Crazy Days and Nights: Life & Style Is Not Backing Down From Tom Cruise

Friday, February 15, 2013

Life & Style Is Not Backing Down From Tom Cruise

When Tom Cruise sued Life & Style ( I realize photo above is In Touch, but it is the same company and you know who is on the cover of the Life & Style issue) for libel claiming their story that he abandoned Suri after his divorce was not accurate he probably expected them to back down quickly and apologize. I think he forgets that this company, Bauer publishing is the one who took on David Beckham and his affair story and won. The Hollywood Reporter has a great article up about the discovery that is being requested and a lot of it has to do with Suri and Scientology. Oh how I wish a DNA test was part of the deal, but instead it is things like Suri's emotional state since the divorce and how often Tom actually saw her and spoke with her and how his adherence to Scientology played a part. And the kicker? The exact terms of the divorce. Love it.

38 comments:

Ashlea said...: Oh I would LOVE to hear those divorce terms.; 6:39 AM
Susan said...: Maybe it's the mom in me, but I feel like having the picture of the child be so front and center is wrong on many levels.; 6:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Where's Shelly?; 6:42 AM
Roman Holiday said...: I agree Susan. Poor little girl now has no daddy! What an ass that GMD cannot see that he is losing out on something so special smh.; 6:42 AM
MISCH said...: He needs to come out...can't wait for Rebecca De Mornay's tell all....; 6:45 AM
Barton Fink said...: I don't like Cruise much and my personal hope is that Katie has main custody -- but this story stinks to high hell. I hate the idea of a child being discussed like this, being used by a magazine as a storyline. I would first ask what kind of work obligations he has been going through, and then I would wonder if it has been good for her to be apart from him for 44 days, which I'm surprised isn't phrased 40 days and nights. Aargh. Bad story. No biscuit.; 6:46 AM
LottaColada said...: @Susan- yes. In the UK all of the childrens images are blurred. Kind of sick that they're using a CHILD to sell some magazines.; 6:48 AM
dee123 said...: Anything that throws mud at that kook i'm fine with.; 6:49 AM
Tyler said...: Tom's career has already peaked so he should just ignore this type of thing now instead of giving it legs, and I think it's possible Tom is Suri's bio dad. Maybe as she gets older and her features mature that could change, but at this point she doesn't look all that different from Katy or Tom to me.; 6:51 AM
KendraWM said...: Seeing as how he makes plenty of time to see his children who are in the church, I think we all have our answer.

He does not need to work, has access to his private jet and can make time to see her if he really wanted to.

His work excuse is BS. As far as the church is concerned she and Katie and suppressive persons and he is not to have contact with them.; 6:51 AM
nevermindthat said...: Well Tom brought this on himself. If he wasn't so deep into that damn cult none of this would have happen. I love Tom as an actor and it stops there. Maybe it's better that Suri doesn't see him much because he will not be able to brainwash her against Katie like he and the cult brainwashed Connor anad Isabelle against Nicole; 6:51 AM
Amber said...: I think the story itself is inappropriate, but sometimes kids are better off without one of their parents.

IDK if it was here or somewhere else, but I recently read something about how TC might leave Co$.; 6:51 AM
SingBlue said...: This is over the line for me, but media organisations are now global, and in many regards too powerful for our good.

I remember when Princess Diana died in 1997, and Sky TV (NewsCorp) had cameras outside Buckingham Palace where the baying mob decided there had to be someone to blame, and as it was all the media's fault, they attacked a camera crew. These were no doubt the same fucktards who would buy a newspaper or magazine because it had the self-styled Queen of Hearts in it.

We can all moan about how no-talent idiots become celebrities without actually doing anything, but ultimately it's the masses who buy the magazines, buy the products of the sponsors they endorse, that put them there.

The "developed" world has an un-natural obsession with celebrity. It's the new religion.; 6:52 AM
smiley said...: I think it is despicable that they are using a child to go after Tom Cruise. Suri is exactly where a child her age should be which is in school and when she has holidays she sees her father. I don't see how that is abandonment or neglect. Tom and Katie seem to have reached a deal which puts the best interests of Suri first and I think Tom would be criticized if he insisted on having her taken out of school and tutored so she could travel more frequently to whatever set he is on. Take him on for scientology, workaholic etc but leave the kids out of it.; 6:59 AM
Karen said...: I wish that they wouldn't print a story like this because I think that it forces Cruise and his people to arrange for him to see Suri when he otherwise wouldn't.

Whether he is her biological father or not, he's her dad. And if he was going to be a dad who sees his daughter every chance he gets and play an important role in her life, awesome. But he isn't. Instead, he's a "Disneyland Daddy" (taken from The Baby-Sitters Club): someone who hardly ever sees his kid, but when he does he goes over the top trying to buy the kid's love without actually acting like a parent.

So, I think it would be best if he was going to parent her; second best would be to fade away and let Katie's next boyfriend or husband assume the parenting role.; 7:01 AM
Kelly said...: She looks like Tom in that pic. Huh. I agree that does suck that they put her picture on the cover. They should have used Tom's instead.; 7:02 AM
Kelly said...: And also, maybe not just the pic, but changed the article!; 7:03 AM
KendraWM said...: @smiley, the argument is that he has the resources to go see her on the weekends and his days off if he really wanted to.

When this article came out (it was last fall) he claimed he could not see her because of work commitments but then he would spend his free weekends in London clubs with his other children.

It is one thing to say you are busy with work, but when you seem to have unlimited time to see your children who your cult, oops sorry church approves of, you have to wonder about his "work" story.

Personally I feel she is probably better without him around as I doubt he can turn off his Scientology.; 7:05 AM
libby said...: ITA, Karen. If he's going to fade away, he just needs to do it. For Suri's sake if no one else's. I imagine it won't be too long now, when she figures out he sees her only based on media pressure. Kids aren't stupid. She'll see it herself soon, and that makes me cry.; 7:06 AM
hunter said...: I love the fact that we're comfortable using "GMD" like it ain't no thang...; 7:10 AM
smiley said...: @Kendra that is a ridiculous argument imo because depending on where he is shooting and the schedule it may not make sense for him to fly to see Suri for a few hours if that and have to return almost immediately possibly being late, suffering jet lag or disrupting the production schedule. The older kids are different because I think Isabella is out of school and I am not sure about his son but I assume he has some flexibility with his schooling so it would be very simple for them to fly out and see him wherever and whenever they feel. Also he can speak to Suri via Skype, telephone whatever in this day and age. That is not abandonment by any stretch but just the reality of being a divorced working parent. I have no problem with magazines going after Tom legitimately but this crosses a line and seems overblown.; 7:34 AM
Unknown said...: I'm sorry, but I think this is out of line. Their custody arrangement shouldn't be tabloid fodder.

I like Tom as an actor, I'm sure he's a lousy (hands off) dad, but Suri shouldn't be on the cover of a magazine.

My dd is almost exactly the same age as Suri, LEAVE SURI ALONE!; 7:38 AM
Unknown said...: What's "GMD" mean?; 7:58 AM
MnGddess said...: I can't wait until Chris Klein requests a DNA test.....; 8:02 AM
Gayeld said...: @hag. Maybe they should include that in the discovery.; 8:29 AM
Gayeld said...: @Amber. According to most of the Scientology watchers, that story of Tom leaving is just bull$hit to help boost his public image. Tommy's so far up David's a$$ you'd need a ton of lube and the jaws of life to get him out.; 8:32 AM
Gayeld said...: @ Becca Parker. Gay Midget Dwarf, I believe.; 8:35 AM
Nellie said...: Agreed; 8:36 AM
auntliddy said...: Ageed. Take this private. Shes just a little girl.; 9:02 AM
Lizzie du said...: I dont get it hes dammed if he does, hes dammed if he dosent .. If he sees her we have comments like " watch out suri dont let him brain wash you" if he dosent see her then its " hes such a loser for abandoning his daugther" i like TC and i am not apologizing for it.; 9:03 AM
Robin the Mad Photographer said...: @Gayeld: "Tommy's so far up David's a$$ you'd need a ton of lube and the jaws of life to get him out."

WIN OF THE WEEK!!! :-)

I have nothing against Tom in the grand scheme of things, although I take an exceedingly dim view of CO$, but I do have to say that this particular line--and the mental images it conjures up--are priceless. Absofuckinglutely priceless. And now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go find some bleach in which to immerse myself...; 9:19 AM
BobNYC said...: Why does everyone want to know the divorce terms? You just know K-K-K-Katy is barred from ever uttering the words "turkey baster".; 9:44 AM
mooshki said...: Forget Tom flying to see Suri, he could very easily have a nanny fly her to see him! BS excuse. Completely.

If TC isn't her bio dad, when she is older and finds out, she's going to resent the hell out of Katie. This poor kid was doomed from the beginning.; 9:44 AM
OneGirlRevolution said...: The custody agreement possibly becoming public would be no one's fault other than TC's. He chose to sue when it would have been smarter to just poopoo it as the musings of a gossip rag. I agree that he expected them to back down and retract their story quickly (remember he won against the NE). Even if he wins, it's not like people are suddenly going to think he's not CoS or that he sees Suri every weekend.; 11:29 AM
Sandy said...: HA. Let's see who blinks first. Cruise has a will of steel, but his "church" is in crisis mode and may urge him to back down.

We'll see.; 12:01 PM
Nyan said...: @ Gayeld " Tommy's so far up David's a$$ you'd need a ton of lube and the jaws of life to get him out." LOVE IT!!! LMAO

And I agree with "LEAVE SURI ALONE!!!" She's an innocent child whose life is turned upside down. Leave her be so she can have somewhat of a childhood.; 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...: She looks exactly like him- especially when she was a baby. I don't buy the who's the real father crap.; 8:32 PM
CF98 said...: I don't see it I mean Tom/Katie have similar features she looks just like Katie and strangely her ex Joshua Jackson. If you saw his baby pics vs Suri's the resemblance is crazy.

And it explains why Tom never fought for custody.. he'd let his "biological" child go just like that? Somehow I doubt it.; 6:10 PM

Disclaimer & Privacy Policy

Crazy Days and Nights is a gossip site. The site publishes rumors, conjecture, and fiction. In addition to accurately reported information, certain situations, characters and events portrayed in the Blog are either products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies; the Blog’s proprietor does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. Links to content on and quotation of material from other sites are not the responsibility of Crazy Days and Nights.

Cookies & 3rd Party Advertisements Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on your site. Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to your users based on their visit to your sites and other sites on the Internet. Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy. We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit https://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp.

Advertisements

Commenting Rules

Advertisements

Blog Archive

Friday, February 15, 2013

Life & Style Is Not Backing Down From Tom Cruise

38 comments:

Advertisements

Popular Posts from the last 30 days

Advertisements

Patreon

Search Crazy Days and Nights

Get in touch & Follow us

Advertisements

Labels

Advertisements

Design By

Advertisements

Disclaimer & Privacy Policy