Early War of the Worlds reviews

[Rackhir]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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