Rumor: Tom Cruise "in Talks" to Appear in Star Wars: Episode VII Update

[BlumiereBleck]

I hope he is in it. He would have at least fit perfectly into it. If he worked for Valkyrie he would have worked for Star Wars.

 

[grigjd3]

So far, all I am hearing is that JJ Abrams is making a movie set in space. There are still only 3 star wars movies, 6 star trek movies and 2 indiana jones movies.

 

[Shaidz]

Oh God, please no...just no, like NO NO NO NO NO NO

 

[vagabondwillsmile]

I would be ok with Cruise playing a small part as long as he is a villain and channels Vincent from Collateral:

This movie is so under-rated. And it's probably the best movie Cruise has ever been in. As for SWVII. No. Just, no. I'm already anticipating this to be a trainwreck. But seeing Action Man, the Actioniest Man that Ever Actioned, Man... pop up on screen will instantly rip me out of the movie and slam me face-first into the pavement of the real world I'm trying to watch some fun fantasy stuff to get away from for a bit.

The star-power thing works from stuff like Mission Impossible. But fantasy and sci-fi are a different kind of escapism and they work best with unknowns, lower profiles or actors that can disappear into their roles and the world of the story.

Ugh - I'm seriously considering skipping it all together.

I definitely feel you there, I have been dreading this movie since they announced JJ was working on it because I don't want to have any chance of a "better" Star Wars outside of Lucas get crushed which is looking almost inevitable now. Seeing what Abrams did with Star Trek alone pretty much guarantees this movie will be a soul-less cash grab that will be nothing but flash and no substance. If anything I expect this movie to miss completely the point of Star Wars altogether and be nothing but lens flares and blaster fire.

I can see Cruise being a problem for people since he is such a high profile actor but really there is so much room in the Star Wars universe, heck he could play an alien and have his voice altered so it more subtle. There are countless roles he could play in the movie that don't require him to be so recognizable, just give him some sith robes or put him as a Moff with a large scar on one of his eyes to hide his appearance and it could work.

I was actually about to follow that train of thought myself - the idea that he could work if he was so heavily disguised as to not be recognizable Tropic Tunder style. Seriously I didn't know he was in it until the credits rolled and I was totally surprised. It was pretty brilliant. But that's comedy and a conceit of that film was the disguises. So his camoflage, if you will, fit perfectly into that conceit. Part of appeal of Tropic Thunder was to see how far these huge screen presences could go in convincing the audience of an absurd character. On the other hand, if he was disguised as to be unrecognizable in a fantasy / sci-fi / drama, it would still be a distraction because everyone would be trying to figure out which character he's playing - especially considering no one will be able to escape the prublicity and hype maching around him for it. He's not a great actor (good though), but he is a HUGE MEGA STAR - one I'm convinced is just too big for even a bit part in SW.

 

[J Tyran]

People often bring up his religion but in all honesty is his religion any more/less despicable and/or laughable than any other? In a world populated with myths about magical zombie carpenters, profits flying to the moon on winged horses or trying to convince people that the early Judaic people lived on the North American continent all along and that Jesus was a space alien I don't see humans being the descendants of refugee space aliens being any more ridiculous.

So basically for me I don't really give a crap if thats what he believes, at least his religion hasn't sparked any genocides so far. I should add that I am not taking a dig at you for your comment here, just that a lot of people say "Tom Cruise movie Scientology hurf blurf hurf won't watch".

While I'm normally very tolerant of other religions, I have certain...issues with Scientology. Let's just say I'm of the mindset that it's a cult that has done far more harm than good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies

http://www.cracked.com/article_20869_5-ways-growing-up-inside-scientology-was-nightmare.html[footnote]Yes, I'm aware that Cracked isn't the most reputable source out there, but this particular article sums up the testimonies of many former Scientologists quite well.[/footnote]

I won't doubt for a minute that it doesn't have an evil side, its a religion after all but why single that one out? What about all the scams and human misery other religions spread? In some cases for hundreds of years, continuing sex and paedophilia scandals, genocides, inspiration for murder, violence and terrorism, indoctrination of its members and children are just some of the issues.

Why be tolerant of religions that are as bad, if not worse and for larger amounts of people for a far greater period of time? The nasty things Scientology causes are inherent to all religion (yes all, even Buddhism) in one form or another, its just the nature of the beast.

I wont tell you what to think or what your opinions should be it just fascinates me why, lets say Catholic actors get a free pass yet Tom Cruise doesn't.

 

[Neverhoodian]

I won't doubt for a minute that it doesn't have an evil side, its a religion after all but why single that one out? What about all the scams and human misery other religions spread? In some cases for hundreds of years, continuing sex and paedophilia scandals, genocides, inspiration for murder, violence and terrorism, indoctrination of its members and children are just some of the issues.

Why be tolerant of religions that are as bad, if not worse and for larger amounts of people for a far greater period of time? The nasty things Scientology causes are inherent to all religion (yes all, even Buddhism) in one form or another, its just the nature of the beast.

I wont tell you what to think or what your opinions should be it just fascinates me why, lets say Catholic actors get a free pass yet Tom Cruise doesn't.

I'm not saying other religions have a perfect record, not by a long shot. The difference for me is that Scientology commits these underhanded practices here and now with the official sanction of the leadership. We're not talking about extremist militant splinter sects here like fundamentalist Christians or jihadist Muslims, this is straight from the "official Church." And it's going on right now. I see no fault in calling them out on bullshit like that, no more than I would calling out the Catholic church on its current sex abuse scandal. Also, bear in mind I'm blaming the institution here, not your average worshipper.

I find it a bit concerning that you are ready to dismiss religion as a whole because of crimes committed in the past that took place decades, even centuries ago. Tell me, would you condemn a white American male like myself for the slave trade or the subjugation and destruction of Native Americans? Would you blame a young Japanese person for the Rape of Nanking? Religions don't hold the monopoly on atrocities and genocides. Indeed, some of the most horrific events in world history have been at the hands of decidedly secular institutions (Nazi Germany[footnote]Calling myself out on Godwin's Law so you don't have to.[/footnote], Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, the Khmer Rouge, etc.). There comes a point in time where you have to let go of old grudges and move on. You can't change the past, after all. The best one can do is learn from the misdeeds of previous generations in the hopes of not repeating them.

Also, one mustn't forget that religion has been a force for good in the world as well, particularly on a local level. My hometown has a number of charitable organizations run by churches, temples and mosques that help out those less fortunate by providing food, shelter and work opportunities. There's an Interfaith Council that promotes tolerance and understanding between all religions as well as organizing community benefits and charity drives. Thanks to organizations like these, the town is much better off than it would be without them.

The important thing to remember here is that religions are comprised of people, and people are capable of horrible things. However, they are also capable of wonderful things as well, and religion at its best helps to promote that.

 

[J Tyran]

I won't doubt for a minute that it doesn't have an evil side, its a religion after all but why single that one out? What about all the scams and human misery other religions spread? In some cases for hundreds of years, continuing sex and paedophilia scandals, genocides, inspiration for murder, violence and terrorism, indoctrination of its members and children are just some of the issues.

Why be tolerant of religions that are as bad, if not worse and for larger amounts of people for a far greater period of time? The nasty things Scientology causes are inherent to all religion (yes all, even Buddhism) in one form or another, its just the nature of the beast.

I wont tell you what to think or what your opinions should be it just fascinates me why, lets say Catholic actors get a free pass yet Tom Cruise doesn't.

I'm not saying other religions have a perfect record, not by a long shot. The difference for me is that Scientology commits these underhanded practices here and now with the official sanction of the leadership. We're not talking about extremist militant splinter sects here like fundamentalist Christians or jihadist Muslims, this is straight from the "official Church." And it's going on right now. I see no fault in calling them out on bullshit like that, no more than I would calling out the Catholic church on its current sex abuse scandal. Also, bear in mind I'm blaming the institution here, not your average worshipper.

I find it a bit concerning that you are ready to dismiss religion as a whole because of crimes committed in the past that took place decades, even centuries ago. Tell me, would you condemn a white American male like myself for the slave trade or the subjugation and destruction of Native Americans? Would you blame a young Japanese person for the Rape of Nanking? Religions don't hold the monopoly on atrocities and genocides. Indeed, some of the most horrific events in world history have been at the hands of decidedly secular institutions (Nazi Germany[footnote]Calling myself out on Godwin's Law so you don't have to.[/footnote], Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, the Khmer Rouge, etc.). There comes a point in time where you have to let go of old grudges and move on. You can't change the past, after all. The best one can do is learn from the misdeeds of previous generations in the hopes of not repeating them.

Also, one mustn't forget that religion has been a force for good in the world as well, particularly on a local level. My hometown has a number of charitable organizations run by churches, temples and mosques that help out those less fortunate by providing food, shelter and work opportunities. There's an Interfaith Council that promotes tolerance and understanding between all religions as well as organizing community benefits and charity drives. Thanks to organizations like these, the town is much better off than it would be without them.

The important thing to remember here is that religions are comprised of people, and people are capable of horrible things. However, they are also capable of wonderful things as well, and religion at its best helps to promote that.

The problem is those things are not in the past, not even the genocides as those have not only happened in living memory they are happening right now as I type this. Its also different to the old governments that did horrific things as not only are many of them the exact same organisations they are an unbroken chain of teachings and doctrines that have been passed down, you say that Germans shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of the Nazis and I would agree.

What if the Nazis from that period still existed in the same form it did then and followed a unbroken chain of doctrine? What about the offshoot neo-Nazis? Do you argue that they should be tolerated because they are not the exact same people involved 80yrs ago? I don't think you would, you are not daft and its easy to see that the poison chalice passed down from generation to generation are the teachings and doctrines and its the same for religion. Trying to divide up whether the nasty actions are "officially sanctioned" or not is just about skirting the edge of the no true Scotsman fallacy, even then it doesn't work as even the officially sanctioned activities are bad enough like the paedophilia rings within the Catholic church and their subsequent and continual cover ups. Many religions do not have one single cult claiming supreme authority the way the Roman Catholic church does either so there is no such thing as official sanction, there is no central Protestant church, no central Islamic church and the individual sects and churches are as high as the authority can go.

The good works argument holds water superficially but the truth is religions do not do it because they feel they need to do something about issues, they do it to proselytise and for no other reason. You say your town is better off for having a cultists meddling in its affairs, I bet my life if people just did the good deeds and had no religion the town would be even better off. There will be some aspect of oppression somewhere, without knowing more I cant say exactly what but there will be something whether its being against gay rights, opposition to separation of religion and government, resistance to reproductive rights or something else.

There always is, again its just the nature of the beast because religion cannot help itself. Being contemptuous and dismissive of Scientology but defending other religions is illogical.