bluemonday Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Side issue: Has anyone ever undertaken a study on the relationship of having loads of money to being barking? Is there a level of wealth beyond which it's almost de rigeur to be daft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Side issue: Has anyone ever undertaken a study on the relationship of having loads of money to being barking?Is there a level of wealth beyond which it's almost de rigeur to be daft? I don't think it's a question of wealth so much as it is how that wealth is achieved. Celebrities in particular seem more prone than industrialists or investment bankers to lose themselves in dodgy spirituality and mental religious sects, and I suspect that it's because they end up with a lot of money but with very little hard influence or power in the world, and no real defined role in the affairs of humanity other than as a face on a big or little screen, and possibly even feel some kind of desire to justify their wealth. The problem is they're typically not that bright (Cruise, for example, is barely articulate), not that skilled, and know little about any influential sphere of human activity, so they're naturally drawn to matters of a more spiritual nature. Traditional religions don't appeal, however, because they have their own established heirarchies and have little real need for celebrity endorsement which means that the average celebrity would be little more than just another parishoner (or a poster boy at best), and so they're instead drawn to marginal religions and faiths that need publicity and will reward it with positions of prestige or authority that satisfy the vacuous celebrity's desperate need to feel that their life has some kind of higher meaning and purpose. Movie stars are probably particulary prone to this because they really are just an instrument for the director to weild (and in Tom Cruise's case, a talentless hack who was hired for his face, and continues to be hired for the household name that developed from those early films), otherwise empty vessels compared with musicians, who seem to be drawn more to charitable works (think U2), possibly because having actually produced something of merit themselves, they don't feel such a strong desire for meaning in their lives. Scientology of course is the perfect religion for these people - you don't have to be too bright, or a particularly good person, you just have to have lots of money and time on your hands, which film stars have in abundance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 That's a tad unfair though, there's plenty of filthy nookie and violence in the bible, complete with spooky zombie jesus and the final battle between good and evil etc. I guess it depends if you're into bad sci fi or bad fantasy. Tom Cruises nutty mates use some great TLA's too, it's a real geek religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 As befits a religion founded by a Sci Fi writer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shill Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I thought he was pretty good in Vanilla Sky. Thats about it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I guess it depends if you're into bad sci fi or bad fantasy. Tom Cruises nutty mates use some great TLA's too, it's a real geek religion. Yeah, I've noticed the use of acronyms in Scientology - everyone knows that anyone who uses that many must be an expert on something! Or in Cruisespeak. Yeah, wow, Kaboom! there are many AiS, AWU that many must be an EoS! Pfft, pow! zooom! //demented laugh// boy oh boy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Movie stars are probably particulary prone to this because they really are just an instrument for the director to weild (and in Tom Cruise's case, a talentless hack who was hired for his face, and continues to be hired for the household name that developed from those early films), otherwise empty vessels compared with musicians, who seem to be drawn more to charitable works (think U2) I agree with most of your post, but I think you're possibly being too lenient with 'musicians.' Think Cliff Richard, Madonna etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I agree with most of your post, but I think you're possibly being too lenient with 'musicians.' Think Cliff Richard, Madonna etc. Aye, the difference though is that Cliff Richard and Madonna are essentially the musical equivalent of hollywood actors - they produce very little they can be proud of due to having taken part in its creation, instead singing the words they've been given to the tune that's been written by people more talented than they (and occassionally being mocked for their own piss poor music when they try to write some). I know musicians who produce their own work are prone to similar delusions of grandeur (Bono deciding to take it upon himself to solve all of Africa's problems without any real knowledge of them, for example), but generally they're at least grounded in some kind of real world context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 ....And George Harrison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 ....And George Harrison? heh, fair play: the Beatles perhaps contradict that view, so I'm probably wrong in letting musicians off the hook. We should probably just generalise the argument to "don't listen to any celebrity, ever". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Mixing Sci Fi and Religion? Just found this Old but amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 seriously these guys are a bit fucked up - personally I'd have been tempted at a punch: What a bunch of freaks! Reminds me of that Panorama episode with John Sweeney. The guy I met was nothing like the freaks in the clips, and does not live here. He reckoned there were a handful of scientologists over here though, although I've not met any that live here. Very strange people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 "What are you afraid of, tell us your crimes" The look in their eyes too - waaaaay freaky! Anyone else thinking 'V' ? Yep, them's all a bunch of lizards methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Yep, them's all a bunch of lizards methinks. Paging David Eicke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holmes Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Hey - what exactly is so wrong about Tom's beliefs??? Only because you all don't believe it, or understand it, doesn't mean its wrong!!! Some more tolerance please....... I admire him for his openess and compassion and the drive he shows and the example he sets. Maybe you should read some more about it to start and understand before slagging anything off you dont understand or want to understand!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.