WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Mark Wahlberg Slams Tom Cruise For Comparing Acting to Fighting in a War

Posted: November 15th, 2013 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Mark Wahlberg Slams Tom Cruise For Comparing Acting to Fighting in a WarSubmit Comment
Just recently, Tom Cruise compared being an actor to fighting in Afghanistan, a comment that apparently hit a nerve with Mark Wahlberg, who went into a rant about the topic during the premiere of his new film "The Lone Survivor," in which he plays a Navy SEAL.

When asked about the difficulties of training for the role, the actor launched into an indirect attack against Cruise. "You don't do what these guys did," he replied. "For somebody to sit there and say my job was as difficult as somebody in the military's. How f*cking dare you? While you sit in a makeup chair for two hours."

Wahlberg continued: "I don't give a sh*t if you get your ass busted. You get to go home at the end of the day. You get to go to your hotel room. You get to order f*cking chicken. Or your steak. Whatever the f*ck it is."

Wahlberg later apologized for losing his cool. Meanwhile, Cruise has since claimed that his quotes were taken out of context. "The assertions that Tom Cruise likened making a movie to being at war in Afghanistan is a gross distortion of the record," said Cruise's lawyer. "What Tom said, laughingly, was that sometimes, 'That's what it feels like.'"

Video:


Source: PeliBlog.com


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 41 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
cress writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 8:50:31 AM

Actually, the comments were taken out of context. Cruise said, I believe, "Oh, come on," in disbelief at the lawyers assertion that he compared filmmaking to a tour of duty. Cruise says a lot of stupid stuff, but the media does a lot of twisting of the truth as well.
M. Bullitt writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 8:56:55 AM

You tell him Mark!

And Cruise has to call his lawyer for answering back. What a wimp!
Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 9:10:12 AM

In all fairness, I'm sure years of spiritual auditing into a tin can is probably pretty taxing on one's sanity. I think I'd rather go back to Afghanistan than have to deal with that particular brand of crazy.
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 9:47:07 AM

The life of an actor is pretty f*cking hard at times, and grueling and demanding, so compared to a CO who sits in a makeshift office tent inside the city limits of Baghdad, Cruise has a point, or even compared to the guys who drive tanks whilst jamming to Metallica and AC/DC and running down "terrorists" wielding only AK-47s, yeah, some actors might actually have it worse. So again, Cruise has a point. Compared to every other service person engaging in nightmarish field combat, Mark wins hand down. So it's not as simple as he's right, he's wrong.

Anyway, got anymore exaggerated, negative articles, Alex, because really I don't think you're working as hard as usual to make WP look like a third-rate movie news site.
Cinemaisdead writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 9:48:20 AM

Being a soldier now days is as much of a bullsh*t job as an actor. Both pretending to be something they ain't...
BadChadB33 writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 9:49:00 AM

Marky Mark beat down on Cruise next.
Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 10:19:25 AM

Out of curiosity, Cinemaisdead, what exactly is it that you think soldiers are pretending to be? And if it's just another media-determined, completely inaccurate view like, mink's, don't bother.

Also, if being an actor and being a soldier are similar in that they're both dishonest "bullsh*t" professions, then what profession would you consider to be completely honest and devoid of delusion?
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 10:38:10 AM

He probably means most people join the military to get free sh*t, then bitch and complain when they're sent overseas to murder foreigners in the name of corporate profit.
Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 10:47:25 AM

My point being that there's no such thing as an honest delusion free profession, only honest delusion free individuals.
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 10:51:54 AM

"Both pretending to be something they ain't..."

You mean imaginary heroes protecting America from imaginary threats like Hussein's imaginary WMD stockpiles?

Yeah, I get you. Thing is, most of what the military does now isn't even remotely in the same vein as what soldiers did during World War 2, which was defending the entire planet from the Nazis and Fascists.

Today? They're just the lowly-paid, lowly-educated shock troops for protecting America's vested business interests, which is why we quickly went to war to save Kuwait's oil, but merely clucked our wagging tongues during Darfur and Rwanda.

Black gold? Hell yes! Black people? f*ck no!

It's all about projecting and protecting America's imperial power (the status quo) and not about protecting actual Americans in America who now have far more to fear from D.C. than the "terrorists". That's why they, the media and politicos, invent lurid tales of dastardly Muslims sneaking across the border with nukes, just to keep people afraid.

Buy sh*t and be afraid. It's how they control us.

Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 10:52:04 AM

furthermore, in my 13 years' experience in the military, I have yet to run into a single servicemember who joined up to get "free sh*t," you pay for what you get and what your issued you don't get to keep outside of the confines of the mission. As far as the few psychos who join up to satisfy their desire to kill another human being, well sh*t, of course they exist, just like psychopaths and sociopaths exist in all professions, but there are far more of those monsters serving as politicians and lawyers than in the military.
Cinemaisdead writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:00:12 AM

Stapes- I meant pretending to fight in a war for "freedom" that is basically a f*cked up power play from all the greedy c*nts who run the planet. Just like every other stupid war where people get killed for stupid reason, we'll look back at Afghanistan one day and say what a terrible idea it was. Oh yeah and what a coincidence that Afghanistan happens to be on top of a sh*t load of expensive minerals.

My mates a paratrooper, fair play to him whatever it's a job just like any other he has no delusions as to why they're fighting.

And if you're talking about media-determined views on people read a newspaper and the way that muslims and afghans are portrayed.
Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:04:47 AM

I know the old imperialist argument well, mink, however, judging the U.S. choice of noninvolvement in places like Darfur and Rwanda isn't fair, the fact of the matter is that one country can only do so much and there is no benefit or reason to waste lives and resources in countries and on conflicts on purely moral grounds.

As far as the military industrial complex, well sure, it's a real danger to remain on guard for, but in today's environment of free and abundant information exchange, the wiki leaks, Snowdens and Mannings of the world have already shown that war profiteering is less of a danger now. Just look to the public's outcry against Obama sending his murder drones to Syria for proof of that.
Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:11:27 AM

@Cinemaisdead, don't confuse the following statement with a judgement on any individual who is muslim.... but I think that most educated people will agree with me when I say that organized religion can be a dangerous and destructive tool and in no other religion is that more apparent than Islam.
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:15:18 AM

"there is no benefit or reason to waste lives and resources in countries and on conflicts on purely moral grounds."

You're right. We shouldn't invest troops in money to stop genocide. We should spend time and money on and send troops into places like Iraq and Afghanistan where there's plenty of delicious natural resources. Nothing odd about that.

Who here thinks the US would have found a reason to send troops to Darfur and Rwanda if they had been sitting on huge natural resources? Raise your hands.

It's all about self-interest. Either we do it because we don't want a competing nation spreading their ideology (Vietnam), or out of misplaced paranoid fear (Iraq) or because we just don't like someone upending the corporate apple cart (Kuwait). Even Afghanistan was a lark because we had no issues with the Taliban. We went there to nab Osama and his men, and stayed to fight another nation's cultural and civil war instead.

Hasn't been a justifiable American conflict since Korea, imo.
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:20:35 AM

"no other religion is that more apparent than Islam."

If only you focus on the last fifty years and not the last two thousand years.

Certainly the idea of Manifest Destiny, which was justified under the concept of God bestowing all the land between the Pacific and Atlantic on his chosen people, at the expense of anyone unlucky enough to live somewhere in between, was quasi-religious in nature.

And even slavery was considered justified because many protestants, before the Quakers of course, believed blacks, and "Injuns" to be godless savages who had a place beneath that of the white European.

Or the Conquistadors who murdered in their god's name, or the Cathars who were mass-murdered as heretics, or the Inquisition...

And on and on and on.
Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:31:56 AM

People have a habit of romanticising WWII, the vast majority of Americans wanted no part of it, even when Churchill warned the entire time about what was at stake if Britain fell. It wasn't until the threat to our own country became real that we stepped in. As for Korea... how was the Korean War any more justified than Vietnam? On purely moral grounds? I think not, as a matter of fact I can't think of a single war that was ever fought on moral grounds.

As for those precious resources in the middle east, namely oil, well sh*t, we don't see any of that oil, all that oil goes to Europe and China. The real mission in Iraq was a failed attempt to create a zone of stability in an otherwise dangerous region that was a threat to all surrounding nations and global stability in general. Islam... it's a dangerous idealogy. So in the long run, did it do any good? Well of course people made money off of it in the short run, but again, what war has ever been fought on purely moral grounds?
Cinemaisdead writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:33:50 AM

and in no other religion is that more apparent than Islam.

Many aspects of Islam are backwards, sexist and just crazy. Similar to catholics attitude towards abortion and creationists attitude towards evolution. Jews wearing those stupid hats. Every religion is stupid and created barriers between countries. The main cause of barriers are the media and the Government keeping people scared and believing that Muslims are all terrorists.

The amount of people I speak to that think that soldiers are fighting for "our country" (I live in England) they literally have no idea what is going on in the world around them apart from what celebrity is about to have a baby next. North Korea is f*cked up, people are dying in the streets from starvation. Loads of Africa is over run by rape, murder and corruption.

The US and UK spend billions and billions on creating new weapons and defence systems to fight people that might as well be using water pistols, when that money could go towards fresh water, poverty, science, medicine, space exploration.
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:35:43 AM

^^Or free f*cking college so society can trend towards a true meritocracy.
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:37:19 AM

I hear America may be energy independent by 2018.

Wonder how many wars in the Middle East and Central Asia we will partake thereafter when we no longer need their crude oil.
Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:39:39 AM

"Certainly the idea of Manifest Destiny, which was justified under the concept of God bestowing all the land between the Pacific and Atlantic on his chosen people, at the expense of anyone unlucky enough to live somewhere in between, was quasi-religious in nature."

^I'm not saying anything contrary to this.

As for the middle east, if you really want to get to the root of why that region is so unstable and today's Islam (as a general statement) can't be compared to that region's ancient history and advancements in science, mathematics and medicine, you'd have to go all the way back to Genghis Khan and the Mongols' invasion of Irag... they literally slaughtered the entire region, destroying all books and any trace of their culture, thousands of years later and Iraq and that region in general STILL hasn't recovered.


minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:39:49 AM

"It wasn't until the threat to our own country became real that we stepped in"

That and the Germans declaring war a few days after Pearl Harbor, which has been cited as one of the biggest political blunders in modern times, considering America was still trying to avoid all-out war with them up until that point, even though we were at de fact war in the Atlantic for the previous two years, not to mention no one knew of the horrors to come with the concentration camps, and even when news broke, most Americans refused to believe what they saw, which undercuts the possibility Americans would have never fought World War 2 to save the Jews.
Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:41:25 AM

*Iraq
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:44:15 AM

"As for Korea... how was the Korean War any more justified than Vietnam?"

The Korean War was a direct side-effect of WW2, having to do with the political upheaval caused within Chinese military political ranks by the Japanese invasion of the mainland, in that had the Japs not invaded, Mao would likely never come to power and Chiang Kaishek, the more moderate pre-war leader, would have not had to exile himself to Taiwan. The Korean War, with the Japanese right across the sea, followed inexorably.

Vietnam was a proxy war between two lumbering behemoths fighting to maintain ideological control of the world.
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:48:26 AM

"as a matter of fact I can't think of a single war that was ever fought on moral grounds."

That you cannot name one example of a war that was fought on a moral principle tells me immediately that even you, on some level, agrees with the simple notion that *all* wars are fought for inherently selfish reasons and "justifiable" only as politics of the last resort, which is about as heartwarming as nothing that few if any robberies are ever the result of someone trying to save their dying mother/neighbor/friend, or whatnot.

Or in other words, just because everyone is doing it, and doing it for the wrong reasons, doesn't make it right.
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:52:35 AM

*noting.

Anyway, I think we're arguing past the issue, which is that the wars in Irag and Afghanistan were necessary, and I think by now we all agree Iraq was not, and Afghanistan could have been conducted with far less boots on the ground and more cooperation with the local tribesmen.

We're also arguing past the fact that a lot of people made quite a bit of money on those two wars (Hallibrton, private mercenary corporations, Hamid Karzai), off the backs of the taxpayers I might add, and more importantly, America's imperial hegemony was greatly extended at the expense of our reputation and trust.
Cinemaisdead writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 11:58:53 AM

^ At least we got Homeland.
Cannon writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 12:02:52 PM

This is a double negative for Marky Mark.

He's simply pandering to the guilt-trip mentality that privileged movie stars (along with everyone else, for that matter) should feel bad and weak and ashamed because they'll never know what its like to be a soldier in war, and he's trying to act all "hard" and "pious" in the process.

It so obviously makes him sound like an even bigger tool than anything for which Cruise was misquoted; like just another said movie star trying desperately to atone for pretending to be a soldier in a movie.

In short, he comes across like a f*cking idiot with no real mature grasp on life in general. Look, every man has his trade. Not all of us can be everyday heroes or life savers; doctors or firefighters or "noble soldiers defending freedom and the homeland".

Some of us fix plumbing for a living, or raise chickens or design video games or drive a city bus or sell insurance or manage a grocery store or, God forbid, act in movies. As long as people are hardworking, honest and reasonably humble about what they do -- and as long as what they do does not impede upon the rights of others -- there's no reason to feel ashamed about anything.

As for today's US solders, I have neither sympathy nor pride for anyone who defend ENFORCE statist power, only pity for those young people whose noble ideals/sentiments are exploited by imperial propaganda.


minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 12:03:55 PM

^^And Jack Bauer self-righteously murdering Muslims (such as Marwan and that fat kid from Harold and Kumar) for a number of seasons...
Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 12:05:39 PM

I'm not arguing for the justification of war, just the simple fact of it and how it has never changed.

To relate this to the movies, I'll paraphrase Ozymandias from Watchmen: war is based on resources and the fear of not having enough, whether it be oil or land, take that need away and you make war obsolete.

People whine and cry about justice and fairness, but it won't be a moral choice or religious doctrine that will ever make war obsolete, it will be technology. So you say I sound like I wish for a meritocracy, when I really hope for a technocracy.
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 12:06:30 PM

I wonder what old Marky Mark would think of The Duke.
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 12:09:11 PM

"So you say I sound like I wish for a meritocracy, when I really hope for a technocracy."

The two go hand in hand, because only through the deflation of economical scarcity technocracy makes possible can a true meritocracy afford to exist.
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 12:14:40 PM

"People whine and cry about justice and fairness, but it won't be a moral choice or religious doctrine that will ever make war obsolete, it will be technology."

War will never be obsolete. Even if we learn how to spread resources equally and equitably, there is still a finite pool of available materiel, and there will always be people who want, nay demand, more than others. The real root of war is human greed, and that's a factor of the human "heart", or evolution if you like, that cannot be quelled foreseeably by technology.

Some people simply never get enough.

Even if we somehow sate ever human on earth, then, we will take our scarcity to the planet and stars, where world will fight against world for this and that, and where earth will either put demands on these nascent colonies as England did to the original thirteen colonies, or will be fighting them for their resources.

It will never end, truly, until man is re-written at the genetic level to eliminate his endless thirst for things.
Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 12:19:19 PM

They're similar, mink. But only technology combined with freedom of information exchange can equality ever be achieved. So maybe technocracy isnt the right word, but it's the most fitting for what I see the future to be.
Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 12:31:15 PM

Well, mink, I don't think either of us can say for sure what impact future technology is going to have on humanity, but it's a fact that it will change humanity, that's been a fact since the begining of recorded history. And I don't think that greedy, evil people can exist in a world without secrets, which is why I pair the importance of the free exchange of information.
Stapes writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 12:32:32 PM

Roddenberry kind of already said all this with Star Trek. The irony being I've always been more of a Star WARS fan.
Cinemaisdead writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 2:21:24 PM

We'll just wait for the singularity and let all machines realise how much of a danger we are to Earth and destroy us...
Sleuth1989 writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 2:31:09 PM

@cress
I realize it's annoying but do you notice Jennifer Lawrence can pretty much say whatever the f*ck she wants and be called awesome, but Cruise says one thing, a veteran (Pun intended) actor, and is totally smashed to death about it. I sense a conspiracy. Who has Lawrence slept with?! LOL I'm just saying it's unfair how the media messes with sh*t. Anne Hathaway gets crap because she cries for getting Oscar but Lawrence insults Meryl Streep, she gives a lame-ass excuse that it was from a movie (Even though she didn't say it like how it was in the movie and I doubt she even knows who Bette MIdler really is), and we are all like "Oh okay, how funny she is!". f*ck the media! They decide who they want to promote based on who pays them the most. Please note, this is not real journalism people. These are showboating pansies. Journalistic integrity is not this bullsh*t.
cruzcontrol39 writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 3:37:21 PM

We are not lowly educated... Lowly paid... Yes...
minkowski writes:
on November 15th, 2013 at 4:41:26 PM

@Cruzcontrol: according to The Heritage Foundation and the Freakonomics website, you're correct, but the idea the military is staffed by virtual morons is a common and pervasive belief.
rising_son writes:
on November 18th, 2013 at 1:11:50 PM

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/09/tom-cruise-did-not-make-widely-reported-claim-that-acting-is-as-tough-as-combat/

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved