Heavenly said:

oh, you have SO just inspired me for his next visit to London.


~hydrochloric's the way ahead~

TheFrog said:

Get one of those acid shooting flowers like The Joker has!!!

JediMaster said:

Then he'd get sued by that ass and be the big loser.

Tom Cruise is a wacked, but nobody deserves to be treated like that. I think he handled it the best way.

JediMaster said:

excellent.

tom cruise is a very important man.

to himself.

JediMaster said:

Doesn't work with his ego and all those camera's around him...

Neversin.

Why do when I see the title of this thread, I think its about somethign else

ella731 said:

that would be hawwt!

I think cruise handled the situation so well. He managed to take control without a freakout reaction, and wihtout his handlers intervening and causing more drama. Very respectable. what would Prince have done?

Somebody write the scene if it had been PRINCE!

PS TOm Cruise's hair isn't that cool!

Lleena said:

Saw this on TV last night and I thought he totally overreacted. The appropriate reaction would have been to laugh it off. Why this got under his skin so much, I'll never know. The intensity with which he went off on this guy was bizarre (almost like it was some kind of Scientology technique, or something ). There's something not-all-there behind his eyes.

CarrieLee said:

I agree. It wasn't something incredibly dramatic but it sure wasn't funny either. Cruise was just there answering questions on his way to the theatre and suddenly out of the blue this guy decides to have a laugh at his expense. I would have reacted the same way, if not more strongly. I really don't think he had any duty whatsoever to just "laugh it off". It wasn't funny, it was just stupid and annoying.

Same thing goes for the Org sometimes. People get attacked in not so funny ways and then they're expected to laugh it off. If they don't, they're always regarded as the loser. I don't think that's fair. We should be allowed to defend ourselves if we feel that someone has offended us. Humour can be a way of doing that but it shouldn't be the only way.

Tom Cruise might sue because that would stop the media entity from whimful anarchy that infringes on personal rights.

ufoclub said:

I'm not so sure it would stop any "whimful anarchy"; you can always come across a journalist with a bad sense of humour.

I think Cruise reacted appropriately and he should leave it at that. No point in making an even bigger issue out of it.

it was for a tv show. not a journalist I think.

retina said:

ufoclub said:

Either way, suicide squirters are as hard to stop as suicide bombers.

i think the main question to come out of this whole fiasco is: 'why is Tom Cruise so small?'

ufoclub said:

You! I'm gonna be waiting for you outside the Org Gonna twat ya round't head with me B-bat

I can't stand Tom Cruise, but he would have been right to punch that dude's lights out. Do that sh!t to someone on the street and see what happens to you.


But does anyone here think this was the only time a guy squirted Tom Cruise in the face? C'mon, let's tell it like it is.

althom said:

Russell Crowe would unleash WW3 if you look at him the wrong way, but he has minders, so maybe picks his fights carefully? you know, let me take on this six foot built like a brick shithouse because I know they will jump in?



call me a cynic but...

actually i feel really sorry for celebrities regarding the paparazzi situation.

(and yes, i can be all self-righteous because i don't support magazines with paparazzi shots in them. those i deliberately avoid.

anyway it's totally out of hand. look what happened to princes di, she died because the paps were chasing her and the bastard that killed her also got paid a ton of $$$$ for the pictures he took of her in the car right after the accident.....

i say paparazzi should be declared 'fair game' and should become too

XxAxX said:

i agree. i saw something on TV last week with a bunch of paparazzi barking at rebecca romijn-stamos because she wouldn't pose at a movie premiere - they were saying horrible things about her marriage and "no wonder he divorced you" and all this crap - there's just really no excuse for that kind of behavior, and no excuse for the stalking and invasion of privacy that public figures deal with.

i think a day's going to come when strict standards are enforced, and the kind of crap that these so-called "journalists" try to pull WILL land them in jail.

Assault by water pistol?

Anxiety said:

There's no excuse for the way some paparazzi behave, of course not. BUT, some public fugures use the press when it is convenient for them For instance, "I just donated money to charity, write about it in your newspaper and you can have a pic too, but dont take a picture of me shovelling cocaine up my nose, thankyou."

see what I mean?

Lleena said:

yeah, well, i write stuff to be published in public but that doesn't mean that i want private conversations with my boyfriend to be published too. if someone is able to donate money and wants to be recognized for that, why is it any of our business if that person also has a coke habit?

i'm sorry - just because someone has a career that puts them in public doesn't mean that we're entitled to scrutinize every aspect of their life.

Anxiety said:

WE're not entitled to scrutinize every aspect of their life, but I dont think famous people should be portrayed s demi gods who never step a foot wrong either. Most of the complaints only arise when they are portrayed in an unfavourable light. Anyhow, there is so much that we dont know, do i care? not really, but I do think that controlling their image to the extent that it doesn't reflect or even resemble a true picture of who they really are is questionable. They chose to be in the public eye, and most people who do this know that their privacy will be invaded at some point.

I guess I'm not into the whole contrived image thing.

Since I first laid eyes on him in Risky Business, my thoughts of him remain the same.

He makes me gag.

So, right or wrong, for me... yay on the squirtage!

Lleena said:

Doesn't everyone contrive an image to a certain extent? Does everyone at your job know everything there is to know about you? Would it be okay if they did?

Anxiety said:

I was talking in the context of fame and giving up your privacy to a certain degree in exchange for the adoration of millions..

I haven't done that, I'm a private individual, not in the public eye, I'm not saying public figures aren't entitled to their privacy, I'm saying that it is an inevitable aspect of the lifestyle they have chosen to pursue and I'm pretty sure walking down the red carpet is a whole lot more financially and personally rewarding than serving burgers in Burker King. So the good outweighs the bad for most of them.


As for us mere mortals, we're entitled to not have a pap staking out our garbage bins, So are they, but I can understand why it happens to a certain extent. thats all. The public are insatiable when it comes to their celebrities.


Also the public like seeing famous people do ordinairy things rather than just this controlled image that they brandish.

...
[Edited 6/23/05 3:50am]