# Tom Cruise gets South Park episode pulled



## ElVee (Feb 20, 2002)

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm

March 17, 2006 -- HOLLYWOOD bully Tom Cruise got Comedy Central to cancel Wednesday night's cablecast of a controversial "South Park" episode about Scientology by warning that he'd refuse to promote "Mission Impossible 3," insiders say. Since Paramount is banking on "MI3" to rake in blockbuster profits this summer, and Paramount is owned by Viacom, which also owns Comedy Central, the tactic worked.

The "South Park" episode, "Trapped in the Closet," pokes fun at Scientology and shows Cruise, John Travolta and R. Kelly (who is not a Scientologist, but has a song called "Trapped in the Closet") literally in a closet.

The episode, which first aired last November, was set to rerun Wednesday night, but was mysteriously pulled at the last minute.

Now, hollywoodinterrupted.com reports Cruise went straight to the top - to execs at Viacom - and warned he'd boycott the promotion for "MI3" unless the "South Park" episode was pulled.

Series creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker have been told not to discuss the matter - to avoid embarrassing Cruise as they did Isaac Hayes last week when Hayes, also a Scientologist, quit his role as the voice of the Chef character.

Hayes claimed he couldn't stand by while "South Park" made fun of religion, but Stone pointed out that Hayes had cashed plenty of checks while the show made fun of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Stone hinted that Hayes was pressed to quit by his minders in the Church of Scientology.

A rep for Comedy Central, asked if Cruise was responsible for the "Closet" episode being yanked, attributed it instead to Hayes' resignation, saying, "In light of the events of earlier this week, we wanted to give Chef an appropriate tribute by airing two episodes he is most known for." But TV insiders weren't buying that explanation.

Now the question is whether Comedy Central will ever again air "Trapped in the Closet" and whether it will be included on the DVD of the show's ninth season.

Cruise has a history of playing hardball. He is allegedly responsible for the missing sex scene his fiancée Katie Homes filmed (before she started dating Tom) in "Thank You for Smoking," which opens today.

And who will ever forget the way Cruise shouted down Matt Lauer on the "Today" show when Lauer argued that some people have been helped by prescription drugs?


----------



## f0gax (Aug 8, 2002)

Tom Cruise = Whack Job


----------



## LordFett (May 6, 2005)

f0gax said:


> Tom Cruise = Whack Job


That is putting it mildly.


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

I hate him.

Trey and Matt are going to end up pulling a Dave Chapelle on Comedy Central and then I'm going to be pissed. Talk about wanting to boycott Comedy Central. Sheesh.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I've never in my life illegally downloaded music or movies, but if this story turns out to be true MI3 might just be my first--if I decide to see it at all. This is the hidden dark side of media consolidation. I wonder if Matt and Trey are looking for another network--one with more stones and fewer ties to the movie industry. If there is such a thing anymore. *sigh*.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

I can;t see any place they could go that would have the balls to show it. Maybe Bravo, but they have not really done anythign like it and are owned by NBC or possibly MTV, but they too are oqned by Viacom.

Of course, all Cruise does is lend credence to whatever rumors he is trying to stop by doing this and the episode will reach cult status.


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

I remember War of the Worlds. He promoted that movie and people saw how much of a moron he was and it affected it's over-all profits. Same could be (and hopefully is) said about MI3. Hopefully he promotes it, acts like a moron again... and sales for that movie go down also.

I wish he would die.


----------



## bap (Dec 7, 2003)

Mamoth said:


> I remember War of the Worlds. He promoted that movie and people saw how much of a moron he was and it affected it's over-all profits. Same could be (and hopefully is) said about MI3. Hopefully he promotes it, acts like a moron again... and sales for that movie go down again.


Although if he were to appear on Oprah again I just might be intregued enough to start watching that show given the bizarre antics he pulled the last time around.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

isn 't he just driving up demand for south park? what am I missing here? When you forbid something it by definition becomes more desireable.


----------



## bap (Dec 7, 2003)

newsposter said:


> isn 't he just driving up demand for south park? what am I missing here? When you forbid something it by definition becomes more desireable.


He's an actor. He's also been brainwashed into believing that an alien from another planet brought his enemies to earth then exterminated them with hydrogen bombs (or something like that). Both of these indicate to me that he's a bit lacking in the IQ department. Despite numerous previous examples of exactly what you described I'm sure he never considered the fact that it could happen to him.


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

newsposter said:


> isn 't he just driving up demand for south park? what am I missing here? When you forbid something it by definition becomes more desireable.


I could see that if they actually showed the show in question. Like, Tom Cruise complained but Comedy Central showed it anyway. But since they didn't.. he pretty much won.

Wimps.


----------



## rhuntington3 (May 1, 2001)

:down:


----------



## GTO40 (Jul 25, 2005)

Tom believes in his own stardom.


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

GTO40 said:


> Tom believes in his own stardom.


Tom believes in many other stupid things too.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Tom Cruise = Not Bright.

The episode already aired. Stomping your feet in protest of a repeat episode that would have garnered no attention or notice is only going to draw huge amounts of attention to the show now.

On top of that, these mega-entertainment companies need to understand they have a responsibility to manage their businesses, but also provide content to the viewers. If content on comedy central is going to get pulled because of a Paramount Studios movie star has a problem, then there is a big problem and I don't want that company owning all those different entities. 

Since Tom is one of the main producers of MI:3 I would call his bluff on it, since he stands to lose a huge sum of money from not promoting the movie, a sum probably not a significant amount less than the movie studio would lose.


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

bap said:


> He's an actor. He's also been brainwashed into believing that an alien from another planet brought his enemies to earth then exterminated them with hydrogen bombs (or something like that). Both of these indicate to me that he's a bit lacking in the IQ department. Despite numerous previous examples of exactly what you described I'm sure he never considered the fact that it could happen to him.


Lets respect peoples religion folks.

Then again, I think most believers in religions are brainwash 'from birth' Whack Jobs. But saying it would make me a intolerant hater................so I wouldn't

Aliens from another planet , all powerful God......................whatever


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

South Park moves to HBO? FX?


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

pmyers said:


> South Park moves to HBO? FX?


Here here!


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I wonder if this sort of influence will extend to the episode's inclusion in the DVD release. Does Comedy Central have control over that as well?


----------



## ElVee (Feb 20, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> I wonder if this sort of influence will extend to the episode's inclusion in the DVD release. Does Comedy Central have control over that as well?


Don't know. However, it's still available on iTunes and a clip of it is still available on Comedy Central's site.


----------



## iceturkee (May 26, 2005)

tommy has definitely gone round the twist. olbermann had a piece wednesday night that cruise wants sole custody of katie's fetus!!!!!! he is such an a**hole!!


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

This just proves to me that deciding not to watch any of Cruise's movies is a wise choice. I stopped watching them a while ago when he started going round the bend. He just isn't worth my attention.


----------



## MrCouchPotato (Dec 12, 2005)

Same here. But he is obviously a great actor. When you see him on the big screen, he is convincing as a normal person!


----------



## Spire (Jun 6, 2001)

MrCouchPotato said:


> Same here. But he is obviously a great actor. When you see him on the big screen, he is convincing as a normal person!


We must not be watching the same Tom Cruise movies.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I wish his alien baby the best.


----------



## ILoveCats&Tivo (Feb 14, 2006)

Spire said:


> We must not be watching the same Tom Cruise movies.


I agree. Can't stand Cruise or his movies. Blech. What a loser.


----------



## slydog75 (Jul 8, 2004)

I for one will NOT be seeing MI:3. Hmm.. I may get some friends together and picket it outside the local theater just for fun!


----------



## choccy (Jan 1, 2001)

Have not seen a cruise movie in ages - no plans to ever see one again. It's mostly because of crappy plots and crappy acting, but if anyone asks, I'm boycotting cruise himself


----------



## Swirl_Junkie (Mar 11, 2001)

I say Trey and Matt just bash him on another episode, and tell the viewers to boycott MI:3. At the very least they should start a media fight. More people need to know what a nutcase Cruise really is.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Swirl_Junkie said:


> More people need to know what a nutcase Cruise really is.


Who doesn't know already?


----------



## Swirl_Junkie (Mar 11, 2001)

busyba said:


> Who doesn't know already?


Whoever is still going to see his bag of suck movies.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

People still go see his movies? I mean, _besides_ $cienos?


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Swirl_Junkie said:


> I say Trey and Matt just bash him on another episode, and tell the viewers to boycott MI:3. At the very least they should start a media fight. More people need to know what a nutcase Cruise really is.


Boycotts only serve to increase publicity and revenue for the film. I say just ignore him.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I can proudly say I didnt like Cruise even prior to his new religion.


----------



## MrCouchPotato (Dec 12, 2005)

Spire said:


> We must not be watching the same Tom Cruise movies.


The most recent TC movie I saw was Jerry McGuire. He still seemed somewhat normal in movies back then, but that was a long time ago...


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Ooooo, this makes me mad. I'm sick of the media bowing to this crap. God forbid someone draw a picture of L. Ron Hubbard with a bomb in his turban; Hollywood would burn to the ground  

I cannot wait for a media outlet to suffer some backlash for censoring themselves.


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

Or showing "The Book of Daniel "


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I admit I did see both MI and MI:2, and while I haven't spent any time thinking about it I suppose I would have seen MI:3 as well. They are fun brainless action flicks, moderately well-made for the genre, and I enjoy them (when in the right mood). The problem with movies like this is they really want to be seen on a big screen, rather than DVD (although if I miss a "big movie" in the first few weeks I don't bother, 'cause they relegate them to the sucky small screens and I can enjoy them more at home anyway).

This is probably the end of Cruise movies for me though (as others have pointed out, no great loss). If he's not careful he'll go the way of Michael Jackson  ... he's already well over half way there IMO


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

Tom Cruise denies rumors that he threatened to boycott promotion for MI3 or having anything to do with the episode being pulled. I have about as much interest in South Park as I do in Tom Cruise movies so I couldn't really care less. It all sounds like a big publicity stunt to increase viewers if you ask me.


----------



## LordFett (May 6, 2005)

MrCouchPotato said:


> The most recent TC movie I saw was Jerry McGuire. He still seemed somewhat normal in movies back then, but that was a long time ago...


Top Gun for me. I saw part of Jerry McGuire but fell asleep before I figured out what was going on.


----------



## rlc1 (Sep 15, 2003)

This Scientology crap is so ridiculous...I look at it as sort of an IQ test, though. Look how many Hollywood celebrities have been caught up in it...go figure.


----------



## ILoveCats&Tivo (Feb 14, 2006)

Tom Cruise is a fruitcake..he needs to be on medication


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

ILoveCats&Tivo said:


> Tom Cruise is a fruitcake..he needs to be on medication


Now you're just being glib.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I'd watch a 3-hour movie where Tom Cruise spouted off exclusively about Scientology...

...as long as he does so while naked.


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

Raimi said:


> Tom Cruise denies rumors that he threatened to boycott promotion for MI3 or having anything to do with the episode being pulled.


Where was this?


----------



## cfand3boyz (Aug 29, 2005)

f0gax said:


> Tom Cruise = Whack Job


I used to like him but after the Brooke Shields stuff and the jumping on the couch on the Oprah show I figured out the guy was nuts! He is not even cute anymore to me. Ugh.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

rlc1 said:


> This Scientology crap is so ridiculous...I look at it as sort of an IQ test, though. Look how many Hollywood celebrities have been caught up in it...go figure.


While there is some truth in that, Scientology makes a concerted effort to recruit celebrities in order to raise their "legitimacy" in the mainstream. 
Celebrities are basically kept separate from the rank and file Scientologists and do not go through the same indoctrination as the rank and file, at least not until they are totally sucked in.


----------



## 4inziksych (Mar 1, 2003)

Check this out:
http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/so...episodedisappearing-scientologists-161269.php

South Park Creators Respond To Episode-Disappearing ScientologistsThe attorney for South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone issued this official statement to us via e-mail late yesterday addressing the Scientology-clowning, Tom-Cruise-baiting "Trapped in the Closet" episode that Comedy Central quietly disappeared on Wednesday night, reportedly because of threats Cruise made to parent company Viacom. And yes, it's really from their lawyer:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!

-Trey Parker and Matt Stone, servants of the dark lord Xenu

While one might admire the crazy bravery of enjoining Hubbard's army in a million-year war, we'll be even more impressed if Parker and Stone put their thumbs in the eye of the executives who may have caved to Cruise's pressure. How about something in a "very special episode" in which the animated Cruise returns to South Park, offering the chained pair of Paramount head Brad Grey and Viacom CEO Tom Freston to savior Stan as human sacrifice? Or, you know, at least another amusing press release calling Viacom Cruise's "corporate *****."

And in the interest of fairness, Page Six passes along Comedy Central's official explanation: "In light of the events of earlier this week, we wanted to give Chef an appropriate tribute by airing two episodes he is most known for."

Previously: Report: Blame Cruise For Yanked 'South Park' Repeat [Defamer]
READ MORE: Scientology, Tom Cruise, south park, top, viacom


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

JYoung said:


> While there is some truth in that, Scientology makes a concerted effort to recruit celebrities in order to raise their legitimacy in the mainstream.
> .


I dont mean this towards you personally but ...wow...um....maybe it's me but if something is endorsed by a celeb, i give LESS credence to it because I figure the product sucks so bad they have to pay someone mucho $$ to hawk it.

I may be in the minority that isn't influenced by main stream media though...sorry to be difficult.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Just another example of how we place too much stock in a celebrity. He is just a guy who reads lines someone else wrote, why does this make him so great, and his words so influential? 

What a bass-ackwards society we live in. Some guy who poorly recites other people writing criticizing some guys who make crappy cartoons with construction paper, and it's big news, is this kindergarten? The real celebrities and money makers should be our engineers, doctors, and leaders who bring peace to the world.

But then again, I am commenting on this, and I read the thread.....


----------



## Stainless Steele (Feb 2, 2004)

Another reason to dislike Tom Cruise!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

newsposter said:


> I dont mean this towards you personally but ...wow...um....maybe it's me but if something is endorsed by a celeb, i give LESS credence to it because I figure the product sucks so bad they have to pay someone mucho $$ to hawk it.
> 
> I may be in the minority that isn't influenced by main stream media though...sorry to be difficult.


While I agree with you on that point, obviously celebrity endorsments work well enough with the mainstream.
Otherwise advertising companies wouldn't be paying celebrities large sums of money to do it.

Oooh, Catherine Zeta-Jones uses T-Mobile. It must be a great service.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

Mamoth said:


> Where was this?


I can't remember where I read the original article about Cruise's denial (via his spokesman) that was a little more detailed, but here's a similar one.


Variety.com said:


> A spokesman for Cruise denied that Cruise had ever made such a threat. "He never said any such thing about 'Mission: Impossible 3," the spokesman said.


http://www.variety.com/VR1117939918.html

Of course, just denying it certainly doesn't mean he didn't do it.


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

Raimi said:


> I can't remember where I read the original article about Cruise's denial (via his spokesman) that was a little more detailed, but here's a similar one.
> 
> http://www.variety.com/VR1117939918.html
> 
> Of course, just denying it certainly doesn't mean he didn't do it.


Thanks for posting the link.


----------



## cruton (Nov 6, 2002)

While it may be possible that Tom Cruise applied pressure to get the show pulled, I doubt he would be able to use MI:3 as leverage. I'm pretty sure that, in general, actors are contractually obligated to promote their movies. However, since he's one of the producers, promotion may not be part of his deal. Who knows?

It's more likely he would have used future deals (such as MI:4, 5, and 6) as leverage. So, his denial of mentioning MI:3 is probably true, but that doesn't mean he didn't cause this to happen.

Either way, he doesn't seem to understand the notion of freedom of speech. Totally rediculous.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

cruton said:


> While it may be possible that Tom Cruise applied pressure to get the show pulled, I doubt he would be able to use MI:3 as leverage. I'm pretty sure that, in general, actors are contractually obligated to promote their movies. However, since he's one of the producers, promotion may not be part of his deal. Who knows?
> 
> It's more likely he would have used future deals (such as MI:4, 5, and 6) as leverage. So, his denial of mentioning MI:3 is probably true, but that doesn't mean he didn't cause this to happen.
> 
> Either way, he doesn't seem to understand the notion of freedom of speech. Totally rediculous.


The only reason so many shows want to rib Tom Cruise about it is because he provides strong reactions to such references; if he'd just shut up and take it in stride and wave it off, it'd quickly die down to where nobody'd care.


----------



## slaponte (Apr 6, 2005)

Too funny! I think the "war" is good for South Park. More publicity.

Where is that web site that hates TC? They must be rolling on the floor over this...


----------



## slaponte (Apr 6, 2005)

I am not sure if this is a no no... but

Ok just go to a world wide web site called scientomogy dot com if you are curious about the episode...


----------



## rlc1 (Sep 15, 2003)

JYoung said:


> While there is some truth in that, Scientology makes a concerted effort to recruit celebrities in order to raise their "legitimacy" in the mainstream.
> Celebrities are basically kept separate from the rank and file Scientologists and do not go through the same indoctrination as the rank and file, at least not until they are totally sucked in.


Good point.


----------



## bottomsup (Mar 3, 2006)

Man, I don't want to give up on MI3, not with JJ Abrams and Keri Russell involved!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cruton said:


> Either way, he doesn't seem to understand the notion of freedom of speech. Totally rediculous.


Neither do you, apparently. Freedom of Speech is a constitutionally-guaranteed right that prevents the government from taking any action against a private citizen for things that are said. The right to freedom of speech does not extend to this situation. A private citizen, such as Tom Cruise, can wield whatever influence he has over a corporation in an effort to prevent that corporation from saying, doing, airing, or publishing anything he wants.

Having said that, I agree that Cruise is a whack job and is simply bringing far more publicity to the South Park episode in question than if he had just let it go.


----------



## cruton (Nov 6, 2002)

Geez...I said the "_notion_ of freedom of speech."

From Webster's:
notion:
(1) : an individual's conception or impression of something known, experienced, or imagined 
(2) : an inclusive general concept 
(3) : a theory or belief held by a person or group b : a personal inclination

If Cruise did understand the _notion_ of freedom of speech, he would respect Parker and Stone's right to express themselves and would not attempt to censor them by "wield[ing] whatever influence he has over a corporation in an effort to prevent that corporation from saying, doing, airing, or publishing anything he wants."

I'm not trying to start a debate, but you didn't understand what I was implying.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

jones07 said:


> Lets respect peoples religion folks.


Scientology isn't a religion.

The Church of Scientology says so.

Tom Cruise says so. Over and over again.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Scientology isn't a religion.
> 
> The Church of Scientology says so.
> 
> Tom Cruise says so. Over and over again.


Curious how they still get a tax dodge for being one, then.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I think theyre technically a non profit.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

> A spokesman for Cruise denied that Cruise had ever made such a threat. "He never said any such thing about 'Mission: Impossible 3," the spokesman said.
> 
> While the "South Park" creators didn't directly comment on Comedy Central's decision to pull the episode, they issued an unusual statement to Daily Variety indicating the battle is not over.
> 
> ...


Scientology got owned.


----------



## slaponte (Apr 6, 2005)

I for one got what you meant.



cruton said:


> Geez...I said the "_notion_ of freedom of speech."
> 
> From Webster's:
> notion:
> ...


----------



## ovr8ted (Feb 27, 2005)

I thought Scientology was a new show coming out by Hollywood. Actually, it was probably created by Hollywood to do just this, stir up drama and promote their interests.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cruton said:


> Geez...I said the "_notion_ of freedom of speech."
> 
> From Webster's:
> notion:
> ...


I now understand what you are saying so please forgive me for misunderstanding previously. It's just one of my pet peeves when people cite constitutional rights and freedoms and try to assert their use in situations where they don't have any application.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I also heard a rumor that execs told Matt and Trey to be silent on the issue...

That being said, I think we can cast a suspicious eye to two widely covered stories like this and Isaac Hayes coming out within a week of their new season starting.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

Of course this episode is available through Bit Torrent. I haven't seen an episode of South Park since the first season. I guess it's time.


----------



## tom78221 (Mar 10, 2006)

PJO1966 said:


> Of course this episode is available through Bit Torrent.


Yes it is:http://www.mininova.org/tor/155402


----------



## darthrsg (Jul 25, 2005)

madscientist said:


> I've never in my life illegally downloaded music or movies, but if this story turns out to be true MI3 might just be my first--if I decide to see it at all. This is the hidden dark side of media consolidation. I wonder if Matt and Trey are looking for another network--one with more stones and fewer ties to the movie industry. If there is such a thing anymore. *sigh*.


LOGO channel gots the stones.


----------



## darthrsg (Jul 25, 2005)

this may be posted already but it is not biased for or against
scientology wiki


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Mamoth said:


> I wish he would die.


He will, I can promise you that much. I am not sure why we care what celebrities think. If everybody just ignored celebrities' political and religious views, news shows wouldn't report what they say and nobody would care, I sure don't care now. Their views are no more important than your auto mechanic's and less so to me, I might have a conversation with my auto mechanic and learn something. My only understanding of Scientology came from the South Park episode and if it was truthful, why would anybody care if I learned the truth? Based on everything I have seen, it must have been accurate as it crossed the line of pure parody and claimed to be factual. If it wasn't, they would be exposed to a lawsuit. Tom Cruise is a pretty good actor in my opinion and I don't give a hoot what he has to say personally, I won't base any decisions in my life on what he says. If he kept his mouth shut and stuck with his profession, he would still be one of the top actors in the business, as it is now, he is thought of as a nutcase and his career is likely going down the toilet soon. People take this stuff seriously and won't go see his films and two or three clunkers and that is it, he is history.

Chris


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

I just watched... pure genius.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

darthrsg said:


> LOGO channel gots the stones.


You mean the Logo channel that's owned by Viacom?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

PJO1966 said:


> I just watched... pure genius.


I just watched too. Freakin' hilarious.

"We're back with a breaking news update. Tom Cruise still won't come out of the closet."  

I'm not that familiar with Scientology. Do they file a lot of lawsuits?


----------



## billboard_NE (May 18, 2005)

I do not watch South Park on a regular basis, but this episode has become a "must see" Thank's Tom


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

The episode is also available for streaming somewhere on YouTube.com


----------



## choccy (Jan 1, 2001)

Chris Gerhard said:


> two or three clunkers and that is it, he is history.


If that's the case, how come I still remember Kevin Costner?


----------



## iceturkee (May 26, 2005)

kc, at least, won an oscar......whatever that's worth.

too bad comedy central has no balls.......matt and trey, yes

between this and tommy wanting sole custody of his fetus, i'll say this.....he is one crazy gay man, giving us a bad reputation!!! get out of the closet, tom, it's dark in there!!!!

EDITED TO ADD: maybe, you'll meet jeff gordon in there and youze guys will live happily ever after!


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

devdogaz said:


> I just watched too. Freakin' hilarious.
> 
> "We're back with a breaking news update. Tom Cruise still won't come out of the closet."
> 
> I'm not that familiar with Scientology. Do they file a lot of lawsuits?


I think they have more lawyers then the RIAA and MPAA combined.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I find it interesting that Cruise's people were specific... "He never said any such thing about 'Mission Impossible: 3.'"

This doesn't mean Cruise didn't do something else to get it pulled.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

here's some quotes from an column slamming Comedy Central in the Washington Post


> Comedy Central, the allegedly irreverent, testosterone-fueled, take-no-prisoners basic cable network, looks more like a Vertical Integration Sissy Girl after yanking an episode of "South Park" that lampoons Scientology and Tom Cruise.
> The cave-in occurred this week, just a couple of days after Isaac Hayes, who has provided the voice of Chef for the edgy animated series since 1997, asked to be let out of his contract because he had just noticed that the cartoon, about four precocious potty-mouthed fourth-graders in South Park, Colo., makes fun of religious groups.
> 
> Even more mysterious, Hayes did not quit the show when Comedy Central first ran the episode, called "Trapped in the Closet," last November.
> ...


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

latrobe7 said:


> Ooooo, this makes me mad. I'm sick of the media bowing to this crap. God forbid someone draw a picture of L. Ron Hubbard with a bomb in his turban; Hollywood would burn to the ground
> 
> I cannot wait for a media outlet to suffer some backlash for censoring themselves.


Hollywood burning to the ground = Good Thing

(Off to mail my L. Ron Hubbard cartoon to the LA Times. :up: )


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

Chris Gerhard said:


> My only understanding of Scientology came from the South Park episode and if it was truthful, why would anybody care if I learned the truth?


From what I read on wiki and other sources.. Trey and Matt pretty much hit the nail on the head with their explination of Scientology.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

There's a *long* article in the latest Rolling Stone (or the issue just prior?) about scientology. I suppose you could call it an 'expose' on the whole thing where they interview current members, ex-members, explain the history, explain their current situation, etc. Very, umm, interesting.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Yup, as with LDS, they pretty much just tell the story and let the silliness come through on its own ('Dum, dum, dum, dum, dum.').


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

For your free streaming pleasure:


----------



## iceturkee (May 26, 2005)

guess, there's some truth to tommy telling stan he was going to sue him.


----------



## Clarkey (Dec 29, 2004)

JYoung said:


> Oooh, Catherine Zeta-Jones uses T-Mobile. It must be a great service.


I wonder if Michael Douglas _gets more_? 

Never cared for South Park. Tom Cruise is about to change that.


----------



## Clarkey (Dec 29, 2004)

The funniest thing about that South Park episode? The credits. LOL!


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Jeeters said:


> There's a *long* article in the latest Rolling Stone (or the issue just prior?) about scientology. I suppose you could call it an 'expose' on the whole thing where they interview current members, ex-members, explain the history, explain their current situation, etc. Very, umm, interesting.


Here's the link to the article. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientology

Here is a quote from the article that explains what happened to Katie Holmes.



> Her grandmother is what's called an "Operating Thetan," or "OT." So is Tom Cruise, who is near the top of Scientology's Bridge, at a level known as OT VII. OTs are Scientology's elite -- enlightened beings who are said to have total "control" over themselves and their environment. OTs can allegedly move inanimate objects with their minds, leave their bodies at will and telepathically communicate with, and control the behavior of, both animals and human beings. At the highest levels, they are allegedly liberated from the physical universe, to the point where they can psychically control what Scientologists call MEST: Matter, Energy, Space and Time.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

devdogaz said:


> I'm not that familiar with Scientology. Do they file a lot of lawsuits?


I'm not that familiar with bears. Do they sh*t in the woods?


----------



## Spire (Jun 6, 2001)

Tom Cruise: He Gets Things Pulled.


----------



## nedthelab (Oct 4, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Here's the link to the article. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientology
> 
> Here is a quote from the article that explains what happened to Katie Holmes.


Read the article - very eye opening

This is a cult no more no less!!


----------



## Animgif (Jan 4, 2002)

The episode was pretty funny...well worth a watch (so says a friend of mine).


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Assuming Tom Cruise was responsible for getting it pulled. Why? 

Because of the Scientology jokes, or because of the gay jokes?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Turtleboy said:


> Because of the Scientology jokes, or because of the gay jokes?


Yes.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

dswallow said:


> Yes.


Absolutely. He's shown in the past that he's not above lawsuits to settle claims about his sexuality.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

dswallow said:


> Yes.


:up:


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being Liberacce, 5 being Anderson Cooper, and 10 being Rock Hudson, where does Tom fall?


----------



## Spire (Jun 6, 2001)

Between the cracks.


----------



## gtrogue (Jun 18, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being Liberacce, 5 being Anderson Cooper, and 10 being Rock Hudson, where does Tom fall?


Is that a list of being in the closet or for outward gay appearances? If the latter I assume that 1 is the "highest" score.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

So far all I can find are rumors and if Mr. Cruise did have the episode pulled then somebody other than Mr. Cruise should be ashamed. It is great that he would try to have it pulled and I would find that very funny but what should have happened was a factual account of what he tried to do made available to the public with a simple statement that Viacom won't agree to such strong arm tactics. As far as the rumor that Tom would refuse to promote his new Mission Impossible III film, that just doesn't make sense, does it? Wouldn't his contract describe his responsibility in that regard? I doubt his contract would indicate he is to promote the film unless he is offended by a cartoon about Scientology in which case he may choose to not promote the film. Hopefully we will soon hear the truth and further speculation won't be necessary.

Chris


----------



## stark (Dec 31, 2003)

> Tom Cruise, who is near the top of Scientology's Bridge, at a level known as OT VII. OTs are Scientology's elite -- enlightened beings who are said to have total "control" over themselves and their environment. OTs can allegedly move inanimate objects with their minds, leave their bodies at will and telepathically communicate with, and *control the behavior of, both animals and human beings.*


Maybe Tom didn't have the episode pulled. He just "controlled the behavior" of the person who did.


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

Chris Gerhard said:


> Wouldn't his contract describe his responsibility in that regard?


Would it? When you are one of the producers?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0317919/fullcredits


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

As someone already pointed out, as a producer, TC stands to make a lot of money if MI:3 does well so he'd only be hurting himself if he didn't do publicity for the movie. Contract or not, it would be ridiculous of him to follow through with that threat (if indeed the threat was made).


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I have no problem with this. What's the point of being powerful if you can't make executives dance like monkeys and smack annoying gnats like Parker and Stone at will? So the South Park people are bent out of shape. So what? They frak with people all the time. They should stop whining and take it like men whenever one of their targets fraks with them back.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Howard Stern offered to put the episode on On-Demand for them today on his show. Anybody with a computer can watch it for free but I'm sure with the recent buzz, it would get ordered on On-Deamand. Not sure if Parker and Stone have rights to put it elsewhere though.

The Scientomogy website that has it hosted has a blurb that Parker and Stone don't mind episodes being shared on the internet, so maybe they have complete rights.

Frank


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

devdogaz said:


> As someone already pointed out, as a producer, TC stands to make a lot of money if MI:3 does well so he'd only be hurting himself if he didn't do publicity for the movie. Contract or not, it would be ridiculous of him to follow through with that threat (if indeed the threat was made).


We're talking about Cruise here. He'd do something this rediculous. I mean.. those that are strong in their faith would also do something if they felt it was done in their effort to grow in their religion.


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> I have no problem with this. What's the point of being powerful if you can't make executives dance like monkeys and smack annoying gnats like Parker and Stone at will? So the South Park people are bent out of shape. So what? They frak with people all the time. They should stop whining and take it like men whenever one of their targets fraks with them back.


It's not about that. It's about one man being able to strong arm a company because he didn't like what someone said. Trey and Matt have taken criticism about a lot of things and have never retaliated with something like this.


----------



## Granny (Mar 29, 2005)

devdogaz said:


> As someone already pointed out, as a producer, TC stands to make a lot of money if MI:3 does well so he'd only be hurting himself if he didn't do publicity for the movie. Contract or not, it would be ridiculous of him to follow through with that threat (if indeed the threat was made).


Yeah, like his children will starve if this movie doesn't hit big. I think Mr. Cruise has a few in the bank.


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

More twists:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188463,00.html


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

Setting my TiVo for Wednesday night.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

PJO1966 said:


> Setting my TiVo for Wednesday night.


Why? You can't watch it at work like everyone else? 

Frank


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> So the South Park people are bent out of shape. So what? They frak with people all the time. They should stop whining and take it like men whenever one of their targets fraks with them back.


_They_ did take it like men (see their press release). _We're_ the ones whining.


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

http://entertainment.iafrica.com/news/981965.htm -- Paramount finally commented it seems.


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

Details from this week's all new episode:


> HE'S BACK!!! CHEF RETURNS TO SOUTH PARK
> 
> New Episodes Kick Off With "The Return of Chef!" On Wednesday, March 22 At 10:00 P.M.*
> 
> ...


After all, they don't need Isaac Hayes to have Chef be a part of the show, he'll just sound different.

Here's hoping the kids discover he's a Xenu alien in disguise


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Mamoth said:


> http://entertainment.iafrica.com/news/981965.htm -- Paramount finally commented it seems.


I can easily believe the Cruise has made no threats against the re-airing of the episode. What with making movies (often in other countries these days), his kids, 'church', and whatnot, Cruise seems like a pretty busy guy. I bet that South Park, especially its upcoming schedule, is not even a blip on his radar. If *told* about the re-airing, he might even ask, "where's South Park?".


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Jeeters said:


> I can easily believe the Cruise has made no threats against the re-airing of the episode. What with making movies (often in other countries these days), his kids, 'church', and whatnot, Cruise seems like a pretty busy guy. I bet that South Park, especially its upcoming schedule, is not even a blip on his radar. If *told* about the re-airing, he might even ask, "where's South Park?".


That might have been the case before this episode aired last November. I'm fairly certain that following that episode, if he wasn't familiar with the show before, he was definitely made aware of it after. I don't know if I believe the part about him threatening not to do publicity for his movie, but I don't have any doubt that he made his displeasure with the episode known to the powers that be at Viacom.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Clarkey said:


> The funniest thing about that South Park episode? The credits. LOL!


Haha I totally forgot about that when I originally saw the episode. That was very funny.


----------



## LA_Lady2006 (Mar 21, 2006)

slaponte said:


> Where is that web site that hates TC? They must be rolling on the floor over this...


I forgot about that website! Thanks for reminding me. Very funny.

tomcruiseisnuts


----------



## LA_Lady2006 (Mar 21, 2006)

I downloaded the show from Limewire. Very funny.


----------



## davis373 (Mar 13, 2006)

I respect Tom Cruise and think he is a great actor. His beliefs may not be the same as mine but I respect them. He is a man of great conviction and stands behind what he believes. There is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## bigcb37 (Jun 14, 2002)

Thanks for registering to post that...otherwise Tom Cruise would have this thread closed.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

bigcb37 said:


> Thanks for registering to post that...otherwise Tom Cruise would have this thread closed.


(That's Tom's latest boyfriend... don't worry 'bout it.)


----------



## nedthelab (Oct 4, 2002)

He's a freaking loon!!!!!


----------



## LiveBlues (Oct 30, 2001)

I don't watch the show, and don't even have any desire to watch the episode in question. I just think that they should have a new episode with a character called "Crew Toms". He could be this cubed looking toasty thing that showed up from outer space claiming the ability to control animals and humans. When that fails miserably, he just ends up on a salad. 

Was there an MI1 and a MI2?


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

davis373 said:


> I respect Tom Cruise and think he is a great actor. His beliefs may not be the same as mine but I respect them. He is a man of great conviction and stands behind what he believes. There is nothing wrong with that.


You came all the way out of the closet to make that post?  Gee thanks! While I respect yours/Tom's rights to have different beliefs, I by no means respect your beliefs as they quite stupid. No go back to the closet and don't ever come out again.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

figaro said:


> While I respect yours/Tom's rights to have different beliefs, I by no means respect your beliefs as they quite stupid.


I wonder what religion you belong to. Whatever one it is, I'm quite sure that its beliefs would appear "quite stupid" if anything resembling logic were applied to them. Angels, burning bushes, resurrections etc... are just as wacky and illogical as spaceships from Xenu.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I wonder what religion you belong to. Whatever one it is, I'm quite sure that its beliefs would appear "quite stupid" if anything resembling logic were applied to them. Angels, burning bushes, resurrections etc... are just as wacky and illogical as spaceships from Xenu.


Well before you hurt yourself jumping to conclusions I don't belong to any religion. Sorry to disappoint you as I can see you had your Christian whooping stick all ready to go.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

LiveBlues said:


> Was there an MI1 and a MI2?


I wish I could take back having seen the first rape of the classic series. I'll NEVER see 2 or any other sequel (or 1 again for that matter...it doesn't exist to me).


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

Figaro said:


> Well before you hurt yourself jumping to conclusions I don't belong to any religion. Sorry to disappoint you as I can see you had your Christian whooping stick all ready to go.


I don't think that was the point he was making.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

davis373 said:


> I respect Tom Cruise and think he is a great actor. His beliefs may not be the same as mine but I respect them. He is a man of great conviction and stands behind what he believes. There is nothing wrong with that.


I can name lots of people who had great conviction who were monsters as human beings. Having strong convictions has very little to do with being a good person.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

If you anagram "Tom Cruise", you get: IT SUC MORE


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

SparkleMotion said:


> I wish I could take back having seen the first rape of the classic series. I'll NEVER see 2 or any other sequel (or 1 again for that matter...it doesn't exist to me).


I started catching the original (original original--pre Jim Phelps) recently. I had forgotten what an incredible show it was, even in it's 1980's version (which I am desparate to see again). MI:1 was a travesty. MI:2 was not MI at all. MI:3 will probably be Tom Cruise primping himself for 90 minutes.

Anyway, I finally saw the episode. While I had heard parts of the "secret" beliefs of Scientology before, I had never heard all of the details of the Xenu thing. But aside from the "Wow, that is what they believe" factor, it wasn't that great of an episode. You can only hear someone tell Tom Cruise to come out of the closet so many times.


----------



## JakeyB (Apr 24, 2003)

SparkleMotion said:


> I wish I could take back having seen the first rape of the classic series. I'll NEVER see 2 or any other sequel (or 1 again for that matter...it doesn't exist to me).


If you didn't like the first one (which I considered an above average movie) you would have absolutely despised the second one (which was awful in every way possible).


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

doom1701 said:


> While I had heard parts of the "secret" beliefs of Scientology before, I had never heard all of the details of the Xenu thing. But aside from the "Wow, that is what they believe" factor, it wasn't that great of an episode.


Except for the "secret" part, most any religion is as laughable as Scientology.

Personally my favorite is David Gerrold's Mode Training from the War Against the Chtorr series -- at least it has a semblance of believability -- though I suppose calling it a "religion" is a stretch (interesting; maybe there's a connection -- believability vs. a stretch calling it a religion). 

I mention this here mostly for the sake of irony -- since we can't delve deeply into such discussions here.


----------



## gtrogue (Jun 18, 2001)

dswallow said:


> Except for the "secret" part, most any religion is as laughable as Scientology.


I was thinking the same thing.
Do Christians think that believing in an alien overlord that trapped alien souls on earth is more ridiculous than believing in a omniscient being that lives in the sky(heaven) that welcomes our souls into heaven after we die and who had a "son" that could walk on water, turn water into wine, and heal the sick?


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

Just any opportunity to rail against religion, huh? I thought we were talking about TV. Silly me.


----------



## gtrogue (Jun 18, 2001)

doom1701 said:


> Just any opportunity to rail against religion, huh? I thought we were talking about TV. Silly me.


I'm not railing on religion. One of the points of the episode was to point out how silly scientology is and to, perhaps, have people examine how silly theirs or all religions are. So see, I was simply talking about the South Park episode.


----------



## bigcb37 (Jun 14, 2002)

Chistianity didnt start in the 1950's by a sci-fi author and you dont need to pay large sums of money to be included. 

You can definitely laugh at the Scientolgy beliefs - its a cult and they are just out for money!


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

bigcb37 said:


> Chistianity didnt start in the 1950's by a sci-fi author and you dont need to pay large sums of money to be included.


Well maybe it wasn't started by a Sci-Fi guy but everytime I go to a Christian service I see the money bowel go around. All of them are about money! But that's probably enough of that, I don't wish to invoke the wrath of Bott.


----------



## bigcb37 (Jun 14, 2002)

Churches do pass an offering plate around but it is entirely optional to donate any money. Scientology has a strict rule - No sale, no salvation...


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

bigcb37 said:


> Chistianity didnt start in the 1950's by a sci-fi author and you dont need to pay large sums of money to be included.


Hey, everything started sometime.

A couple thousand years ago: Christianity
A thousand or so years ago: Islam
Last century: Scientology

Ya never know...


----------



## gtrogue (Jun 18, 2001)

bigcb37 said:


> Chistianity didnt start in the 1950's by a sci-fi author and you dont need to pay large sums of money to be included.
> 
> You can definitely laugh at the Scientolgy beliefs - its a cult and they are just out for money!


You have to admit that if you grew up and never heard anything about Christianity, or any religion, until you were an educated adult you would think it sounded crazy too- "He came back from the dead after 3 days? Wha, wha, whaaat?"


----------



## bigcb37 (Jun 14, 2002)

gtrogue said:


> You have to admit that if you grew up and never heard anything about Christianity, or any religion, until you were an educated adult you would think it sounded crazy too- "He came back from the dead after 3 days? Wha, wha, whaaat?"


I hear you. To me, however, the bible holds a little more water then Dionetics since the bible has been around for a little more then 50 years...

But yeah walking on water, water into wine....it sounds crazy.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Zues has been around longer than either of them but I don't hang out at his temple.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Figaro said:


> You came all the way out of the closet to make that post?  Gee thanks! While I respect yours/Tom's rights to have different beliefs, I by no means respect your beliefs as they quite stupid. No go back to the closet and don't ever come out again.


While to me all this Scientology stuff seems so out of left field it is hard to believe anyone takes it seriously, I respect anyone who stands by his beliefs and convictions. But geeez, have a sense of humor Tom, would ya? South Park has made fun of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. That's the shows MO, and it has always been that. It's a spoof on American life and culture. I think this country has LOST it's sense of humor over the last 5 years or so. Only thing we care about is power and money. This Cruise thing is another example of someone who has some pull making threats because he has the power (or thinks he does). I blame Comedy Central more than Cruise for not having the cajones to laugh in his face. Anyone has the right to protest something, Cruise was using his right and since he had the leverage (he thought) he used it.

I just don't like the way things are going generally with our media and it's all because a few powerful folks control everything, so there is no longer an outlet to voice a differing opinion. THe so called liberal media is controled by the conservative power base who own's the outlets. So anyone with money or power can now pretty much get whatever they want pulled.


----------



## nedthelab (Oct 4, 2002)

I have decided that I am my own religion, that is the church of ned_the_lab. All that is labness (as in retiever) will save us or at least me, I will give to this church via my income, hard work and utter conviction. I will invest in stocks and buy property and seek high gains and profit. And with that I will no longer pay any taxes, as a church I have that right.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Mamoth said:


> Would it? When you are one of the producers?
> 
> http://imdb.com/title/tt0317919/fullcredits


Yes, I would think even as a producer he would have contractual obligations. Of course I have never read any of the contracts but if I was releasing the film or putting up money for the film, the star of the film would be required to promote the film contractually.

Chris


----------

