Let the denials begin... don't want to piss off a crumbling cult..

http://entertainment.ie/cinema/news/Hof ... 134801.htm

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a ... ology.html

Hee hee. If Scientologists complain, it just shows they think LRH was making it up as he went along, just like the Hoffman character.

I think PTA and Crew are going about this all right. If they made it a movie "about LRon Hubbard", then hardly anyone (but critics) would want to see it (LOL)! This way it will reach a broader audience.

Plus I am sure it's true that PSH really did draw upon several different charismatic characters from that time period in order to craft his character. Making a movie "about a WWII Vet" will also help capture an older audience that would not be interested in a movie about Scilon history.

I like everything about this movie so far, even these "denials" and the mystery/controversy they are helping to create over it. It's all part of successful strategy/intelligent marketing for the movie imo. What's important to me is the success of the movie, as a movie. And think that's where they're headed.

The fact that the cult sees slams against eLwRONg and the cult leads one, at least this one, to believe that they have questions about the cult, policy, and hubbard himself. Hey if this movie strikes a cord and you think it is calling out hubs as a fraud, then there is a good chance that at some point you felt taken. Remember whats true for you...

Phillip Seymour Hoffman: "Master" is not a Scientology movie

The movie just won the special jury prize as well as best acting honors for both Phoenix and Hoffmann at the Venice Film Festival.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/en ... 6455.story

(this article doesn't provide much context otherwise, it only goes to say the movie is about "...a fledgling religious movement...")

There's some confusion here, as the article points out. "The Master" won two
prizes, but not the Special Jury Prize.

It got the best actor prize (shared between Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour
Hoffman); and the Silver Lion for best director (for Paul Thomas Anderson).

The Silver Lion is effectively the second prize: the top prize, the Golden Lion for
Best Film, went to a South Korean film "Pieta".

But then there's this intriguing passage from the article linked to above...

"Announcing the awards, Venice jury head Michael Mann took pains to point out that
new rules limited the jury to two awards per film. Sources close to the jury say that
Mann and crew wanted to give both the Golden and Silver Lion awards to "The Master"
as well as the co-honors to its stars, but couldn't because of the restrictions.

"But they clearly went out of their way to give the film as much recognition as possible."

Drudge Report picked up the story, and links to the Hollywood Reporter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/v ... ter-368892

They awarded the top two awards to "The Master", then realized the new rules of the festival prohibit any one film from being awarded more than two major awards. That says a lot about this movie.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/v ... ter-368892
"Yanks" was really the wrong adjective to use there, imo. I prefer "Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master punished for being too good".

OK, thanks for clearing it up - it was indeed a little confusing.
It's just really cool to see that Scientology is not able to destroy this film as it doubtlessly would if it could.

Of course it's not. As a "Scientology movie" it is full of inaccuracies. As a fictionalized story about a cult, it can distill what Scientology truly is into a much better story.

This reminds me of something. A while back- I think last year (2011) the new scientology response to critics became "we're not perfect- who is?, we make mistakes- who doesn't?". This message was echoed from various OTs confronting protesters on the streets.

It's funny because no protester has ever said that they expect scientology to "be perfect". And yes, the official PR response from scientology IS ALWAYS "we've done nothing wrong, those people are all liars". They have never once admitted to ANY mistake. I wish one of these OTs making these statements had been asked "Ok, so you sound like you are admitting to some mistakes. What do you think those mistakes are?" just to see how they'd respond.

Anyway, Turtlez' response reminded me of that.

For the record, we already know scientologists are only human and are not the "super human homo-novices with seekrit OT powerz" that they claim to be. We are not asking nor expecting them to be perfect. We only ask that they stop being blatantly and over the top unethical, fair gaming critics, abusing, terrorizing, lying and committing criminal acts, as an organization, especially if they expect us to recognize them as a "church". But I expect it will be a cold day in Hell before they ever say something like: "We've made mistakes and hurt people by practicing such-and-such and here's what we doing to try and fix it".

Back to topic.