Celebrities We Can Do Without

@wolfgang59 said
We cannot do without an heir then!

Indeed, but they don’t need to be a “celebrity.”
This simple concept seems to be difficult for you for some reason.

@moonbus said
My dog is dedicated, too. Being dedicated is not the same as being able to act. Cruise is an overpaid stunt man.

The man has a curriculum vitae of recognition and awards that is longer than your meds list.

@divegeester said
The man has a curriculum vitae of recognition and awards that is longer than your meds list.

Yup, including and the 1988 Razzie 'winner' for Worst Picture, "Cocktail."

@divegeester said
The man has a curriculum vitae of recognition and awards that is longer than your meds list.

I particularly enjoyed his performance in The Hobbit.

😲

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I particularly enjoyed his performance in The Hobbit.

😲

Remind me which orc he played.

@divegeester said
Indeed, but they don’t need to be a “celebrity.”
This simple concept seems to be difficult for you for some reason.

This thread is
Celebrities we can do without

Not
Celebrities that don't need to be celebrities

A simple distinction that seems difficult for you for some reason.

@Mudfinger

When he is simply hanging out with family at a park with no press anywhere, I'd say that is pretty "real". Attempting to ascribe a Scientology image in that context taxes the credibility of the assertion a bit, in my mind. I am sure you have already made your mind up on him. so it's all good.

@paul-leggett said
@Mudfinger

When he is simply hanging out with family at a park with no press anywhere, I'd say that is pretty "real". Attempting to ascribe a Scientology image in that context taxes the credibility of the assertion a bit, in my mind. I am sure you have already made your mind up on him. so it's all good.

Then you could edit your post to the last three words of it and convey the same message.

@paul-leggett said
@Mudfinger

When he is simply hanging out with family at a park with no press anywhere, I'd say that is pretty "real". Attempting to ascribe a Scientology image in that context taxes the credibility of the assertion a bit, in my mind. I am sure you have already made your mind up on him. so it's all good.

I think we have definitely established that Cruise is a contentious person. Whatever he may be like off-screen, I do not like his on-screen persona, and despite having a string of blockbusters, as an actor he is much less talented than many others we have seen make it big in last 30 years or so. TomCruise is a zilch-actor compared to, for example, Tom Hanks.

i miss pauly shore...

@rookie54 said
i miss pauly shore...

RIP Pauly

@moonbus said
Yup, including and the 1988 Razzie 'winner' for Worst Picture, "Cocktail."

I’m not sure what your point is other than expressing your subjective perspective on Tom Cruise, which of course you are entitled to. But your claims about his acting ability isn’t conclusive when one considers the evidence.

@wolfgang59 said
This thread is
Celebrities we can do without

Not
Celebrities that don't need to be celebrities

A simple distinction that seems difficult for you for some reason.

Well that’s not clear in the OP is it. My interpretation is that the meaning could go either way or indeed any way the reader chooses.

I think my suggestion that we only need one celebrity in the UK royal family, I.e. the monarch is well within the scope of the OP and the spirit of the thread.

Perhaps you’re just bored and irritated with me as usual.

I think we can easily do without all TV-celebrities who believe their personal dramas are important to anyone else outside their own families.