I tried to draw a picture of Tom Cruise in a business suit holding up a samurai sword based off a still I found from The Last Samurai. It didn’t turn out very well. So if you don’t feel like voting for Theater Hopper at Webcomics List today, I won’t hold it against you. After all, we ∗are∗ at the number one spot right now, so we can rest on our laurels a little bit!
Everyone seems to have an opinion about the romance he seems to have sparked with erstwhile resident of Dawson’s Creek – Katie Holmes. However, it seems that conventional wisdom dictates that the relationship is a sham. A shameless publicity stunt to help cook up interest in both Thespians upcoming June releases – War of the Worlds and Batman Begins, respectively.
Although I am largely a cynic, my greatest weakness is the notion of romantic love. So I find myself playing Devil’s Advocate and imagining reasons why the union of TomKat ∗isn’t∗ manically devised and orchestrated to be intentional ttabloid fodder.
Also, I hate siding with conventional wisdom.
For me, it’s all about motive. I can certainly understand why Holmes would want to hitch her wagon to Cruise. It’s what’s typically known in the industry as “dating up.” She has nothing to lose by being seen with him and it certainly raises her profile in relation to the other actors starring in Batman Begins.
Among the principal cast, you have Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson and Gary Oldman. Maybe co-star Cillian Murphy’s (as The Scarecrow) stock is among the same caliber and audiences certainly aren’t as familiar with Ken Wantanabe (as Ra’s Al Ghul). But ultimately, when people hear there’s a new Batman movie coming out, they aren’t saying “Hey, isn’t that the new Katie Holmes movie?” Now we’re thinking twice…
Now on the other side of the isle, what does Tom Cruise get out of this? Certainly publicity for War of the Worlds isn’t an issue. If Cruise’s name on the marquee doesn’t attract ticket buyers, than certainly Steven Spielberg as director will. It doesn’t hurt that the material they’re covering is a sci-fi classic.
So what possible benefit could there be for an A-list celebrity to date a B-list, or possible C-list celebrity nearly 16 years his junior? Why go on the Oprah Winfery show, act like a loon and have people start questioning your sanity?
Then again, the better question might be “Why would you ever leave Nicole Kidman in the first place?” But I digress.
Accessing the conspiracy theory corner of my brain, I imagine a situation where Tom and Katie met each other at some kind of ritzy Hollywood shin-dig, got to talking and realized how hilarious it would be if the two of them got together.
Realizing that the press and the majority of American’s would view their relationship as a stunt, they would play it up to the hilt. Lavish attention on each other at movie premieres, act bizarre with members of the press when questioned about it and even lob about rumors of marriage to really bring things to a boil.
Then after both War of the Worlda and Batman Begins premier in theaters, they would issue a joint press conference and admit to the world that – yes – their time together WAS a publicity stunt. It was all part of an elaborate scheme to expose the folly of “entertainment journalism” and the country fell for it hook, line and sinker.
But stepping away from that theory, I realize that the public backlash against being hoodwinked to such a degree would be enormous and the careers of both actors would probably be squashed immediately.
As such, I have to resign myself to the possibility that the TomKat relationship is not a stunt. Just another slight of hand by Cruise’s team of image manipulators to further convince the country that their client isn’t gay.
In light of the revelation that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are now engaged, I feel as though my comic from last Wednesday is somewhat prophetic.
It certainly doesn’t seem strange that Cruise would propose the week Holmes’ movie opens and the week before War of the Worlds hits theaters, does it?
Please note heavy sarcasm.
If you’d like a little insight (or conjecture, based on where you stand) about how thoroughly creepy the whole TomKat affair has become, Jeffery Wells’ Hollywood Elsewhere column from this Wednesday is an interesting read.
And while we’re taking trips in the Way-back Machine, I thought you guys might get a kick out of revisiting this comic from September 15, 2003. It was a strip commenting on the announcement of Christian Bale being cast as the new Batman.
This is one of my personal favorite strips. Look how far we’ve come!
Related Posts ¬
Jan 11, 2011 | HOLLYWOOD IS LIKE HIGH SCHOOL |
Tom is all man, baby. Borderline offensively so!
I was going to do a comic today about the new Ryan Reynolds movie Wating… but the news of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes pregnancy was too good to pass out. Odd, isn’t it that Tom and Cami can only seemingly have discussion about Tom-Kat’s love life in public?
That aside, I know that I’m kind of skirting the line of good taste with today’s comic, but felt the need to shake things up a little bit.
I also want to make it clear that today’s comic is not a swipe against homosexuals. So it’s understood, I do not consider the relationships of consenting adults any of my business.
What today’s comic is really about is nothing more than outrageous reactions based on rumors. The whole "Tom Cruise is gay" thing isn’t anything new. It’s been floating around Hollywood for years. Don’t ask me why.
I can see why maybe Cruise was defensive to the insinuation back in the 80’s when the spectre of AIDS was looming about. After Rock Hudson died, people weren’t very sympathetic to gay people in the public spotlight.
And even though I think we live in (slightly) more enlightened times, I can kind of understand why Cruise would take to suing each and every person or publication that says he’s gay because now that the lie has gotten so big, coming out of the closet now would significantly damage his reputation as an action star. Plus any good will he’s racked up with audiences over the years.
For the record, I don’t even know if he ∗IS∗ gay. Really, it’s not my business. But ever since that awkward "love" scene he did with his then wife Nicole Kidman in 1999’s Eyes Wide Shut and there were rumors Cruise had to hire a coach to learn how to be passionate on screen with his real-life spouse, the din of speculation is getting louder and louder. All the suing he did didn’t help, either.
Fast forward to the middle of the first decade in the 21st century and he’s engaged to an actress 16 years his junior after 4 months of courtship. She now pregnant with his child – something not accomplished with Kidman as the two children from that relationship are adopted – and the delivery date coinciding with the release of Mission Impossible III on May 17, 2006… Well, excuse me if it all looks a little suspicious.
Maybe it’s just a run-of-the-mill string of publicity stunts. Maybe it has nothing to do with Cruise being gay or not gay. Honestly, it doesn’t make any difference to me. I wouldn’t care if Cruise were gay any more than if you were gay or my cousin were gay.
What I ∗don’t∗ like is the idea that being labeled "gay" to Cruise is as defamitory as being called a murderer or a kidnapper. His proclivity to sue represents the notion that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality which I do not agree with.
Don’t bother arguing me on this point. With all sincerity, you could talk to me until you’re blue in the face about why homosexuality is wrong or why racism or sexism or ageism are acceptable modes of thinking and I would do my best to listen and to understand where you’re coming from. But no amount of conviction on your part would get me to change my mind about the immutable, simple human rights that I believe everyone should be afforded. You have your beliefes, I have mine. We don’t have to be on the same page, but we can at least respect each other’s ability to come to our own conclusions.
This has been an old-school rant brought to you by the letter "R." I hope you enjoyed it. If you have thoughts about the controversy or lack thereof, please take it into the THorum rather than e-mail me. I’m putting some pretty strong views out in public and would prefer the chance to address them publicly should the need arise.
Come back later today for some important news about the future of the Theater Hopper store.
Thanx.
I couldn’t really figure out what somone with cynicism oozing from their pores might look like, but in this comic, I look positively diseased! I think this has to be the most unattractive rendering of myself in three and a half years of comics. What can I say? I’m under a lot of stress right now and I’ve decided to deal with it through the comic.
I’ve already been highly vocal about my suspicions surrounding the life-events of one Tom Cruise and the movies he’s promoting. How can you look at the birth of his child with Katie Holmes "premiering" three weeks ahead of Mission Impossibe: III a happy accident? It certainly gives him something to talk about when he makes the talk show promotional rounds!
Mark my words, there will be another big Tom Cruise announcement sometime this fall or winter to coincide with the DVD release of this picture. Divorce is the hard-line, hyper-cynical view. You’d have to have a Level 12 tollerance for that kind of cynicism. But I digress. I wouldn’t be surprised if they announced that they were pregnant with a second in time to hype things up a notch.
I have more thoughts about how we’re being marketed to on this one, but I want to save some thoughts for Friday’s comic.
One quick note about the book pre-sale – Since I announced the addition of a free numbered and original sketch for all pre-orders, you guys really perked up! I’m repeating it today in case anyone missed it due to my extreme late posting of Monday’s blog.
I’ll also mention that I am accepting guest strips. Cami and I will be on vacation from May 18 – 31 and I need a lot of comics to cover the gaps! So if you’re interested, please let me know!
Gonna close for now. Talk to you again real soon!
According to All Headline News, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are boycotting the Oscars this year because they were offended by co-host Anne Hathaway’s impersonation of Holmes when she hosted Saturday Night Live in November.
Quote All Headline News:
A source told the Daily mail, “Tom and Katie don’t want to cross paths with Anne. They used to be friends and took Anne to a Tina Turner concert in 2008 when Anne split up from her boyfriend Raffaello Follieri.”
“Katie feels they were really supportive at a difficult time so she feels let down that Anne took to national TV to make fun of her.”
“Anne didn’t even warn her it was going to be on TV.”
If you missed the sketch in question, Hulu still has it up on their site:
Personally, I thought the impersonation was fairly accurate and I remember it being well-received when reviews of Hathaway’s turn as host came in.
This leaves me to wonder, “Exactly how thin-skinned are Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes?” Considering the rest of the world now thinks of Katie Holmes as some kind of brainwashed Stepford Wife, Hathaway’s impersonation of her was fairly tame. To me, it came of as much more playful – almost affectionate.
If nothing else, this raises Hathaway’s cool-quotient in my book by, like, a million points. Pissing off Tom Cruise for fun and profit? WIN!
What’s your take?