Neologisms, for those who don't know, are "new words" created to, well, replace old words and phrases. For those who don't get it: neo = new; logo = word; hence, "neologisms," the "s" being an indicator for plural.
And, since I don't have anything better to do, here are eight neologisms that we should adopt into our vocabularies. Why? Because I fucking said so.
bin Laden
Function: verb
Replaces: taking a shit
Use: "Where have I been? Bin Laden."
Cruise control
Function: noun
Replaces: psychological examination
Use: "My boss recommended me for a Cruise control after I jumped up and down on couch, professing my love for a girl who reminds me of Sloth from The Goonies."
Janet tab
Function: noun
Replaces: pasty
Use: "It's a good thing that teeny-bopper was there to cover me after my boob popped out. All I had on was a Janet tab."
Juicers
Function: noun
Replaces: glove and knife
Use: "Yeah, I whacked my ex-wife. But I left my juicers at the scene. I hope I don't get caught."
Kate baby
Function: noun
Replaces: infant - specifically, an infant born solely to protect the sexuality of a parent still in the closet
Use: "You see that guy from Top Gun? I hear he's about to have another Kate baby."
Lewinsky
Function: verb
Replaces: blowjob - specifically, a blowjob received in an attempt for the giver to obtain a promotion or other special recognition
Use: "Yeah, she gave me a Lewinsky. And I almost got impeached for it. The bitch."
Rocket
Function: noun
Replaces: steroid - specifically, a steroid used to enhance athletic prowess
Use: "No, I never used Rockets when pitching in the Major Leagues."
Stevens tubes
Function: noun
Replaces: Internet
Use: "Oh, yeah. I travel through Stevens tubes all the time. I especially like Wikipedia."
And there you go... write Merriam-Webster today and get these words into our official lexicon.
Showing posts with label Tom Cruise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Cruise. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Thursday, November 2, 2006
Things I've Noticed About Battlestar Galactica
Due to some (rather surprising) popular demand, I'm going to bitch about Battlestar Galactica again.
First bitch: it's a definite... the political alignment of the show has gone from interpretive moderation to a clearly left-wing slant. Hmm... could the upcoming elections possibly have anything to do with plethora of Bush-jabs found in the show? Not that I mind Bush-jabs, but come on... BSG was much better when everyone could argue about everything. TRIALS WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!??? Where the fuck did they get that idea? Hmm...
Second bitch: can we please get some character consistency? And how about some intelligence? As if any idiot couldn't have figured out Gaeta wasn't pulling some sort of strings. Oh, and how about some memory? "Trauma" or not, there's no way Tyrol's moronic wife is going to forget that somebody helped her get away. In fact, I'm pretty fucking sure she'd have mentioned it right after it happened. Which leads me to...
Third bitch: the show's writing this year is even worse than last. So far, we've had a horrible premiere, a good second episode, an okay third episode (with some inconsistent physics... BSG? Inconsistent? No...), and a crappy fourth episode. Even season two was 50-50. Oh, the good ol' days.
Fourth bitch: I finally started liking Starbuck last season, and now I hate her even more than I did before. And she's actually worse-looking with long hair. For an actress, I think that's a historical first.
Pointless Musings
Studies are now linking cell phone use to male impotence. Right on. Fuck global warning, Samsung and Nokia are killing the world one ejaculation at a time. Gross concept, isn't it? But true...
Scions have got to be the ugliest cars on the road since the old Saabs.
The new Saabs rock.
Madonna may have discovered that her name in Chichewa/Bantu means "distinguished white lady," but around me it means "arrogant, self-righteous moron." Do you feel like Angelina yet, you wannabe-Brit lunatic?
Shawne Merriman needs to just admit that he screwed up so he can quit making himself look like a jackass.
The NFL having regular season games "overseas" is pretty stupid from a fan's point of view. It's also pretty fucking smart from a businessman's point of view. Ah, how money makes the world go round.
I'm still pissed that Anaheim took the "Mighty" out of their hockey team. Bastards.
Even though he's, well, (fill in a degrading adjective here), Tom Cruise seems a rather appropriate choice to run United Artists. Quaint, somehow. But he's still a (degrading adjective).
Watch Bullrun on SpikeTV next year.
First bitch: it's a definite... the political alignment of the show has gone from interpretive moderation to a clearly left-wing slant. Hmm... could the upcoming elections possibly have anything to do with plethora of Bush-jabs found in the show? Not that I mind Bush-jabs, but come on... BSG was much better when everyone could argue about everything. TRIALS WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!??? Where the fuck did they get that idea? Hmm...
Second bitch: can we please get some character consistency? And how about some intelligence? As if any idiot couldn't have figured out Gaeta wasn't pulling some sort of strings. Oh, and how about some memory? "Trauma" or not, there's no way Tyrol's moronic wife is going to forget that somebody helped her get away. In fact, I'm pretty fucking sure she'd have mentioned it right after it happened. Which leads me to...
Third bitch: the show's writing this year is even worse than last. So far, we've had a horrible premiere, a good second episode, an okay third episode (with some inconsistent physics... BSG? Inconsistent? No...), and a crappy fourth episode. Even season two was 50-50. Oh, the good ol' days.
Fourth bitch: I finally started liking Starbuck last season, and now I hate her even more than I did before. And she's actually worse-looking with long hair. For an actress, I think that's a historical first.
Pointless Musings
Studies are now linking cell phone use to male impotence. Right on. Fuck global warning, Samsung and Nokia are killing the world one ejaculation at a time. Gross concept, isn't it? But true...
Scions have got to be the ugliest cars on the road since the old Saabs.
The new Saabs rock.
Madonna may have discovered that her name in Chichewa/Bantu means "distinguished white lady," but around me it means "arrogant, self-righteous moron." Do you feel like Angelina yet, you wannabe-Brit lunatic?
Shawne Merriman needs to just admit that he screwed up so he can quit making himself look like a jackass.
The NFL having regular season games "overseas" is pretty stupid from a fan's point of view. It's also pretty fucking smart from a businessman's point of view. Ah, how money makes the world go round.
I'm still pissed that Anaheim took the "Mighty" out of their hockey team. Bastards.
Even though he's, well, (fill in a degrading adjective here), Tom Cruise seems a rather appropriate choice to run United Artists. Quaint, somehow. But he's still a (degrading adjective).
Watch Bullrun on SpikeTV next year.
Sunday, October 1, 2006
Overpaid Actors, Underpaid Athletes
This is likely going to piss some people off, but I don't really care. Anyway, as we approach the Fall Classic and are underway with football season, I figured that I would point out to all of you that I am one of the few people in the world that feels that A-list actors are overpaid, while A-list athletes are underpaid.
Now, this is by no means an all-encompassing statement, as I can probably spout of at least 20 baseball players that are highly overpaid (Alex Rodriguez... ahem) and a few football players that are, as well. I can also think of several Hollywood stars that are underpaid. However, I'm not here to argue individual exceptions (in fact, I rarely argue individual exceptions).
So, what the Hell am I blabbing about? Well, my Chargers just lost to the Ravens, 16-13 (thanks, Marty), so I don't really know, nor do I care.
Oh, wait... overpaid actors and underpaid athletes.
Okay... look at some of these so-called Hollywood superstar salaries. There is, not surprisingly, an elite club in Southern California called the "$20 million club." This club includes Tom Cruise ($25 million per film), Mel Gibson ($25 million for The Patriot, back when he acted), Julia Roberts ($20 million for Erin Brockovich), and the list goes on.
Now, these salaries would be completely justified would the presence of these particular paid actors actually increase a film gross by at least the amount of their salary. But, the fact is that they don't. In no industry but Hollywood would somebody pay more for a product that will return less. I don't have the time to go into this phenomenon here, but you can do the research yourself. It's practically common knowledge.
But what about sports stars? Well, let's look at the NFL, as their fiscal model is the one I'm most familiar with. The NFL is a $30 billion + industry. Under a system in which athletes are paid crap, that $30 billion would largely be split among 32 owners. That's a lot of wealth to be pocketed by so few people. Not only that, the owners don't win their games or even increase their teams' popularities... the players do all of that. Good players equals more wins equals more exposure equals more income. Paying that quarterback $7 million (or more) per year may very well be the reason that a particular team makes $7 million in revenue. And, it takes those multi-billions of dollars and splits it among 2000 players.
Does anybody see actors spreading their wealth with their cameramen, their sound techs, or even their makeup artists? Let me answer that for you: no.
I could totally rant and rave about this subject for hours... but I'm inebriated, irritated that the Chargers lost, and hoping that the Padres win... so maybe I will later.
Now, this is by no means an all-encompassing statement, as I can probably spout of at least 20 baseball players that are highly overpaid (Alex Rodriguez... ahem) and a few football players that are, as well. I can also think of several Hollywood stars that are underpaid. However, I'm not here to argue individual exceptions (in fact, I rarely argue individual exceptions).
So, what the Hell am I blabbing about? Well, my Chargers just lost to the Ravens, 16-13 (thanks, Marty), so I don't really know, nor do I care.
Oh, wait... overpaid actors and underpaid athletes.
Okay... look at some of these so-called Hollywood superstar salaries. There is, not surprisingly, an elite club in Southern California called the "$20 million club." This club includes Tom Cruise ($25 million per film), Mel Gibson ($25 million for The Patriot, back when he acted), Julia Roberts ($20 million for Erin Brockovich), and the list goes on.
Now, these salaries would be completely justified would the presence of these particular paid actors actually increase a film gross by at least the amount of their salary. But, the fact is that they don't. In no industry but Hollywood would somebody pay more for a product that will return less. I don't have the time to go into this phenomenon here, but you can do the research yourself. It's practically common knowledge.
But what about sports stars? Well, let's look at the NFL, as their fiscal model is the one I'm most familiar with. The NFL is a $30 billion + industry. Under a system in which athletes are paid crap, that $30 billion would largely be split among 32 owners. That's a lot of wealth to be pocketed by so few people. Not only that, the owners don't win their games or even increase their teams' popularities... the players do all of that. Good players equals more wins equals more exposure equals more income. Paying that quarterback $7 million (or more) per year may very well be the reason that a particular team makes $7 million in revenue. And, it takes those multi-billions of dollars and splits it among 2000 players.
Does anybody see actors spreading their wealth with their cameramen, their sound techs, or even their makeup artists? Let me answer that for you: no.
I could totally rant and rave about this subject for hours... but I'm inebriated, irritated that the Chargers lost, and hoping that the Padres win... so maybe I will later.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Hollywood Stars and Hollywood Stars
I'm going to fill you in on some things that annoy the hell out of me. It's my blog, you're reading it, so I feel thoroughly entitled to do so.
Annoyance: how the press labels everyone who is famous, and is not an athlete, a "Hollywood star."
Okay, this is simply not the case. While I've always noticed this little purposeful faux pas, it really hit me when Lance Bass came out of the closet. All the trades, all the newspapers, and all the television magazines kept calling Mr. Bass and his "where's Tom Cruise" glory a "Hollywood star."
Let's set the record straight here: Lance Bass is a music star. He sings, he dances, he plays with his Mission: Impossible dolls. A music star does not a Hollywood star make. Hollywood, need I remind everyone, is the haven and heaven of FILM AND TELEVISION. Actors, directors, writers, etc. Not musicians. Yes, there's an Academy Award for "Best Original Song," but so what? Documentarians get Academy Awards, and they're hardly considered "Hollywood" in the public's eye.
I'm not going to harp on this, because I have more to complain about, but I implore the sensationalist press: please quit referring to everyone who happens to be a celebrity as a Hollywood star. Hollywood deserves its place among the lights, so let's leave it with some dignity, shall we?
Annoyance: Mel Gibson's vilification.
Dudes, the guy was drunk. And while several of you adhere to the philosophy that "people say (and do) what they mean" when they're drunk, this is simply not the case. I've seen one of my best friends try to kiss one of the ugliest women I've ever seen while drunk. Do I think for a second that he wanted to do this? No... but I'm sure that Jim Beam and Wild Turkey sure as hell did.
The man admitted a mistake, he's attempting (although not as strongly as he should be, I'll grant you) to make amends.
Oh, and I'm sick of hearing about all the crap of how "he's an actor, he can lie about it." I've worked with actors quite a bit, and anybody who has can tell you that there is a VERY THICK LINE between acting and lying. Actors are not necessarily good liars, despite the cliché, and vice versa. Take me for instance... I can be a great liar, but I can't act worth a damn.
Umm... forget that last thing I said, will you?
Annoyance: articles concerning Hollywood stars referring to said person as "the (insert film title here) star."
I read a lot of trades (this much should be obvious), and I am so sick and tired of reading about a person who everybody knows about being referred to as "the War of the Worlds star" or as "the Mean Girls star." Um... people who subscribe to the trades probably know who all of these people are, so we probably don't need to be reminded of said person's most recent or most popular film. I admit that this last annoyance isnt coming off as clearly as I'd like, but I'm still not in a proper writer's mood yet. To find out what I'm talking about, check out the IMDb's daily news sections and you'll soon be as annoyed as I am.
Annoyance: how the press labels everyone who is famous, and is not an athlete, a "Hollywood star."
Okay, this is simply not the case. While I've always noticed this little purposeful faux pas, it really hit me when Lance Bass came out of the closet. All the trades, all the newspapers, and all the television magazines kept calling Mr. Bass and his "where's Tom Cruise" glory a "Hollywood star."
Let's set the record straight here: Lance Bass is a music star. He sings, he dances, he plays with his Mission: Impossible dolls. A music star does not a Hollywood star make. Hollywood, need I remind everyone, is the haven and heaven of FILM AND TELEVISION. Actors, directors, writers, etc. Not musicians. Yes, there's an Academy Award for "Best Original Song," but so what? Documentarians get Academy Awards, and they're hardly considered "Hollywood" in the public's eye.
I'm not going to harp on this, because I have more to complain about, but I implore the sensationalist press: please quit referring to everyone who happens to be a celebrity as a Hollywood star. Hollywood deserves its place among the lights, so let's leave it with some dignity, shall we?
Annoyance: Mel Gibson's vilification.
Dudes, the guy was drunk. And while several of you adhere to the philosophy that "people say (and do) what they mean" when they're drunk, this is simply not the case. I've seen one of my best friends try to kiss one of the ugliest women I've ever seen while drunk. Do I think for a second that he wanted to do this? No... but I'm sure that Jim Beam and Wild Turkey sure as hell did.
The man admitted a mistake, he's attempting (although not as strongly as he should be, I'll grant you) to make amends.
Oh, and I'm sick of hearing about all the crap of how "he's an actor, he can lie about it." I've worked with actors quite a bit, and anybody who has can tell you that there is a VERY THICK LINE between acting and lying. Actors are not necessarily good liars, despite the cliché, and vice versa. Take me for instance... I can be a great liar, but I can't act worth a damn.
Umm... forget that last thing I said, will you?
Annoyance: articles concerning Hollywood stars referring to said person as "the (insert film title here) star."
I read a lot of trades (this much should be obvious), and I am so sick and tired of reading about a person who everybody knows about being referred to as "the War of the Worlds star" or as "the Mean Girls star." Um... people who subscribe to the trades probably know who all of these people are, so we probably don't need to be reminded of said person's most recent or most popular film. I admit that this last annoyance isnt coming off as clearly as I'd like, but I'm still not in a proper writer's mood yet. To find out what I'm talking about, check out the IMDb's daily news sections and you'll soon be as annoyed as I am.
Friday, June 9, 2006
Hollywood and its Overpriced Players
It's no secret that Hollywood is in a state of flux. Declining theatrical attendance, increased piracy, and a tendency for the consumer to want it "now" are killing what was once the untouchable industry. Hollywood's reaction? Misguided attempts at multi-media releases, concurrent theatrical and home video launches, and a regrettable movement away from the smaller "independent" films (true film aficionados know good and well why I put "independent" in quotations).
But has any of this helped? No, not really. Even attempts by theater owners to make the filmgoing experience more enjoyable (by banning cell phones and throwing out the talkative pricks that tend to encourage people to stay home) haven't helped all that much, even though those attempts aren't going unnoticed.
On top of it all, Hollywood is complaining that there aren't enough movie stars to encourage whatever type of "growth" that the studios hope more movie stars will bring.
Okay, so I just made several leaps in logic, but fear not... I am rapidly approaching my point. Hollywood wants to turn larger profits? The quick and easy: slash the salaries of above-the-line talent. I got news for you... NO actor or director is worth $20 million. I don't care what they've done.
So a studio has a certain "star vehicle" that needs a superstar to draw in the audience? Right... NOT. Analysis by most of the major industry trades have PROVEN that high-priced actors actually HURT their films rather than help (although Tom Hanks films tend to show additional profits thanks to his presence). So what should the studio do? Why, hire another actor, of course.
But, as Hollywood would interject, we need our stars. Well, why don't you take that $20 million and, instead of paying one man to play a role, fund a nationwide (Hell, worldwide) talent search and FIND more stars. Do you know how many casting sessions you can hold for $20 million? I'm not sure of the exact number, but I guarantee that it's a shitload (which, in non-French, means "a lot").
With that $20 million, you could inundate Hollywood with stars, rivaling the days of the actual studio system. Imagine, if there are 10 Tom Cruises running around, you're not going to have to pay the real Tom Cruise $20 million just to ruin your movie with bad press. The other 9 Tom Cruises would gladly do that for a simple $2 million. Basically, the average $65 million budget (or whatever it is now) would drop to $47 million, making it A LOT easier for the studios to turn a profit on a film, which makes it easier for studios to greenlight MORE films, which makes Hollywood a power-player, which makes piss-ant nobodies like me happy (because we have more jobs to choose from).
I know that absolutely none of what I've written makes any logical sense, but I don't give a shit... I know what I'm trying to say.
But has any of this helped? No, not really. Even attempts by theater owners to make the filmgoing experience more enjoyable (by banning cell phones and throwing out the talkative pricks that tend to encourage people to stay home) haven't helped all that much, even though those attempts aren't going unnoticed.
On top of it all, Hollywood is complaining that there aren't enough movie stars to encourage whatever type of "growth" that the studios hope more movie stars will bring.
Okay, so I just made several leaps in logic, but fear not... I am rapidly approaching my point. Hollywood wants to turn larger profits? The quick and easy: slash the salaries of above-the-line talent. I got news for you... NO actor or director is worth $20 million. I don't care what they've done.
So a studio has a certain "star vehicle" that needs a superstar to draw in the audience? Right... NOT. Analysis by most of the major industry trades have PROVEN that high-priced actors actually HURT their films rather than help (although Tom Hanks films tend to show additional profits thanks to his presence). So what should the studio do? Why, hire another actor, of course.
But, as Hollywood would interject, we need our stars. Well, why don't you take that $20 million and, instead of paying one man to play a role, fund a nationwide (Hell, worldwide) talent search and FIND more stars. Do you know how many casting sessions you can hold for $20 million? I'm not sure of the exact number, but I guarantee that it's a shitload (which, in non-French, means "a lot").
With that $20 million, you could inundate Hollywood with stars, rivaling the days of the actual studio system. Imagine, if there are 10 Tom Cruises running around, you're not going to have to pay the real Tom Cruise $20 million just to ruin your movie with bad press. The other 9 Tom Cruises would gladly do that for a simple $2 million. Basically, the average $65 million budget (or whatever it is now) would drop to $47 million, making it A LOT easier for the studios to turn a profit on a film, which makes it easier for studios to greenlight MORE films, which makes Hollywood a power-player, which makes piss-ant nobodies like me happy (because we have more jobs to choose from).
I know that absolutely none of what I've written makes any logical sense, but I don't give a shit... I know what I'm trying to say.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
The Truth Behind Tom Cruise
Disclaimer: More satire, folks. I actually happen to like Tom Cruise (not in that way, of course). I do think he's a fine actor, and whether I take his church seriously or not, people are free to believe in what they wish to believe. I bear neither him nor his family any ill will, and I hope to Hell that he continues to make kick-ass movies, and comes to his senses and returns the Mission: Impossible franchise to its roots (bring Brian De Palma back!).
Well, well... it seems that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have had their baby. Not surprisingly, several "Tom versus Brad in the battle for best dad" articles have sprung up around the internet. It's safe to say that Brad is going to win that one, but just to add another nail to Mr. Cruise's coffin, let's rant about him a little more.
Tom Cruise, lest we forget, is a fantastic actor. He's pulled off the brother of an autistic savant, a homoerotic vampire, a "manly" (read: homoerotic) F-14 pilot, an Irish refugee boxer, a secret agent (only referring to the first Mission: Impossible, mind you), and a young prophetic warrior surrounded by dwarves (come on, who can forget Legend?). However, none of this is the point. Tom Cruise, though a Hollywood icon, is an idiot. Now, that's not saying that he's any more an idiot than the rest of us, it's just saying that every time he does something idiotic, the whole world gets to watch with wild abandon.
Think about your favorite Tom-Cruise-is-a-moron moment. Is it divorcing Nicole Kidman? Breaking up with Penelope Cruz (who isn't all that, anyway)? Jumping up and down on Oprah's couch? Declaring his vast working knowledge of the history of psychiatry to Matt Lauer? Joining the Church of Scientology? Or maybe it's knocking up Katie Holmes in a sorry attempt to prove that he's not gay?
Whoa, wait a sec... what was that last one? You read it right, folks. Tom Cruise is in the closet. The boys behind Cartman and Kenny hit the nail on the head.
Now, on to my theory (which is, as will eventually be revealed, the "truth")...
Tom Cruise is gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just disturbingly hilarious the lengths that the man will go to in order to hide that fact. His first wife, Mimi Rogers (with those HUGE breasts), intimated as much (something about liking to get tooled, but being married to guy who doesn't like to tool). Nicole Kidman, pale goddess that she is, dodges implications suspiciously. And no, adopting children IS NOT enough to alleviate suspicions. Unfortunately for Mr. Cruise, neither is HAVING children.
Theory time: Tom Cruise married Katie Holmes for two reasons: 1) because she's an idiot, looks like Sloth from The Goonies, and is easily influenced (I mean, Tom's bosses at his church certainly didn't want another Scarlett Johansson incident) and 2) because he wanted to knock somebody up to prove that he's not gay.
Well, it's not working. So, Tom and Katie (she's not Kate) are going to have a second child, much to Mr. Cruise's chagrin. Unfortunately, that won't work either, so they're just going to give up and get a divorce (amicably, of course... then again, they'd have to actually get married for that to happen). And eventually, Mr. Cruise will come out of the closet (which he should do now... I mean, look at Ian McKellen... his career has gone through the roof since he's come out.).
Watch it happen... and remember, you read it here first (or maybe second).
Well, well... it seems that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have had their baby. Not surprisingly, several "Tom versus Brad in the battle for best dad" articles have sprung up around the internet. It's safe to say that Brad is going to win that one, but just to add another nail to Mr. Cruise's coffin, let's rant about him a little more.
Tom Cruise, lest we forget, is a fantastic actor. He's pulled off the brother of an autistic savant, a homoerotic vampire, a "manly" (read: homoerotic) F-14 pilot, an Irish refugee boxer, a secret agent (only referring to the first Mission: Impossible, mind you), and a young prophetic warrior surrounded by dwarves (come on, who can forget Legend?). However, none of this is the point. Tom Cruise, though a Hollywood icon, is an idiot. Now, that's not saying that he's any more an idiot than the rest of us, it's just saying that every time he does something idiotic, the whole world gets to watch with wild abandon.
Think about your favorite Tom-Cruise-is-a-moron moment. Is it divorcing Nicole Kidman? Breaking up with Penelope Cruz (who isn't all that, anyway)? Jumping up and down on Oprah's couch? Declaring his vast working knowledge of the history of psychiatry to Matt Lauer? Joining the Church of Scientology? Or maybe it's knocking up Katie Holmes in a sorry attempt to prove that he's not gay?
Whoa, wait a sec... what was that last one? You read it right, folks. Tom Cruise is in the closet. The boys behind Cartman and Kenny hit the nail on the head.
Now, on to my theory (which is, as will eventually be revealed, the "truth")...
Tom Cruise is gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just disturbingly hilarious the lengths that the man will go to in order to hide that fact. His first wife, Mimi Rogers (with those HUGE breasts), intimated as much (something about liking to get tooled, but being married to guy who doesn't like to tool). Nicole Kidman, pale goddess that she is, dodges implications suspiciously. And no, adopting children IS NOT enough to alleviate suspicions. Unfortunately for Mr. Cruise, neither is HAVING children.
Theory time: Tom Cruise married Katie Holmes for two reasons: 1) because she's an idiot, looks like Sloth from The Goonies, and is easily influenced (I mean, Tom's bosses at his church certainly didn't want another Scarlett Johansson incident) and 2) because he wanted to knock somebody up to prove that he's not gay.
Well, it's not working. So, Tom and Katie (she's not Kate) are going to have a second child, much to Mr. Cruise's chagrin. Unfortunately, that won't work either, so they're just going to give up and get a divorce (amicably, of course... then again, they'd have to actually get married for that to happen). And eventually, Mr. Cruise will come out of the closet (which he should do now... I mean, look at Ian McKellen... his career has gone through the roof since he's come out.).
Watch it happen... and remember, you read it here first (or maybe second).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
