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jun 28, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> I have the feeling the gag on the previews was to prevent spoilers. I'm assuming (hoping) that Spielberg has changed the "twist" of the story so that the aliens are not in fact defeated by a virus.



Dont take this the wrong way, but what's left of the original War of the Worlds after that point?


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jun 28, 2005)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Dont take this the wrong way, but what's left of the original War of the Worlds after that point?



Blood drinking aliens in tripods blowing stuff up. Oh, and they come to Earth in meteorites. That's about the basics.

As long as the twist isn't that they're destroyed by a computer virus ala Independence Day, I'll be happy.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Someone (Jun 28, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> And could someone explain the oddities of Scientology?




It was invented by a bad sci´fi writer that was heard saying that inventing a new religion would be a great way to make tons of money.

nuff said.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 28, 2005)

I am going to see the flick because the preview gave me the feeling of what it would had looked like had the creature from The Dunwich Horror multiplied to clear off the earth.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 28, 2005)

Just for the record, while I am aware of Scientologist's beliefs, I wasn't referring to them when I called Mr. Cruise nuts (since I'm not going to judge anyone else's religious beliefs as long as they are legal), I was referring to his bizzare performance on Oprah when he was jumping all around and waving his arms like a lunatic. 

Anyway, here's a link to a story about the review thing. It's apparently actually that they asked the reviewers not to publish their review until the movie has hit theaters, not that they didn't advance screen it. (I think)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050623/en_nm/film_germany_dc_1

Only one I could find though was about the Germans being upset over it..


----------



## Berandor (Jun 28, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Anyway, how did this guy see it, anyway? I was under the impression that no movie critics (except one major guy) were given an advance screening?



 As far as I know, there were preview screenings, but critics were asked not to print a review of it before the movie started. That's how it was in Germany, where the board of film critics warned their members not to sign anything to that effect. I know I just read a review of it rating it 2/5 - which is very likely since Harry Knowles gushes over it, because other films he gushed over were not very good either. His track record includes Armageddon, Blade II and other mediocre fare.

So when Knowles is very happy - be careful. Very careful.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 28, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> So could someone inform me on the finer points of what Tom Cruise has done to earn people's ire recently?



Well, there was the antics, jumping on furniture, yohooing and cheering on how much he was in love with Katie; this was on the Opra show.  Then with Matt (who was also out of line to me) asking Tom about comments he made about Brooke Shields and anti-depressants.Tom just shot back at Matt on the over medication of drugs and his beliefs, you can find that interview on the Today web site; Matt was not expecting Tom to fire back like he did and was very upset but Tom hit with knowledge and it was embrassment to Matt.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 28, 2005)

> Then with Matt (who was also out of line to me) asking Tom about comments he made about Brooke Shields and anti-depressants




Why was Matt out of line?  Tom made a stupid comment in public and now he's being called on it.  Good for Matt.  Tom has no right to make comments on other people's medical condition and expect to get a free pass.



> Tom hit with knowledge and it was embrassment to Matt.




I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say Tom countered with any "knowledge".  It was more of a rant or a tantrum than anything else.  He claimed that Matt didn't know about the history of psychiatry and he did.  He was also essentially just spewing text from the scientolog books verbatim.  Heck, he couldn't even put complete sentences together.  He was just rambling.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jun 28, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Well, there was the antics, jumping on furniture, yohooing and cheering on how much he was in love with Katie; this was on the Opra show. Then with Matt (who was also out of line to me) asking Tom about comments he made about Brooke Shields and anti-depressants.Tom just shot back at Matt on the over medication of drugs and his beliefs, you can find that interview on the Today web site; Matt was not expecting Tom to fire back like he did and was very upset but Tom hit with knowledge and it was embrassment to Matt.




Granted I have not seen the whole interview, but I have seen the clips of when the conversation starts to heat up and switch gears. And Tom does not answer Matt's questions he just states he (Tom) knows the history of psychiatry and that Matt knows nothing about it.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 28, 2005)

here is a link to the transscript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8343367/

I think Matt was out of line for pushing it, Tom gave an answer, Matt did not let it go (to me), maybe he was doing his job.  Yes, Tom did come across, shall I say preaching and he never quoted sources but then Matt could not answer him either.



> _Cruise: It is a religion.  Because it's dealing with the spirit. You as a spiritual being. It gives you tools you can use to apply to your life.
> 
> We asked Cruise to explain his recent comments regarding Brooke Shields. Cruise created a firestorm when he criticized Shields for revealing that she went into therapy and took antidepressants to deal with her postpartum depression. Cruise has said that, as a Scientologist, he doesn't believe in psychiatric medicine.
> 
> ...




more at the link above...


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jun 28, 2005)

I don't get it. To me Tom sounds like a well informed lay-person. I wouldn't advice anyone to take drugs. What's the problem?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 28, 2005)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I don't get it. To me Tom sounds like a well informed lay-person. I wouldn't advice anyone to take drugs. What's the problem?



It kind of looses passion/emotion in the transcript, there is a video link on the page too.  The problem was Tom really was ranting.  A picture is worth a thousand words.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 28, 2005)

> To me Tom sounds like a well informed lay-person.




LOL



> The problem was Tom really was ranting. A picture is worth a thousand words.




Exactly.  He became frantic.  Did Matt push him?  Yeah, a little bit, but honestly, Tom didn't need much pushing.  Once Tom got going, Matt was smart to just play it cool and keep asking questions.

Tom could have handled it much better if he just said I'm here to talk about the movie and not my personal beliefs.  Unfortunately, Tom feels a need to discuss it at every chance he gets.  He definitely likes to hear himself talk.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 28, 2005)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I don't get it. To me Tom sounds like a well informed lay-person. I wouldn't advice anyone to take drugs. What's the problem?




You are in Sweden right? Scientology is a bad science fiction novel that L Ron Hubbbard has tried to pass off as a religion. If you speak German, there should be a whole bunch of information on it in German as it has been banned as a harmful cult in Germany. Scientology persues a vendetta against psychology and psychiatry, which is the source of Cruise's negative comments on them and the use of anti-depressants.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 28, 2005)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Exactly.  He became *frantic*.



Maybe a better word would be fanatic.  

But we have hyjacked enough.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 28, 2005)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I don't get it. To me Tom sounds like a well informed lay-person.




His entire position is based upon the delusional ramblings of a splinter cult founded by a man who was probably mentally ill with paranoid dementia for most of his life, and whose position is directly contradictory to that of learned experts in the field upon which he is pontificating.

I'm not sure I'd call that a "well-informed lay person".


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 28, 2005)

I'd say its childish to base whether one sees a movie or not on one actor's personal beliefs that, in the end, have no effect whatsoever on the movie itself.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 28, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I'd say its childish to base whether one sees a movie or not on one actor's personal beliefs that, in the end, have no effect whatsoever on the movie itself.




The popularity and success of an actor or director's movies has a direct effect on their power and influence in hollywood and in society at large. The more famous they are, the more they are paid attention to and creedence given to what they advocate and suggest. So seeing or not seeing a movie can have an effect on what kind of platform actors get to stump for what they are advocating. 

For example, the massive success of "The Passion of the Christ" has been a huge boost for Mel Gibson's carreer and popularity. It's given him and his beliefs wide exposure and a significant amount of influence to make more movies like that expounding on his beliefs.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 28, 2005)

Maybe I just see movies differently than other people. I don't care about the power of the actors or directors. Let them live their lives and I'll live mine. They can advocate whatever they want, as can anyone else. Our society just has the habit of treating actors and directors as if their opinions are special or unique. They're still people, and they're allowed to believe and advocate whatever they want to.

As long as the movies are enjoyable, I'll see them.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 28, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> You are in Sweden right? Scientology is a bad science fiction novel that L Ron Hubbbard has tried to pass off as a religion. If you speak German, there should be a whole bunch of information on it in German as it has been banned as a harmful cult in Germany. Scientology persues a vendetta against psychology and psychiatry, which is the source of Cruise's negative comments on them and the use of anti-depressants.



www.xenu.net 

All you need to know about Scientology.  Very long story short: Scientologists hate psychiatry because they believe it is all a huge conspiracy to oppress the spirits ("thetans" in Scientology-speak) of humans, that there are no physiological causes for mental illness (instead they are caused by jumbled past-life memories), and that their own "auditing" techniques are the only effective way to cure mental illness or disorder.

As for hijacking the thread, given how his promotional tour for the movie has been filled with erratic behavior (certainly gaining publicity, but really putting to the test the "there is no such thing as bad publicity" concept), I think the source of that erratic behavior is quite relevant.

Although, someone who is an _very_ outspoken member of a UFO cult going nuts publically and ranting about the evils of psychiatry while promoting a movie about an alien invasion has so much irony it's more fun than the movie itself is likely to be.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 28, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Maybe I just see movies differently than other people. I don't care about the power of the actors or directors. Let them live their lives and I'll live mine. They can advocate whatever they want, as can anyone else. Our society just has the habit of treating actors and directors as if their opinions are special or unique. They're still people, and they're allowed to believe and advocate whatever they want to.
> 
> As long as the movies are enjoyable, I'll see them.




Well to a large extent I agree with you. I don't grant any special credibility to actors or other famous people simply because they are famous. Nor do I think society should.

However, the unfortunate fact is that society does. If nothing else their fame gets them a platform and attention to their ideas or what they advocate. It's why famous people are recruited to be spokes people for causes and products. Arnold didn't get elected gov out in CA, because everyone thought he was such a great leader. He got elected because he was the most famous, well known and well liked (not to mention best funded and had the most media exposure).


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 28, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> The popularity and success of an actor or director's movies has a direct effect on their power and influence in hollywood and in society at large. The more famous they are, the more they are paid attention to and creedence given to what they advocate and suggest. So seeing or not seeing a movie can have an effect on what kind of platform actors get to stump for what they are advocating.
> 
> For example, the massive success of "The Passion of the Christ" has been a huge boost for Mel Gibson's carreer and popularity. It's given him and his beliefs wide exposure and a significant amount of influence to make more movies like that expounding on his beliefs.



Yes, but the big difference there is that "The Passion of the Christ" was _all about_ Mel Gibson's beliefs.  Trying to say that "Top Gun" or "War of the Worlds" does anything for Tom Cruise's beliefs and the light in which they'll be seen by the world at large in the same way is a false analogy.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 28, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> His entire position is based upon the delusional ramblings of a splinter cult founded by a man who was probably mentally ill with paranoid dementia for most of his life, and whose position is directly contradictory to that of learned experts in the field upon which he is pontificating.
> 
> I'm not sure I'd call that a "well-informed lay person".



Based on your comments, I don't know how anyone could be seen as a credible skeptic of modern psychiatry -- if you're not already a psychiatrist, with a vested interest in maintaining the discipline, you seem to be implying that you don't have enough know-how to even speak about it.  _Of course_ he contradicts the "learned experts in the field upon which he is pontificating."  He thinks their entire field is bogus.

I'm no scientologist, but I'm still skeptical of modern psychiatry, and I become moreso all the time.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 28, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Yes, but the big difference there is that "The Passion of the Christ" was _all about_ Mel Gibson's beliefs. Trying to say that "Top Gun" or "War of the Worlds" does anything for Tom Cruise's beliefs and the light in which they'll be seen by the world at large in the same way is a false analogy.




The correlation between Gibson's beliefs and tPotC is somewhat of a red herring with regards to my main argument. My main concern and point is that the attention and publicity that their movies gives attention and publicity to their beliefs. I'm not trying to claim that there is necessarily some relationship between the content of the movies they make and the popularity of their beliefs. If there was then "Battlefield : Earth" would have killed Scientology off.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 28, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Based on your comments, I don't know how anyone could be seen as a credible skeptic of modern psychiatry -- if you're not already a psychiatrist, with a vested interest in maintaining the discipline, you seem to be implying that you don't have enough know-how to even speak about it. _Of course_ he contradicts the "learned experts in the field upon which he is pontificating."  He thinks their entire field is bogus.
> 
> I'm no scientologist, but I'm still skeptical of modern psychiatry, and I become moreso all the time.




I'm assuming that your skepticisim of psychiatry is based off of something more robust than, spirits that were imprisoned in a volcano 40 million years ago being the reason why people tend to be screwed up. It's not his skepticisim that's in question it's his reasons for being skeptical that are. 

It's one thing to believe that it's never really going to be practical for humanity to go to the stars. It's another to believe that because you think we'd crash into crystal spheres if we tried.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 28, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> The correlation between Gibson's beliefs and tPotC is somewhat of a red herring with regards to my main argument. My main concern and point is that the attention and publicity that their movies gives attention and publicity to their beliefs. I'm not trying to claim that there is necessarily some relationship between the content of the movies they make and the popularity of their beliefs. If there was then "Battlefield : Earth" would have killed Scientology off.



  Yes, but I still think there's something to that.  Scientology may be something people know more about because of Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and others, but I'm not convinced that people are doing much to change their life because of them.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 28, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that your skepticisim of psychiatry is based off of something more robust than, spirits that were imprisoned in a volcano 40 million years ago being the reason why people tend to be screwed up. It's not his skepticisim that's in question it's his reasons for being skeptical that are.



Oh, I agree.  Despite that, I found (reading the transcript, not watching the video) that I agree with Frostmarrow -- _in the context of the transcript_, and ignoring what I know about scientology and Cruise's affiliation with it, on the face of it, he sounds fairly reasonable, and if I didn't know he had some strange explanation of past lives in his back pocket driving what he was saying, I'd probably agree with most of what he actually said, if not what he implied as a scientologist.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 28, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Based on your comments, I don't know how anyone could be seen as a credible skeptic of modern psychiatry -- if you're not already a psychiatrist, with a vested interest in maintaining the discipline, you seem to be implying that you don't have enough know-how to even speak about it.  _Of course_ he contradicts the "learned experts in the field upon which he is pontificating."  He thinks their entire field is bogus.




No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying he doesn't appear to be a "well-informed lay person", since his beliefs are based upon a clearly unsound foundation. Now, being skeptical of science is not wrong, skepticism, along with curiosity, is what fuels the advance of science. But several of Cruise's statements are pretty much clearly wrong (such as "there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance"), which knock his arguments pretty much down to nothing of consequence.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 28, 2005)

> I'd say its childish to base whether one sees a movie or not on one actor's personal beliefs that, in the end, have no effect whatsoever on the movie itself.




I never said I would base my decision to see the movie on Tm's antics.  I said that in my opinion, his antics have a good chance of hurting the success of the movie. 



> Now, being skeptical of science is not wrong, skepticism, along with curiosity, is what fuels the advance of science. But several of Cruise's statements are pretty much clearly wrong (such as "there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance"), which knock his arguments pretty much down to nothing of consequence.




Right.  Nothing Tom said had any scientific basis to it.  If he formed a clear and intelligent argument backed up with some fact, then perhaps I'll consider what he's saying.  But if he's just reciting rhetoric from the books he's read, I'll take a pass.

While he was pushing Tom's buttons (which obvsiouly wasn't difficult), I thought Matt's comments about people who were actually helped by medication or therapy were right-on.  Tom was discounting psychiatry wholesale even when many people have had success through treatment.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 28, 2005)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I don't get it. To me Tom sounds like a well informed lay-person. I wouldn't advice anyone to take drugs. What's the problem?




I agree..

What's the problem?  Western society is increasingly over-medicated.  I'm no graduate student, but my Honours and undergraduate were in psychology.  Medication *does* mask the symptoms....it doesn't get rid of the problem in many cases.

In some instances, like schizophrenia, or acute depression, medication can give breathing room so the person doesn't hurt themselves or others.  But it's not a cure.

People are too reliant upon drugs.  I even know people in personal life that are that way.  They've got serious problems, and what do they do?  They pop a pill so they feel better.  But the pills cause other problems...and the people continue with pursuing life in exactly the same manner that led to the problem in the first place, instead of dealing with it.

Tom's explanation is very basic, but not entirely inaccurate.  To say he knows the history of psychiatry so he's all right is a bit much.  But, I guess, since it's a religious belief apparently, a certain amount of illogic is expected.

The other stuff about green men from mars kidnapping people in previous lives and all that.....well, that's a separate matter 

Admittedly, I know nothing about scientology...whether the core beliefs, or who is a practitioner.  All I knew is Tom is a believer....

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 28, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that your skepticisim of psychiatry is based off of something more robust than, spirits that were imprisoned in a volcano 40 million years ago being the reason why people tend to be screwed up. It's not his skepticisim that's in question it's his reasons for being skeptical that are.
> 
> It's one thing to believe that it's never really going to be practical for humanity to go to the stars. It's another to believe that because you think we'd crash into crystal spheres if we tried.




So, does Scientology believe in Spelljammer, then? 

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 28, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying he doesn't appear to be a "well-informed lay person", since his beliefs are based upon a clearly unsound foundation. Now, being skeptical of science is not wrong, skepticism, along with curiosity, is what fuels the advance of science. But several of Cruise's statements are pretty much clearly wrong (such as "there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance"), which knock his arguments pretty much down to nothing of consequence.




I'm thinking this may be a risky statement on these boards.  It's very easy to ask the next question, which is why the foundation for Tom's beliefs are so unsound, when other religions that are better established have beliefs with unsound foundations.....

I won't go any further than that 

Banshee


----------



## bolen (Jun 29, 2005)

I agree that psychiatry has a lot that they don’t understand.  But Medicine does help thousands deal with depression. It is inexcusable to tell people not to take their medicine.

I really hope that this does not encourage people to not seek help when they need it.

Also I have very real doubts on the motive of a "religion" which charges money to access its core beliefs.  (LOTS OF MONEY if you did not know)


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 29, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> So, does Scientology believe in Spelljammer, then?



Spelljammer made more sense.

Scientology believes that 65 million years ago, the evil galactic overlord Xenu dealt with the overpopulation problem of the Galactic Confederation by calling in countless billions of people for psychiatric examinations and tax audits, and having a conspiracy of evil psychiatrists sedate everyone who showed up (why they hate psychiatrists, they believe this evil conspiracy continues to this day), then packed them onto huge fleets of spaceplanes (that look just like DC-3's with rocket engines), and flew them to the planet Teegeeack (which we now know as Earth), then stacked them up around volcanos and killed them by dropping nuclear bombs into those volcanos to set them off (know all those old "dianetics" ads with volcanos exploding, it's a reference to this).  However, Xenu didn't want people to reincarnate in the rest of his galaxy, so he set up a huge network of forcefields and holographic projectors to capture the fleeing "thetans" (i.e. souls) and show them holographic images of lies to believe in like other religions, and to give them a subliminal command that if they ever found out the truth about what happened to them they would die of a wasting disease.  Then the "thetans" all were stranded on Earth, confused and kept reincarnating there, and all mental illness is due to confused past life memories and evil propaganda implanted by Xenu, and that after their powerful "auditing" techniques to remove these confused memories, you lose all mental illnesses, fears, and problems and gain superhuman powers and become a supergenius (note that Tom Cruise credits Scientology with curing his dyslexia).  They claim that anybody who hears the whole story of Xenu will die because of the "R6 Implant" that Xenu initated 65 million years ago, and only Scientology has the whole information to safely teach somebody the whole truth.

You don't get that information until you normally reach a very high level in their organization called "Operating Thetan III", which normally takes years and hundreds of thousands of dollars or signing an enlistment contract for 1 billion years (no joke) with their paramilitary arm, the Sea Organization and working for them for the rest of your life.  Look up the words "fishman affadavit" online for all the info.

Personally, I've seen psychiatric medication and treatment do worlds of good for people who seriously needed it, and I had a good friend who had to deal with the CoS (her husband became a scientologist, and saw what it did to him).  Antidepressants and anti-ADD medications are probably overprecribed because some psychiatrists see it as easier to medicate a problem than deal with the root cause, but the drugs and treatments themselves have a lot of inherent value, even if a few practitioners take the "quick and easy path" of just prescribing some medication when counseling and therapy might be more effective.


----------



## bolen (Jun 29, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Scientology believes that 65 million years ago, the evil galactic overlord Xenu dealt with the overpopulation problem of the Galactic Confederation by calling in countless billions of people for psychiatric examinations and tax audits, and having a conspiracy of evil psychiatrists sedate everyone who showed up (why they hate psychiatrists, they believe this evil conspiracy continues to this day), then packed them onto huge fleets of spaceplanes (that look just like DC-3's with rocket engines), and flew them to the planet Teegeeack (which we now know as Earth), then stacked them up around volcanos and killed them by dropping nuclear bombs into those volcanos to set them off (know all those old "dianetics" ads with volcanos exploding, it's a reference to this).  However, Xenu didn't want people to reincarnate in the rest of his galaxy, so he set up a huge network of forcefields and holographic projectors to capture the fleeing "thetans" (i.e. souls) and show them holographic images of lies to believe in like other religions, and to give them a subliminal command that if they ever found out the truth about what happened to them they would die of a wasting disease.  Then the "thetans" all were stranded on Earth, confused and kept reincarnating there, and all mental illness is due to confused past life memories and evil propaganda implanted by Xenu, and that after their powerful "auditing" techniques to remove these confused memories, you lose all mental illnesses, fears, and problems and gain superhuman powers and become a supergenius (note that Tom Cruise credits Scientology with curing his dyslexia).  They claim that anybody who hears the whole story of Xenu will die because of the "R6 Implant" that Xenu initated 65 million years ago, and only Scientology has the whole information to safely teach somebody the whole truth.
> 
> You don't get that information until you normally reach a very high level in their organization called "Operating Thetan III", which normally takes years and hundreds of thousands of dollars or signing an enlistment contract for 1 billion years (no joke) with their paramilitary arm, the Sea Organization and working for them for the rest of your life.  Look up the words "fishman affadavit" online for all the info.



I just looked it up that is amazing.  I would not buy a game based on this premise.


----------



## Welverin (Jun 29, 2005)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I don't get it. To me Tom sounds like a well informed lay-person. I wouldn't advice anyone to take drugs. What's the problem?




The problem is he comes across as the opposite of well informed, and rather fanatical in his beliefs, which all to often seem to go hand in hand. The worst part is he says drugs shouldn’t be used for treating mental problems, but at the same time says psychiatry in general is bad, thus saying people with mental health problems shouldn’t be treated at all.



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I agree..
> 
> What's the problem?  Western society is increasingly over-medicated.  I'm no graduate student, but my Honours and undergraduate were in psychology.  Medication *does* mask the symptoms....it doesn't get rid of the problem in many cases.
> 
> In some instances, like schizophrenia, or acute depression, medication can give breathing room so the person doesn't hurt themselves or others.  But it's not a cure.




The problem with Tom's rant is he's completely opposed to the use of drugs to treat mental problems. Everytime Matt tried to mention that they can and have help some people he dismissed it.

Just because drugs are over used does not mean that their use should be terminated.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 29, 2005)

Scientologist?  I thought Tom Cruise was a Sith Lord; he did recently out himself on national television, after all.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 29, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Spelljammer made more sense.
> 
> Scientology believes that 65 million years ago, the evil galactic overlord Xenu dealt with the overpopulation problem of the Galactic Confederation by calling in countless billions of people for psychiatric examinations and tax audits, and having a conspiracy of evil psychiatrists sedate everyone who showed up (why they hate psychiatrists, they believe this evil conspiracy continues to this day), then packed them onto huge fleets of spaceplanes (that look just like DC-3's with rocket engines), and flew them to the planet Teegeeack (which we now know as Earth), then stacked them up around volcanos and killed them by dropping nuclear bombs into those volcanos to set them off (know all those old "dianetics" ads with volcanos exploding, it's a reference to this).  However, Xenu didn't want people to reincarnate in the rest of his galaxy, so he set up a huge network of forcefields and holographic projectors to capture the fleeing "thetans" (i.e. souls) and show them holographic images of lies to believe in like other religions, and to give them a subliminal command that if they ever found out the truth about what happened to them they would die of a wasting disease.  Then the "thetans" all were stranded on Earth, confused and kept reincarnating there, and all mental illness is due to confused past life memories and evil propaganda implanted by Xenu, and that after their powerful "auditing" techniques to remove these confused memories, you lose all mental illnesses, fears, and problems and gain superhuman powers and become a supergenius (note that Tom Cruise credits Scientology with curing his dyslexia).  They claim that anybody who hears the whole story of Xenu will die because of the "R6 Implant" that Xenu initated 65 million years ago, and only Scientology has the whole information to safely teach somebody the whole truth.
> 
> ...




Are you joking about this, or is that really their belief?

I must not judge...

Wow.  Well, it's definitely different.....

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 29, 2005)

bolen said:
			
		

> I agree that psychiatry has a lot that they don’t understand.  But Medicine does help thousands deal with depression. It is inexcusable to tell people not to take their medicine.
> 
> I really hope that this does not encourage people to not seek help when they need it.
> 
> Also I have very real doubts on the motive of a "religion" which charges money to access its core beliefs.  (LOTS OF MONEY if you did not know)




I think there's a difference between telling people that maybe they don't need meeds and telling them not to get help.  Psychiatry and Psychology are two different fields.  Psychologists don't generally prescribe meds, though they *can* in some provinces.

Generally, psychology believes in counselling, dealing with root causes, and teaching people to manage their issues, whereas psychiatry is quick to pick a drug which will make the person feel better, but IMO, doesn't really deal with the reason why they were experiencing problems in the first place..

Banshee


----------



## Wycen (Jun 29, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Are you joking about this, or is that really their belief?
> 
> I must not judge...
> 
> ...




You are connected to the internet, you can do the research yourself.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 29, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Are you joking about this, or is that really their belief?
> 
> I must not judge...
> 
> Wow.  Well, it's definitely different.....



Dead serious, that is really the core of their belief.

Now, they won't tell you that at first, in fact most everyday Scientologists probably don't even know the story.  Like mystery cults of old, the real secrets aren't told until you're in for quite a while and have progressed through many levels of initation.  Thanks to the internet and extensive litigation, those secrets have been leaked to the entire world.  If you doubt any of this, just start searching the web and you should find ample backing for everything I've said.

Their public face of their belief system is that they offer counseling (which they call "auditing") to cure you of all your psychological problems (occasionally they have claimed it cures physical ills too).  Their initiation rite involves taking very large doses of vitamins while taking repeated saunas to purge your body of the effects of every mind-altering drug you've ever taken in your life.  Their "auditing" is much like a normal religious confession, except Scientology is noting everything in extensive files for future reference, you have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for the privliedge of each confession, and you are hooked up up to a crude lie-detector (an "e-meter" in their jargon) during the whole process.  In their beliefs, you're purging those jumbled past-life memories from your mind, so they can't bother you anymore by making you worried, or afraid, or anxious.

They say that this helps your reach the vaunted state of "Clear", where you no longer have any fears, worries, or mental problems.  Then after you reach that, you can begin the "OT" training where you begin to get psychic powers and discover the secrets of the universe.

They hint to their regular members that the highest levels involve incredible secrets, the truth behind the whole universe.  They won't tell anybody not properly initiated what it is, because they've been taught that regular folks will die if they ever hear that information.


----------



## KenM (Jun 29, 2005)

So if I ever meet Tom Cruise, I should'nt shake his hand and say "Hi, i'm Xenu."?   Some people thought at one time that I had a chemical imbalance and needed "meds" to help me. I never took any. I knew the drugs would change me. The last thing I want to do is get dependent on drugs and go though life on a happy pill all the time.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 29, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Are you joking about this, or is that really their belief?
> 
> I must not judge...
> 
> ...




Way back when, when Ron H. was writing Deitnetics (sp) there was a 'rumor' that he bet his publisher he could create a religion, so, was born the movement.  

God, getting old when you can remember the creation of a cult.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 29, 2005)

KenM said:
			
		

> So if I ever meet Tom Cruise, I should'nt shake his hand and say "Hi, i'm Xenu."?   Some people thought at one time that I had a chemical imbalance and needed "meds" to help me. I never took any. I knew the drugs would change me. The last thing I want to do is get dependent on drugs and go though life on a happy pill all the time.




That is a common misperception. Anti-Depressants don't make you "Happy" they aren't "Happy" Pills. Both my mother and I suffer from depression, so I can speak from personal experience. 

You know how a rainy day can make you feel? Picture a dull grey rainy day, one where it's cold enough that if you get wet you will feel miserable and its raining hard enough that if you try to go anywhere you will be promptly soaked, regardless of rain coats, umbrellas and boots. Now on top of that there is nothing interesting to do and nothing you feel like doing. 

Depression is feeling like that *all* the time. 

Anti-depressants just help make that feeling go away. So that you can feel happy or sad as you would normally. You could say I'm "Dependent" on anti-depressants, but considering the alternative, it's like saying I'm "dependant" on Food and water.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 29, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'm thinking this may be a risky statement on these boards.  It's very easy to ask the next question, which is why the foundation for Tom's beliefs are so unsound, when other religions that are better established have beliefs with unsound foundations.....




Other religions that make statements concerning the validity of science and medicine are just as unsound (for example Christian Scientists views regarding medecine, and some fundamentalist Christian sects' views concerning evolution). Note, this is different from religions that object to certain things on _moral_ grounds, but that's not what the deal with Scientology and psychiatry. Scientology teaches that psyciatrists are part of an evil alien conspiracy to keep humans enslaved to incorporeal evil spirits (engrons) that cause all mental disorders and antisocial behaviour, as well as most physical illnesses.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 29, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> What's the problem?  Western society is increasingly over-medicated.  I'm no graduate student, but my Honours and undergraduate were in psychology.  Medication *does* mask the symptoms....it doesn't get rid of the problem in many cases.




Yes, but Scientology doesn't _just_ oppose the use of medications to treat mental illnesses, it opposes _any_ sort of treatment (including counseling and so on) other than their "auditing" procedure which is supposed to clear out all those nasty "engrons" that infest your body and make you sick and/or antisocial.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 29, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Other religions that make statements concerning the validity of science and medicine are just as unsound (for example Christian Scientists views regarding medecine, and some fundamentalist Christian sects' views concerning evolution). Note, this is different from religions that object to certain things on _moral_ grounds, but that's not what the deal with Scientology and psychiatry. Scientology teaches that psyciatrists are part of an evil alien conspiracy to keep humans enslaved to incorporeal evil spirits (engrons) that cause all mental disorders and antisocial behaviour, as well as most physical illnesses.




Let's not get into religions. Scientology is only a religion for tax purposes. There is no question of faith when it comes to something like this, any more than there is with regards to the question of if Sasquach is real.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2005)

Wycen said:
			
		

> You are connected to the internet, you can do the research yourself.



That's nice.

Here's a link:  http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/fishman/home.html


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Way back when, when Ron H. was writing Deitnetics (sp) there was a 'rumor' that he bet his publisher he could create a religion, so, was born the movement.
> 
> God, getting old when you can remember the creation of a cult.



I had heard it was a bet between him and Frank Herbert -- either way I suspect it's an urban myth.

Although apparently Hubbard was heard by several to say something along the lines of "the way to get rich is to create a religion" which, if true, does kinda make one wonder about the legitimacy of the movement.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 29, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Let's not get into religions. Scientology is only a religion for tax purposes. There is no question of faith when it comes to something like this, any more than there is with regards to the question of if Sasquach is real.




Oh I agree, but there's always someone out there who, when you point out the silliness of Scientology's positions on the treatment of mental illness, says "Yeah? Well _other_ religions reject science-based stuff too, so there" and thinks that they have scored a point or something. They haven't. Other religions that make those sorts of claims are _also_ silly in my book.

But that's the extent of how far I'm willing to discuss other religions in this format, as opposed to the pseudo-religion quackery that is Scientology, which I will happily make fun of for hours on end.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 29, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Oh I agree, but there's always someone out there who, when you point out the silliness of Scientology's positions on the treatment of mental illness, says "Yeah? Well _other_ religions reject science-based stuff too, so there" and thinks that they have scored a point or something. They haven't. Other religions that make those sorts of claims are _also_ silly in my book.




If they make that sort of claim, just ignore it. If you continue to argue with them on that sort of topic you are going to turn things into an argument on religion.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 29, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> If they make that sort of claim, just ignore it. If you continue to argue with them on that sort of topic you are going to turn things into an argument on religion.




My response is more of a "Yes, you are right, those things are silly too, next topic" sort of thing. It neutralizes the "other religions say kooky things about science too" argument pretty effectively.

The best part about Tom Cruise's very public melt-downs over Scientology is that it seems to have inspired many new people to actually _look_ at Scientology's claims and practices, and Scientology doesn't seem to be coming out looking too good.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 29, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The best part about Tom Cruise's very public melt-downs over Scientology is that it seems to have inspired many new people to actually _look_ at Scientology's claims and practices, and Scientology doesn't seem to be coming out looking too good.




I have to agree with you on this point, I've been surprised at how many people don't seem to be aware of what Scientology is really selling. As they say, light is the best disinfectant.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> I have to agree with you on this point, I've been surprised at how many people don't seem to be aware of what Scientology is really selling. As they say, light is the best disinfectant.



I had no idea until very recently.  Of course, I'm not really "in the market" for a new religion, so that's beside the point too.


----------



## GentleGiant (Jun 29, 2005)

I just stumbled on this on a Danish gossip page (the gossip page is part of a tv-channel's homepage):

The world's cynicists have for long had a suspiscion that the relationship between Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise was a PR-stunt. It's simply too good to be true. Now an anonomous source from Hollywood confirms that it's all an act. Because Tom Cruise prefers men.

"So, the whole Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes thing - apparently, it is, like we all thought anyway, a ridiculous PR thing. Tom Cruise was supposedly caught in bed with Rob Thomas (the lead singer of Matchbox 20) by Rob Thomas's wife, Marisol. Rob Thomas is also a Scientologist. Obviously, nobody wanted this to get out, and Marisol was going nuts threatening to expose them. I think that she might be getting paid off, but to preempt any rumors about Tom, the Scientology people as well as Tom's PR people basically recruited Katie Holmes to play this part of Tom's super-excited girlfriend, and they are just paying her a b*ttload of money. I guess they also woo'd her with promises of what this would do for her career, since she's at best a B-lister. But I guess now Marisol is so annoyed at all of the press Tom and Katie's relationship is getting, she's threatening to go public, spill the beans, and file for divorce."

(combined translation of the Danish site and what I found on TheSuperficial.com which is listed as the source - the above is not the whole quote from the site)


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 29, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> I just stumbled on this on a Danish gossip page (the gossip page is part of a tv-channel's homepage):
> 
> The world's cynicists have for long had a suspiscion that the relationship between Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise was a PR-stunt. It's simply too good to be true. Now an anonomous source from Hollywood confirms that it's all an act. Because Tom Cruise prefers men.




This is not a new claim. Almost exactly the same thing was said about his marriage to Nicole Kidman. While (for no particular reason) it wouldn't surprise me if he turned out to be gay (there are obviously more gay people in Hollywood than have admited it), but I don't see any real reason to believe it, nor do I care if he is gay. Who he sleeps with is his own buisness.


----------



## GentleGiant (Jun 29, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> This is not a new claim. Almost exactly the same thing was said about his marriage to Nicole Kidman. While (for no particular reason) it wouldn't surprise me if he turned out to be gay (there are obviously more gay people in Hollywood than have admited it), but I don't see any real reason to believe it, nor do I care if he is gay. Who he sleeps with is his own buisness.



Totally agree, just thought it was funny that it mentioned Scientology trying to cover it up too


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 29, 2005)

Don't want to interrupt the discussion of Tom Cruise and Scientology, but this was posted on Boston.com in a review of War of the Worlds and I thought it was really funny.  



> Cruise plays Ray Ferrier, a dockworker who's two steps away from being a deadbeat dad, and it's a mark of the star's unfussy immersion in the role that I forgot all about his recent looney-tune shenanigans five minutes in.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Curiously, in the next scene he emerges from that basement as Tom Cruise, action hero, and when the character disappears up the sphincter of an alien ship -- sorry, that's what it looks like -- I half expected him to come out holding Katie Holmes.




The whole review is here: http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=7276


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jun 29, 2005)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I wouldn't advice anyone to take drugs. What's the problem?




Tell someone to refuse their antibiotics following Surgery?

No Aspirin whil the cast on your broken arm sets up?

No clotting agents for a Hemophiliac?

I'd advise all manner of people to take drugs.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 29, 2005)

GentleGiant said:
			
		

> Totally agree, just thought it was funny that it mentioned Scientology trying to cover it up too




Scientology has been accused of lots of conspiracies: arranging the marriage of Lisa Marie Presley and Michael Jackson, making sure that Tom Cruise always has a girlfriend or wife to cover up for the "fact" that he is gay, reviving John Travoltas career in various ways, and so on.

I tend to disbelieve most of these rumors. Conspiracy theories are fun, but actual conspiracies hard to pull off, and I don't think the crowd of goofballs in charge of Scientology could pull these sorts of things off.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Don't want to interrupt the discussion of Tom Cruise and Scientology, but this was posted on Boston.com in a review of War of the Worlds and I thought it was really funny.



It was funny... yet also disturbing.  Why did the author of that review feel inclined to link a 100+ year old story (which, by all accounts I've seen so far, was updated little with the exception of some of the characters) to current events, and then get pissed off at the movie for not having the "right" view of said current events?   :\


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 29, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It was funny... yet also disturbing.  Why did the author of that review feel inclined to link a 100+ year old story (which, by all accounts I've seen so far, was updated little with the exception of some of the characters) to current events, and then get pissed off at the movie for not having the "right" view of said current events?   :\




Probably because he is writing for the Boston Globe.  I really like the paper, but there is a definite "slant" to much of its writing - even in the A&E sections.


----------



## Villano (Jun 29, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The best part about Tom Cruise's very public melt-downs over Scientology is that it seems to have inspired many new people to actually _look_ at Scientology's claims and practices, and Scientology doesn't seem to be coming out looking too good.




There have been some TV specials on Scientology in the past.  A couple of the night time news shows like 60 Minutes did some as well as, I think, A&E.  

One of the things they exposed was how Scientology targets it's critics.  I remember that they started rumor that one woman used to be a stripper or prosititute.  Even when it was exposed as a lie, representatives would still mention it by saying they weren't going to bring it up.  You know, "We don't feel it necessary to dwell on the rumors that Ms. So-And-So was arrested for prostitution...".  

I once saw a website that had some Scientology e-mails on them about how to deal with critics.  I can't find that one, but here's a link to something similar:

http://www.xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/

Hubbard himself seems to have been, well, crazy.  He claimed that he saw combat in WW2 and how he helped soldiers with their injuries is how he came to found Dianetics.  In reality, while he did captain a ship in the Navy, he never saw combat.  In fact, he was relieved of duty after firing on a Mexican island and ordering a depth-charge "battle" against nonexistent Japanese submarines off the Oregon coast.  

And, my favorite one, he was a nuclear physicist.  He actually only took one semester of nuclear physics, and received an "F". 

Even his own son has nothing but negative things to say about him.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 29, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Tell someone to refuse their antibiotics following Surgery?
> 
> No Aspirin whil the cast on your broken arm sets up?
> 
> ...




There is a major diffrence between those and the efforts of the drug pushers who want children with strong life energy on ritalin so they will fit in. Those blasted ****s tried to dope my grandmother up on so much haloperidol she could only lay in the bed and soil herself.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 29, 2005)

That there are bad plumbers does not imply we should never have our drains cleaned professionally.


----------



## KenM (Jun 29, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Scientology has been accused of lots of conspiracies:  reviving John Travoltas career in various ways, and so on.





  So, kind of ironic that Travoltas Battlefield Earth movie tanked. LOL


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 30, 2005)

KenM said:
			
		

> So, kind of ironic that Travoltas Battlefield Earth movie tanked. LOL




Scientologists seem to have a blind spot about Hubbard's crappy science fiction. One of the clumsier conspiracy theories attributed to them is an effort at "marketing" Hubbard by organizing purchases of reprints of his books, so they stay in print and make best seller lists.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 30, 2005)

They say drugs "bad", but vitamins "good"? Aren't vitamins a form of "drug"?

Quasqueton


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 30, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> They say drugs "bad", but vitamins "good"? Aren't vitamins a form of "drug"?




Don't look for logic in a religion created by a bad science fiction author who appears to have been afflicted with paranoid delusions and megalomania.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 30, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> They say drugs "bad", but vitamins "good"? Aren't vitamins a form of "drug"?
> 
> Quasqueton



Supplements, which you can get from food


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 30, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, but Scientology doesn't _just_ oppose the use of medications to treat mental illnesses, it opposes _any_ sort of treatment (including counseling and so on) other than their "auditing" procedure which is supposed to clear out all those nasty "engrons" that infest your body and make you sick and/or antisocial.




Well.....I guess I'm not fit to be a scientologist....maybe I'm a servant of Xenu, since I'm a firm believer in the use of counselling to teach people how to deal with problems   I guess I'm all into mind control afterall, even though I don't support the drugs.

Bad me.  Bad.

Banshee


----------



## myrdden (Jun 30, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I'd advise all manner of people to take drugs.




And he's from Vancouver, so he knows!


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 30, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Scientologists seem to have a blind spot about Hubbard's crappy science fiction. One of the clumsier conspiracy theories attributed to them is an effort at "marketing" Hubbard by organizing purchases of reprints of his books, so they stay in print and make best seller lists.



They've actually got a long list of attempted, and failed, giant conspiracies, and their own grandiose names for them.  

Operation Snow White.  The one that got Mary Sue Hubbard (L. Ron's wife) and 10 other high-ranking Scientologists sent to Federal prison.  They engaged in a huge conspiracy to break in to IRS, Interpol, US Coast Guard and FBI offices and steal all files on them that were critical or hostile to them, as well as engage in wiretapping to monitor the state of investigations against them.  It was shut down in 1977 when the FBI caught on to what was happening, raided CoS offices and not only revealed that they had been engaging in this conspiracy, but another conspiracy as well. . .

Operation Freakout.  This one was revealed in the 1977 in papers that were siezed after FBI raids on Scientology facilities in the aftermath of "Snow White".  It was a plan, already in progress, to frame critics of Scientology for crimes, and Paulette Cooper (the primary target) was cleared of charges of making bomb and death threats by mail when the evidence turned up that she was framed because she wrote anti-Scientology books.

Project Bulgravia.  This one got Scientology banned in Greece in 1999.  Greek police raids found that they had been engaging in a huge, almost comic-book-supervillain, plan throughout the 1990's to try and carve out their own "homeland" from parts of Bulgaria, Greece, Albania and former Yugoslavia in the aftermath of the collapse of the Iron Curtain, and had engaged in illegal wiretaps and surveilance against the Greek government as part of it.  The plan failed when all the details were published and it was made clear to all the governments involved.

There is no fancy name for it, but they were also thrown out of Morocco in 1972 after it was uncovered that they had been backing an attempted coup of the government.

They have a very long history of huge, elaborate conspiracies to accomplish their goals.  Fortunately, their giant conspiracies tend to end in dismal failure.

As for smaller things, like buying loads of copies of L. Ron's books to inflate sales.  That's a little more practical.  They have very large financial resources, and members who are willing to devote all their time and money to them, so buying bulk copies of their own books to make their founder look better is a lot more plausible than some of the conspiracies the have actually been convicted of.


----------



## Villano (Jun 30, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> As for smaller things, like buying loads of copies of L. Ron's books to inflate sales.  That's a little more practical.  They have very large financial resources, and members who are willing to devote all their time and money to them, so buying bulk copies of their own books to make their founder look better is a lot more plausible than some of the conspiracies the have actually been convicted of.




I have a friend who works in a bookstore (one of the big chains) in CA.  When Battlefield: Earth came out, they had to set up a display for the novel (complete with an inflatable John Travolta).  Scientologists came in and tried to instruct the workers on how to set up the display, where to put it, etc..  Of course, the employees just ignored them and set it up where their boss told them.  The Scientologists didn't think it was in a prominent enough place and came it several times to complain (my friend was bothered about it twice and several other employees complained about them). 

Anyway, he told me that nearly all the copies they had were sold to people who bought them a dozen or more at a time.  Since most people don't buy 12 copies of the same book, they were most likely Scientologists.

There are also reports of theaters being sold out, but only having a few people actually in them.  I remember seeing someone on a movie review site claim that they worked at a theater and they had a "sold out" show with only 7 or 12 (or something like that) people there.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 1, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> They've actually got a long list of attempted, and failed, giant conspiracies, and their own grandiose names for them.



Man, some of those seem like fodder for an L. Ron Hubbard book. Not knowing there was even something called Scientology, when the 10 volume Mission Earth I grabbed them because of the novelty of a 10 volume "book".

They were modestly entertaining. Having read it, and then discovering he founded Scientology, and then read up on Scientology... so many things in of Mission Earth just leapt out at me.  I almost wondered if Mission Earth was a devilishly subtle attempt to discredit Scientology.

But I never knew about those "conspiracies" they themselves were involved in, and I repeat, they seem right out of some parts of Mission Earth. Heh...


----------



## apoptosis (Jul 1, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> There is a major diffrence between those and the efforts of the drug pushers who want children with strong life energy on ritalin so they will fit in. Those blasted ****s tried to dope my grandmother up on so much haloperidol she could only lay in the bed and soil herself.




Anectodal stories of bad medical pratice though is not a great defense of the pros and cons of medication.  ALL drugs can be used inappropriately as can vitamins (heck too much water can kill you), but that should not stop the use of appropriate drugs. 

Psychotropics including all classes of antidepressants  have been shown to be very effective and very beneficial in many clinical cases (frankly the clinical studies shows this time and again, though about 1/3 of studies dont seperate well from placebo) but like all medication are not appropriate for all situations and will not work effectively for all individuals.

But I personally have great doubts Cruise read the "research" on psychiatry, I imagine he couldnt name either the pivotal studies, investigators or even journals in psychopharmacology.  I found what he said to be ridiculous, the only thing more ridiculous would be people listening to him for any type of medical advice

Apoptosis


----------



## Zaukrie (Jul 1, 2005)

I'm surprised this thread wasn't locked. While I'm certainly no fan of Scientology and it's beliefs, I'm pretty sure some of you would not like to have similar things said about your religions (and I gotta say, I know people who believe many of the same things about the major religions). Yep, it sure seems to be a cult, but still...


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 1, 2005)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I'm surprised this thread wasn't locked. While I'm certainly no fan of Scientology and it's beliefs, I'm pretty sure some of you would not like to have similar things said about your religions (and I gotta say, I know people who believe many of the same things about the major religions). Yep, it sure seems to be a cult, but still...




Scientology is ONLY a religion for tax purposes (Ie. they didn't want to have to pay taxes) and it's pretty easy to document this with a simple google search. It is a very nasty organization and peddles such obvious BS, I mean come on! "Evil Galactic Overlord Xenu"? Just calling your cult a religion doesn't make it so. 

Check this out on Scientology's Tax History

http://www.factnet.org/headlines/give-away.htm?FACTNet

Calling a Neo-Nazi a Nazi, doesn't mean you are insulting people from Germany.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jul 1, 2005)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> But I personally have great doubts Cruise read the "research" on psychiatry, I imagine he couldnt name either the pivotal studies, investigators or even journals in psychopharmacology. I found what he said to be ridiculous, the only thing more ridiculous would be people listening to him for any type of medical advice



Note also he mentioned in his debate with Matt Lauer that he knows the "history of psychiatry".  Now, some of the things done in the name of psychiatry over the years are not things to be proud of, to be sure.  One speculation is that Hubbard invented Scientology as a reaction to the wide-spread practice of electroshock therapy which occured in the fifties. However, dismissing all of psychiatry on this basis is like dismissing all of modern astronomy because once in its history people thought the earth was the cente of the universe.  Scientology's criticism and understanding of modern mental health practices is most likely very dated.

Unless Tom's reference to the history of psychiatry is to events from 40 million years ago. 

And there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance?  Then how do people get drunk?



			
				Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I'm surprised this thread wasn't locked. While I'm certainly no fan of Scientology and it's beliefs, I'm pretty sure some of you would not like to have similar things said about your religions (and I gotta say, I know people who believe many of the same things about the major religions). Yep, it sure seems to be a cult, but still...



Scientology is not promoted as a religion in many other countries in which it operates, but is merely a "consulting group".  It is widely believed that Scientology established itself in the US as a "religion" mainly for tax purposes.


----------



## Dakkareth (Jul 1, 2005)

Quick question: I'm a little bored this evening, what would you advise - Go see _Batman Begins_ a second time or see _War of the Worlds_?

Right now I'm tending towards the first, especially as I haven't read the original book of WotW ...


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jul 1, 2005)

I say go watch Batman again. It was a good movie and I picked up some new things when I watched it a second time.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jul 1, 2005)

That may be why it is established as a religion here, but the arguments and discussions being put forth are about it as a religion, and how ridiculous their religious claims are. That was my only point.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 1, 2005)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> That may be why it is established as a religion here, but the arguments and discussions being put forth are about it as a religion, and how ridiculous their religious claims are. That was my only point.




Actually, it is a discussion of how ridiculous their claims in general are, religious or otherwise. And how ridiculous their activities are as well.


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 1, 2005)

I have a question.....wasn't this a thread about early reviews for WotW?  Why in the heck has it devolved into a scientology discussion?  Shouldn't there be a seperate thread about scientology?  I for one don't care what Tom Cruise's personal opinions on anything are about.  Spielberg made a good remake and despite Cruise's antics, it's still an enjoyable remake that is done quite well.  I would buy it on DVD and recommend it to others to see.  Visually it's good, and it's got a good story (Ray's story within the larger story is a good one).


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 1, 2005)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Scientology is not promoted as a religion in many other countries in which it operates, but is merely a "consulting group".  It is widely believed that Scientology established itself in the US as a "religion" mainly for tax purposes.



That and so they would not be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.  In the 1950's the early Dianetics and Scientology Franchises (they weren't called "Churches" yet) were investigated heavily by the FDA and the AMA, and they were accused of practicing medicine without a license, since their "self help" programs and "auditing" counseling were touted as being able to cure cancer, migraines, broken bones, and countless mental disorders.  The "past life" aspects of their regression therapy had religious connotations, so they would pull them out when investigation got too hot.  When psychiatrists started seriously questioning (and outright debunking) their claims, they founded the "Citizens Commision on Human Rights" as their anti-psychiatry "watchdog" group and began a decades long campaign to eliminate all psychiatry.

This was instantly controversial, and after a long, drawn out fight in 1967 the IRS revoked their Tax Exempt status, saying their religious claims were a sham.  This was about the same time they were found by a court in the UK to not be a legitimate religion, so they moved into international waters aboard a small fleet of ships and L. Ron titled himself "The Commodore" and ran the CoS from the ocean for the rest of his life.  They also began suing the IRS with literally thousands of lawsuits over their tax-exempt status.  This lead to a series of court fights where the in 1993 (a 26 year court battle) the IRS finally settled with the CoS in a sealed settlement where the IRS would grant tax-exempt status, in exchange for dropping their lawsuits (and some other concessions that both parties agreed to keep secret, and the IRS hasn't disclosed the full terms of the settlement, even in violation of a court order and tax law).

In 1971 a US court ruled that their medical claims were completely bogus, so they responded by completely incorporating as a religion and "fees" became "fixed donations", auditing was "pastoral counseling" and "confession", quack medicine overdoses of vitamins went from being "detoxification" to a "religious sacrament".  "Franchises" became "Missions" and "Churches".  Senior staff members occasionally wore clerical collars too.  Nothing changed about their procedures, just the terms they used.  L.Ron's space opera cosmology became "sacred scriptures".

The tax exempt status is awfully nice (and it gives a legal degree of respectability to their religious status), but Scientology practices would have been banned in the US over 30 years ago as quack medicine if they didn't claim that their treatments were religious practices.  You have to really question a "religion" where not only do you have to pay big bucks for their religious texts and to find out what they actually believe (virtually every other religion is happy to give you a copy of their holy books and teach you what they believe for free), but actively and aggressively prosecutes those who practice their teachings or spread their "scriptures" without their permission for copyright problems, trademarked the name of their "religion" and claims legal "Trade Secret" protections on many of their "scriptures".

In many countries, they don't even claim to be a religion, it's just a nice convenience that in the US if you call it a religion you can get away with an awful lot because of our traditional national tolerance towards unorthodox beliefs and strong constitutional protections.  In Israel they offer the exact same services as a secular philosophy/self-help group and make no claims of being a religion.


----------



## Tom Cruise (Jul 1, 2005)

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

None of you understands the history of Scientology. Least of all you, wingsandsword.

My new movie will rock you like L. Ron himself.


----------



## F5 (Jul 1, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I had heard it was a bet between him and Frank Herbert -- either way I suspect it's an urban myth.
> 
> 
> 
> > I had heard that it was a bet between him and Harlan Ellison.  And I can't remember where I heard it, now.  That lends more credibility to the "urban myth" theory, in my mind.


----------



## aaronrelyea (Jul 1, 2005)

What the hell is going on here?


----------



## Fast Learner (Jul 2, 2005)

An interesting read on people's opinions and perspectives on Scientology, religion vs. cult, etc. Most interesting thread this week, imo.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 3, 2005)

So some people like the movie and some don't.  Some think that paying to see the movie would support and provide some legitimacy to Tom Cruise's wacky views.  The solution:  Illegal Free Downloads, of course!  

More seriously (note the smiley, note the smiley!), I think the idea behind drugs is that they take away the symptoms, but this allows one to *then* take counselling to get at the root causes.  Because otherwise, the counselling might not be possible or effective, because the symptoms are so very severe.  But I could be wrong on this.

I would be curious on the Tom Cruise view on things like Sugar, Caffeine, etc.  Very common ways to affect the mental self.

I remember there was a Cult Awareness Network started up to make people aware of the dangers of cults.  But now that very network has been taken over by Scientologists, so that now they make people aware of the dangers of *other* cults, but not, of course, the dangers of Scientology.  Found that out when I phoned the CAN one day.


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 3, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> So some people like the movie and some don't.  Some think that paying to see the movie would support and provide some legitimacy to Tom Cruise's wacky views.  The solution:  Illegal Free Downloads, of course!




Hollywood is very focused on the weekend (esp opening ) grosses. If you don't want to "support" Cruise, then simply avoiding the opening weekend or catching it a few weeks after the opening should be sufficient.



			
				Particle_Man said:
			
		

> More seriously (note the smiley, note the smiley!), I think the idea behind drugs is that they take away the symptoms, but this allows one to *then* take counselling to get at the root causes.  Because otherwise, the counselling might not be possible or effective, because the symptoms are so very severe.  But I could be wrong on this.




It depends on the nature of the problem. Long term depression isn't likely to be affected by counselling, since it stems from a physical basis. Of course it is still an unresolved question of how much is biology vs mind.



			
				Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I remember there was a Cult Awareness Network started up to make people aware of the dangers of cults.  But now that very network has been taken over by Scientologists, so that now they make people aware of the dangers of *other* cults, but not, of course, the dangers of Scientology.  Found that out when I phoned the CAN one day.




Well Scientology really isn't a cult, it's just bad SF with a bunch of really overenthusiastic LARPers.  

Yeah, I heard about this a number of years back. It is disturbing. So what were you calling CAN about?


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 3, 2005)

A young and stupid friend with a manipulative boyfriend involved in a very fringe political group (I won't go into details as I don't want to offend).  I was trying to see if a fanatical political group counted as a cult.  The Scientology part came up when I said "I was wondering if this counted as a cult like the Moonies or Scientologists".  And then I found out about Scientologists at the CAN, and then did a bit of research.  Quite the surprise. 

And speaking personally, I consider Scientology to be a cult.  Costs money to join, nasty tactics against those who leave or speak vs. it, recruits "high profile" members (like Cruise, the voice of Bart Simpson, etc.) to get more "rank and file" members, eventually requires the equivalent of slave labour in devotion (if you don't have money and you want to advance, you do work for them), uses their own psychological methods (whatever they wanna call them, that is what they effectively are) to alter people's personalities to be more compliant followers of the Scientology group (and thus give up more money to advance to the next level)...I don't see what they lack that a cult has, so I call it a cult.  But that is strictly IMHO.

I wonder if they got worried about "Xena: Warrior Princess" (Oh no!  Xenu has returned as a woman!")


----------



## Tom Cruise (Jul 3, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I would be curious on the Tom Cruise view on things like Sugar, Caffeine, etc. Very common ways to affect the mental self.




Particle, particle, particle, particle, particle, particle.

Man, man, man, man, _man_.

Particle Man...

I've done a lot of interviews over the years, Particle Man, so that's how I know that everything I say is very, very important. I've gotten over 154,000 responses from people thanking me. You should see some of the letters I get. You should try writing one. To me. People go for help but their lives don't get better because of these drugs, these stimulants and sweeteners that _you yourself_ call "harmless," Particle Man. They get worse. They feel numb and they're told that's a good thing. It's becoming like Huxley's Brave New World. It's like what the English did to China with opium. How is this different? It's how you degrade a society—by sweetening and stimulating the piss out of it. No pun intended. You know, with the coffee and all.

But hey, don't you want to know about the ring I got for Katie? This is a _War of the Worlds_ virtual discussion lounge, right?


----------



## David Howery (Jul 4, 2005)

I find the idea that Scientologists go out and buy scads of Hubbard's books to keep him on the best sellers lists to be a rather amusing one.  If you were the book publisher, wouldn't you be going "Kaching!"?  With all those guaranteed sales, I'd be reprinting Hubbard's books till Doomsday....


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 4, 2005)

Even funnier...L. Ron Hubbard became quite a prolific author *after his death*.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 4, 2005)

Hey all! 

Saw the movie on Friday. Very, very disappointing. 

Eberts review was pretty spot on.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

Frankly, I find myself increasingly disagreeing with anything Harry Knowles says, but I suppose hes entitled to his opinion as much as the next man.

The 1953 movie was far superior in many ways, certainly in terms of *logic*, scope, action, even special effects. 

Probably the worst movie I can remember from Tom Cruise (maybe thats why hes publicising it so much) and I have almost given up hope for Spielberg...one last chance for Indy IV Steven.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jul 4, 2005)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I'm surprised this thread wasn't locked. While I'm certainly no fan of Scientology and it's beliefs, I'm pretty sure some of you would not like to have similar things said about your religions (and I gotta say, I know people who believe many of the same things about the major religions). Yep, it sure seems to be a cult, but still...




From Rotten.com's awesome page on Scientology, with passages bolded by me for emphasis:



> By far their favorite tactic is to tar critics with the "religious bigot" brush. That is, anybody with the audacity to call Scientology a "cult" or mock its preposterous ideology is automatically accused of denying the church its First Amendment rights. In doing so, Scientologists appear to operate under an expectation that all religions are to be afforded an equal degree of respect by the general public. This is made evident in their favorite debate tactic: label your opponent the equivalent of a Jew-hater. That is, challenge their opponent to justify his position if it were about Judaism instead of Scientology. This Jedi mind trick is remarkably effective -- partly because a sane person avoids even the specter of anti-semitism, but also because most people have only a vague notion of the parameters of religious freedom.
> 
> Their implicit argument is that treating Scientology any different from more established faiths (_eg._ Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam) in and of itself somehow constitutes unfair discrimination. This is total bull. Just because the government has to observe strict impartiality toward a citizen's cherished mythology doesn't mean the rest of the general public does too. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about it being illegal to ridicule or deride someone's lameass religious beliefs.
> 
> ...


----------

