Is it morally and ethically wrong to get your gf pregnant to promote your movie?

[lovejoy]

I understand how Hollywood works, but to screw your 28 years old girlfriend and get her pregnant and delivered a baby girl just before the "big" movie coming out this Friday is in poor taste. Is the delivery of the baby girl of Tom-Cat a calculated move to promote "Mission Impossible III" ?

I got no problem with Tom Cruise but he has been getting way too much media attention and publicity :ban: for his movie for months and I have decided NOT to go to see the movie this weekend.

Tom Cruise is not the only one in Hollywood to do this kind of stuff but I hope he is going to marry Katie Holmes in November and not using this trick as promotion of his movie.:lovecoupl

It won't work for me and I am not going to see "Mission Impossible III" this weekend.

J-Lo used "faked" engagement/marriage proposal to heighten and promote her movie which failed miserably in the box office. And I don't have to mention Angeline Jolie adoption of two kids (one from Africa and the other one from Laos)

I love to see "De Vinci Code" beat up "Mission Impossible III" in the box office. LOL ! :glugglug:

 

[member2686]

Wow. That's a new theory. Christ, there are a Hell of a lot cheaper and less complicated ways of spamming out publicity for a film than making a baby!!! :eek: lol

Whoever thought that they reproduced to promote (what will probably be an average action film) is on crack. That's just crazy, IMO. lol :ban:

 

[qweretyuiopas@]

wooooooooo man for a minute there I thought the thread was about u lovejoy. I was like wtf is wrong with this guy lol then I saw it was about cruise lmao
meh I wasnt gonna see the movie anyway.

 

[arealous]

Tom Cruise is a fucking scrub, excuse my french, but I really am sick of seeing him EVERY time I flick my hand on the clicker. What is with celebrities in this day and age thinking they have the responsibility to be the spokespeople of subjects out of their bounds? Don't get my wrong, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. It just seems to me that he believes his opinions count for more in scientology than a normal persons...because he's been in sci-fi movies? lol...

too much attention whoring in general if you ask me.

 

[sweetie69]

Tom Cruise is a fucking scrub, excuse my french, but I really am sick of seeing him EVERY time I flick my hand on the clicker. What is with celebrities in this day and age thinking they have the responsibility to be the spokespeople of subjects out of their bounds? Don't get my wrong, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. It just seems to me that he believes his opinions count for more in scientology than a normal persons...because he's been in sci-fi movies? lol...

too much attention whoring in general if you ask me.

That may be so but ... :hit:

 

[lovejoy]

It is about the media coverage of Tom-Cat baby and the worldwide opening of Mission-Impossible 3.

I do not really think Tom Cruise did anything wrong but he used the opportunity of the birth of his daughter to self-promote the movie.

 

[qweretyuiopas@]

yes 2 many americans care about the life of celebs when they need to be paying attention to their own lives and the government.

at least there are some celebs who use that as a good thing like george clooney in going to that city in africe where there is genocide. i mean the cameras follow him anyway he mind as well take the cams to a place like that so we can see it instead of watching him eat or shop lol

 

[stek1983]

are you actually suggesting that Tom Crusie and Katie Holmes had a baby just to promote Mission Impossible 3???
that is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard in my life.

 

[Slam]

Wasn't there a Simpsons episode about this concept?

 

[member2686]

That seems to be the implication, but there have been crazier things posted here this week. lmao :eek: :tongue: :nanner:

are you actually suggesting that Tom Crusie and Katie Holmes had a baby just to promote Mission Impossible 3???
that is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard in my life.

 

[JiDoKwan]

I dunno, maybe he thought it was an impossible mission and had to try pulling it off.

 

[yojimbo1013]

Wow. That's a new theory. Christ, there are a Hell of a lot cheaper and less complicated ways of spamming out publicity for a film than making a baby!!! :eek: lol

I don't think so. I'm sure advertising for the film costs a lot more than the delivery and lifetime care of one child until the age of 18, which last I checked is somewhere around 1 million.

 

[calpoon]

I can't really think of any good reason to get someone pregnant. and by that I mean any reason other then to fulfill some need you think you have, which is just selfish. It can't really be done for the wellbeing of the child, which doesn't exist at this point, and would have no need to be cared for in the first place if it was never concieved. also most people do nothing to contribute to the wellbeing of people who are allready here, so I just don't see that flying as a valid concern.

I'm not trying to rag on the idea of reproduction...if I had a choice never to have been born I might go for it, cuz it's just made things harder for a lot of people. On the other hand, there are a lot of people I like and the world would suck more if they had never been around. So it's not up to me either way, but I just can't help the fact that there are more reasons not to have a kid then there are to have one.

Once you do have a kid, then that kid means nothing to you. By that I mean you can't ask yourself "what does this kid mean in relation to me?" that's like asking what does my life mean to tom cruise? it doesn't mean anything. your life is yours, not tom cruises, and the two shouldn't have anything to do with each other. This IS how parents generally feel about thier children. they may not go so far as to think that they own thier kids as property, but they usualy have some feeling that there kid is a part of them and therfore by having been concieved, there kid has some kind of obligation to them. It's really the other way around. a person has the obligation to be a loving parent to thier children, and that's the only thing that there kid owes them- a way to give them the satisfaction of knowing that they fulfilled that obligation.
a kid doesn't have the obligation to make you feel complete, to take the place of someone you lost, to be a representation of yourself, or to promote your new movie.

 

[om3ga]

I revert to my comments in the "punch to the face" thread:

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=710074&postcount=652

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9674/giveadamn8ir.gif

 

[georges]

Making this is a lack of decency and respect but it is just a sign of plain stupidity. Looks like some people forget what are the basic moral laws.

 

[poggy]

I understand how Hollywood works, but to screw your 28 years old girlfriend and get her pregnant and delivered a baby girl just before the "big" movie coming out this Friday is in poor taste. Is the delivery of the baby girl of Tom-Cat a calculated move to promote "Mission Impossible III" ?

I got no problem with Tom Cruise but he has been getting way too much media attention and publicity :ban: for his movie for months and I have decided NOT to go to see the movie this weekend.

Tom Cruise is not the only one in Hollywood to do this kind of stuff but I hope he is going to marry Katie Holmes in November and not using this trick as promotion of his movie.:lovecoupl

It won't work for me and I am not going to see "Mission Impossible III" this weekend.

J-Lo used "faked" engagement/marriage proposal to heighten and promote her movie which failed miserably in the box office. And I don't have to mention Angeline Jolie adoption of two kids (one from Africa and the other one from Laos)

I love to see "De Vinci Code" beat up "Mission Impossible III" in the box office. LOL ! :glugglug:

First she's 27 not 28 (sorry to point this out) born december 18th 1978 (IMDB).

Somehow I think if thats the only reason, he had the kid, thats going to be one hell of a way to lose more money than the film will make.

Somehow I think your theories are little off though. J-Lo has hardly got a great career, when most people only write about your ass and her obsession with image, than what you've done. Angeline Jolie needs to adopt kids to promote films, I don't think so nominated for Oscar's and BAFTA's (even though I don't agree with these awards most the time) is not because of how you promote a film. I'd have thought shacking up with Brad Pitt would have been bigger to promote a film. Then why didn't you also pick on her having a kid with Brad as well. Or did neither have a film out then ?

 

[cabey]

personally i think this thread asks a pointless question, if the question is asking generally or about a a particular person then the answer is common sense anyway.

 

[ÆGEAN]

i am not into this MI-III rubbish as i like bond better, although 007 might be just as bad as MI-III.

 

[ÆGEAN]

I am refusing to watch this movie AND the latest Bond movie........ there are better actors. I mean HUGH JACKMAN!!! rofl is better