Katie Holmes: Blacklisted in Hollywood because of Scientology

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Personally, I think that who wins and Oscar and why is a mystery to a lot of us.

It's funny how many Oscars are won for movies that no one I know has ever seen.

How many people here, for instance, have seen Monster's Ball, the movie Halle Berry won an Oscar for in 2001? I've never seen it and no one I knew at the time had ever seen it.

Not to mention the fact that Berry, though very beautiful, is not known to be a a particularly great actress.

Sometimes it just seems kind of...random.

I think a lot of it may have something to do with the amount of largesse studios are prepared to throw at it or the amount of m,oney they are prepared to spend on lobbying. After all its about getting a certain number of a closed group to vote on something - something that companies spend millions of dollars doing with congress. I imagine, given the vast needs to be loved in Hollywood that it's considerably cheaper there. (LOL)

Since 1991 the only movies that won best movie that I thought were worth it were Shakespeare in Love, Forrest Gump and, possibly The Hurt Locker. Doesn't mean I didn't like any of the others but most of them were not overwhelmingly impressive.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
I do not think anyone should be blacklisted for being a Scn'ist. I also don't think anyone should be blacklisted for divorcing a Scn'ist or not liking a Scn'ist.

In general, blacklists are a bad idea.

Blacklisting Scientologists seems a perfectly reasonable thing to me in that its just the same as blacklisting someone from the Mafia. Public event organisers, industry award programmes, social services, employers, and government all have the right to protect themselves from organised crime.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
I'm not a TC fan but he actually is a pretty decent actor; certainly for having grown up on this side of the pond. Both he & Tom Hanks strike me as similar. Good at what they do but fairly limited in the type of roles they can play well.

Frankly, the Brits have a plethora of brilliant actors. Here in the u.s. it's a much more limited selection among those who are 'homegrown'. The emphasis in the u.s. appears to be on creating stars, not actors. Different thing all together.

Most of our best appear to be foreign imports. Thank god for Canada, Europe, & Downunda! Still, we have Meryl. She counts for a lot! :)

Mark A. Baker


There are many myths in the film industry, one of which you have laughably bought into lock, stock and barrel.

The myth that British actors are far superior to American actors and that they abound in numbers.

Mark, in the motion picture and stage industries worldwide, working professionals laugh at that silly elitist myth being thrown about by authoratative persons who actually have never WORKED WITH those American actors they so blithely dismiss.

It is very similar to new Scientologists reading a Flag promo piece that says "FLAG IS THE MECCA OF TECHNICAL PERFECTION" and then confidently telling others that Flag has far superior auditors.

Or reading DMSMH and one of Hubbard's anti-psych rants, then assuring others that Scientology has far superior therapists than the professional health care industry. Wait, you might actually believe that one too. LOL

Only amateurs believe in these myths.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
I see no reason to believe that any blacklisting has taken place. Did I miss the evidence?


There is no blacklisting of Tom Cruise.

In Hollywood, there is however a complex and delicate ecosystem of buzz, popularity, political correctness and zeitgeist "cool" that changes day by day.

It's the same reason some videos go viral on the internet and others languish.

Missing in all this discussion is the simple fact that the Oscars are not science. They are hybrid of talent show and popularity contest. The ratio of those two is constantly adjusting itself based on many other social meteorological conditions that sometimes yield a sunny day and other times rain.

If a nominee for the Oscar brings personal "baggage" it weighs on the voters. For example, if Mel Gibson gets recorded during a traffic stop launching an invective-filled, anti-Semitic rant--Academy members will remember this and factor it into their thinking.

And why shouldn't they? It is just a opinion on who they vote for, so if they don't like the dude personally, why can't they vote for someone they like more?

The theory that outsiders to the film industry have is that the Academy Award is some kind of scientific process that operates in a vacuum of arbitrary human behavior. Good theory, but the people voting are not some elite beings with advanced knowledge, they are just the same people who you saw in a grocery store trying to decide which cereal they wanted to buy.

Some people buy Cocoa Puffs and others swear by Rice Krispies.

Apparently Tom's "Frosted Flakes" is not so popular these days.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Personally, I think that who wins and Oscar and why is a mystery to a lot of us.

It's funny how many Oscars are won for movies that no one I know has ever seen.

How many people here, for instance, have seen Monster's Ball, the movie Halle Berry won an Oscar for in 2001? I've never seen it and no one I knew at the time had ever seen it.

Not to mention the fact that Berry, though very beautiful, is not known to be a a particularly great actress.

Sometimes it just seems kind of...random.

Was an excellent film and Halle gave a great performance. Catch it on
cable or whatever. It is pretty dark however.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
--snipped--

Frankly, the Brits have a plethora of brilliant actors. Here in the u.s. it's a much more limited selection among those who are 'homegrown'. The emphasis in the u.s. appears to be on creating stars, not actors. Different thing all together.

Most of our best appear to be foreign imports.

Frankly, the Brits have a plethora of brilliant actors.
Agreed that "Brits have a plethora of brilliant actors". So does the US. Many more, in fact, due to the fact that the US actors support a vast motion-picture-industrial-complex that generates exponentially greater numbers of studio movies, independent productions, stage plays, network tv shows and a densely populated rain-forest of cable television dramas, made-for-tv-movies, comedies, action, sci-fi and mini-series.

Here in the u.s. it's a much more limited selection among those who are 'homegrown'.
You have obviously never worked in the US Film & Entertainment industry--or read the trade papers like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter. Neither have you made any effort to become familiar with the sheer volume of films/tv programming that is produced in the US annually. Having worked in those industries on both sides (financial and creative) I can tell you that you really need to do a little homework before making such misinformed statements.

The emphasis in the u.s. appears to be on creating stars, not actors.
That is ridiculous. It would be the same as concluding that all US-based gourmet restaurants put their emphasis on creating junk food, and citing McDonalds as your support.

Mark, if you really want to be informed, try this. Make a quick list of all the movie masterpieces that have been produced in the US over the past 50 years (since 1962). Now go to IMDB (Internet Movie Database) and list out the names of all the actors who appeared in those movies. Count them.

Now do the same with all the British movie masterpieces over the past 50 years. List the actors. Count them.

Compare the two numbers.

Now tell me which country has the greater number of acting geniuses.

Naturally, the US does, since its product volume (and population) dwarfs England.

There are brilliant actors in both countries. Trying to assert the myth that England has better actors is so elitist and ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
Rather than being blacklisted, I think his lack of awards is more likely due to his not being a particularly good actor, and having a not very likeable personality.

I'm not a TC fan but he actually is a pretty decent actor; certainly for having grown up on this side of the pond. Both he & Tom Hanks strike me as similar. Good at what they do but fairly limited in the type of roles they can play well.

Frankly, the Brits have a plethora of brilliant actors. Here in the u.s. it's a much more limited selection among those who are 'homegrown'. The emphasis in the u.s. appears to be on creating stars, not actors. Different thing all together.

Most of our best appear to be foreign imports. Thank god for Canada, Europe, & Downunda! Still, we have Meryl. She counts for a lot! :)


Mark A. Baker
 
... It's funny how many Oscars are won for movies that no one I know has ever seen. ...

Seems quite reasonable in light of the fact that Oscars are NOT a popular choice award. They are awarded based on the judgement of industry professionals. Those with a professional insight often see things quite differently from those who lack such.

Another good example recently played out in the u.s. olympic's trials gymnastics competition. The technical judging of individual competitor's performances on the various devices is often not at all clear to audiences lacking expertise in the technical appraisal of complex gymnastic moves. A competitor may look really good to an audience yet score lower on an event than someone who's routine is less 'sexy'.

What seems to be the most pleasing isn't necessarily that which requires the most skill to execute well.


Mark A. Baker
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Blacklisting Scientologists seems a perfectly reasonable thing to me in that its just the same as blacklisting someone from the Mafia. Public event organisers, industry award programmes, social services, employers, and government all have the right to protect themselves from organised crime.

Not to me. I find it to be a sickening attitude. I'm in favor of sanctioning an organization but not individuals on the basis on their religious or philosophical orientation, no matter how stupid the orientation.

In fact, such is illegal.
 
Top