I must admit to being very torn about this.
On the one hand, MI3 is just a movie, and only a fraction of its profits are going into Tom's pocket. Furthermore, 2005 has been the year of folks already learning how whacky Scientology and its most visible spokesperson are, so any kind of picket-as-information-dissemmination mechanism could prove really redundant.
On the other hand, it might be very useful as a mechanism for raising further awareness of Scientology-- not only is it whacky, it's also destructive, controlling, deceitful, etc. Furthermore, it might be very helpful to underscore the message to Hollywood that loudmouthed advocates of cults can be bad for Public Relations-- a lesson they've already started learning this year.
Given this ambivalence, a discussion on the objectives and methods of an MI3 demonstration would probably be most helpful to assist anyone if they *do* decide to go forward with such a picket.
Any action will produce a response, and we want our response from the average moviegoer to be a positive one. Although it might be very gratifying if MI3 were to bomb from universal Cruise-avoidance, I don't think it's appropriate for our primary goal/objective in front of the theatre to be getting people not to buy MI3 tickets. Unlike Scientologists, we need to have respect for the decisions of those who don't do what we would prefer. More harmful to Scientology than a film boycott would be inducing people to be yet more informed about Scientology. They know it's nutty. They don't know quite so well that it's harmful.
I begin to envision a pamphlet:
"It's about more than couch-jumping and space-aliens," might be the first line.
"Coming to see MI3 even though its star has some bizarre beliefs? We can respect that, but we thought you should know that Scientology's beliefs may be even more oddball than what you've heard so far. More important, however, is Scientology's *practices*, which include splitting apart families, harassing its critics with frivolous lawsuits and slander, deceiving and abusing its membership. But don't just take this pamphlet's word for it; find out what countless ex-members, judges, and court testimonies have said about the damage this destructive organization has caused in people's lives. Once you do, you might be a bit more hesitant to put money into the pocket of Scientology's biggest single donor and loudest spokesperson. To begin finding out more, go online to xenu.net or Google to find other websites critical of the so-called 'church'."
Does such a pamphlet accomplish the appropriate objectives?
By the way, I claim no copyright on my phrasing if anyone wants to use it. It's not etched in titanium, either.