...and another ha'penny: Perhaps the only Kubrick film I really enjoyed throughout was "Dr Strangelove" - mostly for the marvellous performances of Peter Sellers and the unforgettable Slim Pickens - but also for the "message" (with which I happened to agree). I think I first saw it in 1964 in Germany, and I recall being the only person in the theatre who was laughing very much. I guess the humour didn't translate too well - or the characterisations didn't seem so outlandish at the time. Gosh, that's a scary thought!

I-KoX

i don't think nicole will speak out for awhile or never. the cult stepped in and helped them settle their $ and pr and kid issues when they split . she probably had to sign something that she would'nt talk about the cult or t's sexuality in exchange for what would have been her fair shake anyway.
she also probably had auditing and does'nt want those folders made public. i don't think tc would either.
i, too, am so glad her star is rising now. she deserves it.

Why are people so afraid of having what's in their folders revealed? Do they sign something that says every word is true after every session in which they reveal something especially damning? If they do, and if they have the same access to the same media that would print what's in the folders, all they'd have to do is insist that their signature was obtained under duress or that their signature (or the confessions themselves) was forged. If they don't sign it, they could deny it. After all, co$ is well known for fabricating that sort of thing, anyway.

A high-profile person, even an ACTRESS!, would have a lot more credibility with most people than the co$.

I wish that was true, Freeborn, but I'm afraid that alot of people would just love to believe any salacious thing they read that was in the pc folders. But I DO believe that, when the cos is exposed, the public will have such distrust of the organization that people WILL have deniability of what's in their pc folders, as in, they were brain-washed and coerced into making up things.

raised 11th

I have to agree with imfortruth. He is absolutely correct.

I also honestly believe in the right of privicy. As long as what a person does is not forced upon another person then it is NOBODY's business, except for the persons involved.

I wish the right of privicy was in the bill of rights. It should be considered as a basic right with life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Hmmmmm...I know that I automatically discredit anything I accidentally see on the covers of the tabloids, so my reasoning is that the other "respectable" media would avoid revealing those probably-not-as-salacious-as-you-think details. Of course, if someone had done something truly criminal, I can see why they wouldn't want anyone to even suspect that. But how many true criminals wind up as both celebrities and clams?

If you watch most of the stories on TV, there wouldn't be much in any of those folders (especially the older ones) that would be worth oohing and aahing about...salaciousness seems to be ordinary these days. Besides, do we know for sure that celebrities don't secretly enjoy the publicity, even if it's negative? Tom Cruise doesn't seem to be hopping mad about all the stuff they've thrown at him.

We DO have the right to privacy! "Endowed by our Creator," etc. The problem is that governments, by their very nature, continually attempt to deny us that right, just as they attempt to insist that our liberty is way over-priced and to deny our right to the toll-free pursuit of happiness.

Ah... A thread on Kubrik. My favorite person to despise in Hollywood. Let me count up the films that he has made that I've thought were good movies... Hrmmm... Zero? A big fat round zero? Like, the shape of an "O?" Like, as in the shape of a giant sphincter? Oh.

When Stanley Kubriks's "2001:A Space Odessey" was released in 1968 Sea Org members were banned from seeing it: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/2001.txt

...More...

Freeborn, remember that the major media would get blacklisted for any Tom Cruise interviews. Pat Kingsley is Tom Cruise's ferociously protective publicist, and only allows interviews with obedient big media who are forbidden to ask certain questions about Scientology. Since the National Enquirer has nothing to lose (since Tom Cruise AIN'T gonna give it any interviews no matter what), they can splash lurid headlines.

What DOES bother me about the tabloids is that while their reporters do snoop around like reporters are supposed to do, the tabloids will pad the story with paid-for gossip. Yet much of the big media is too tangled up in deals, favors, and fear to report unflattering stories about Tom Cruise.

QUOTE:

As Jeannette Walls, the gossip columnist for the American MSNBC cable channel, reveals in her book, Dish: The Inside Story on the World of Gossip, it is just as likely to be the stars who have supplied the tittle-tattle themselves. Walls reports that when MTV was working on an expose of alternative religions Scientologist Lisa Marie Presley, called the station. She told them bluntly that if they were tough on scientology, they would lose access to Jackson's music.

"Pat Kingsley is the self-styled dominatrix of movie PR. Walls calls her the 'most loathed woman in Hollywood' and claims in her book that Kingsley not only gets to decide which journalists can interview her stars, but also controls what they can write about. With Cruise, for example, she has insisted that journalists sign contracts that he will not be presented 'in a negative or derogatory manner', which pretty much precludes anything interesting.

"Walls describes how, over the years, Kingsley has astutely used the press's desperation to get access to Cruise as a way of shielding him from unwanted questions about his membership of the Church of Scientology and false rumours about his sexual orientation. It is even suggested that Kingsley allowed false stories to circulate that portrayed the actor as a hero. At the time of the release of Mission: Impossible, it was reported that Cruise had saved the lives of a French family whose yacht had exploded off Capri. But according to the Italian coast guard, Cruise was not involved in the rescue at all - all he did was visit the family in hospital."
END QUOTE from

http://www.xenu.net/archive/WIR/wir5-5.html

So, except for a few brave reporters like Jeannette Walls, the tabloids are the only place you can get some of the "real" gossip about the
Tom-Cruise-and-Scientology story,
John-Travolta-and-Scientology, and
Lisa-Marie Presley-and-Scientology.

What if someone fed some questions to Leno next time that TC is on The Tonight Show. Make the questions sound like a positive spin. Like 'Heard that you are an OT 6 now Tom and that you are moving up to OT 7, will you also be doing the super power course soon?

to aetheist-won't ever happen. j would'nt want to alienate tc and other future guests.
to freeborn-and others- good point. first i don't think we ever signed anything about our folders.
more importantly-and this could be a key-IF THE CULT EVER REVEALS WHAT'S IN SOMEONE'S FOLDER-IT'S A BREACH THAT ISN't allowed in religious organisations ethically and morally and maybe legally. maybe someone out there could do some research on this.
next do we know anyone who has been told their folder contents would be revealed if that person did'nt do or not do something the cult wanted?
or do we know a sit. where the cult DID reveal a folder item to someone [does'nt have to be press] ? this could be a big deal.
also fyi-i don't think the press would be interested in most of what our folders say. they would be interested if the cult was doing this , in general.

Well, that's a whole different can of worms. Are you an Anne Rice fan, ten tigers? Just out of curiousity, who do you think should have played Lestat? i heard rumors Anne Rice favored Rutger Hauer, but not sure if that is accurate, but that was who i would have liked to see in the role...and what's up with Antonio playing a teenage vamp (Armand) that was a major issue with me and my purist heart, and oh yeah, i am still steamed about the ending change between the book and the movie in "Hannibal".

Chris,

I agree that the ending of the Hannibal movie betrayed the book and sucked. Bad directors often compulsively change books to get a surprise ending, and ruin them. The film was pretty faithful to the book up to that point.

I didn't mind Tom C. as Lestat, and I thoroughly enjoyed Interview as a film, but I was dismayed about Armand's age, too. IMO, without Brad Pitt's very good performance, Interview would have been a total waste of film.

I just don't see Rutger Hauer as Lestat.

Galileo

is it just my imagination, or do people here try to change the subject alot. not just on this topic. read over some others here and maybe someone can spot who's doing it and why.

perfect example here-folders and confidentiality turns to movies and casting. hmmmmm.....

Pam,
If the above communication is in reference to me, let me apologize, with no excuse other than ignorance of message board etiquette. I will try to watch it in the future, maybe you could post a list of suggestions on how i should conduct myself when using the message boards, and let me know the topic constraints and limitations. My posting was mostly in response to ten tigers Oct 19 post, which i mistakenly read to contain some reference to the topic i posted on. Again, let me apologize for not limiting myself to the topics you consider appropriate. h.a.n.d.