1. I'm still trying to figure out how this warrants a news post. First of all, no one cares about Tom Cruise ever since he joined the Dingbat Association, and secondly... um, who actually cares that a picture was photoshopped?

Seriously? Who cares?

Posted at 10:23AM on Jun 18th 2008 by indecks

2. Well, as a guy who is a bit of a history geek, I care. Yeah, Cruise is an idiot and I could care less about him personally, but this is an incredibly compelling story they are telling in the July 20 plot. It's one of the crazier stories coming out of WWII that a lot of people don't seem to know a lot about.

The story stands up on its own...it does not require embellishment, in my opinion. Sure a little artistic license will be required to fill in the holes of history (as most of the overt conspirators were killed by Hiter's people or committed suicide so we can't ask THEM what happened), but this should be as true to history as possible.

If they are now doctoring photos of von Stauffenberg just in the interest of making him look a little more like Cruise...well man my expectation of how truthful this story will be has gone down about 6 notches. Only time will tell, but I think this is an ominous sign.

So yeah, that's why I care. Why are you commenting?

Posted at 12:17PM on Jun 18th 2008 by Moo

3. I care! As a paying costumer of movie theaters I am entertained with how far this guy will go to promote himself. It's part of the new century package to see reality and history bend for the sake of entertainment. Honestly, this cracks me up, so absurd. Thanks for sharing, I laugh every time Cruise wacko is on.

Posted at 12:18PM on Jun 18th 2008 by MR.R

4. Artistic license regarding the story is more annoying than tweaking a photo, which doesn't really alter the history of the movie since Claus won't actually be playing himself.

That photo isn't altered enough to be rabidly angry about.

Posted at 12:23PM on Jun 18th 2008 by GL

5. Over all, considering the outcome of this venture and please don't anyone dare call this a spoiler because if you think it is, you don't know jack about the most elemental history. There might be movies in which you like the bad guy getting away with it (the usual suspects) but here, the bad guy was real and hated. So what is the appeal of this movie?

Posted at 12:29PM on Jun 18th 2008 by MR.R

6. People who post comments care.

Posted at 12:34PM on Jun 18th 2008 by Jim Treacher

7. I don't know that anyone is rabidly angry...but it's not a good sign, I think.

well...yeah...of course altering the story is worse, but this could be a sign of things to come.

MR- the level of intrigue in the story is what is interesting to me. This was a conspiracy that stretched throughout the Third Reich...among some of the most influential nazis of the day. The planning and scheming, the failure and ultimate fallout from the plot are pretty interesting in my opinion.

Too bad that damned heavy table leg got in the way...

Posted at 12:39PM on Jun 18th 2008 by Moo

8. Well, indecks, this news post is warranted by the fact that United Artists falsified historical documents, and many people are enraged by this fact.

Count Claus von Stauffenberg was historically a very important man. I know YOU obviously don't care, but he was. That is why his castle has become a museum, and has several statues made of him. His involvement in the Anti-Nazi movement and attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler was a key part in helping the Allies understand that not all Germans supported the regime. It made it known to the world that there were many top German officials and military leaders that were willing to do whatever it takes to stop Hitler and his followers. He did what he did for the whole of Germany, and not for power, money, or greed.

He was an extremely religious man, and morally had long been convinced of the criminal nature of the Hitler regime. Stauffenberg even created and wrote deals to the Allies, because he felt "only an immediate armistice could avoid more unnecessary bloodshed and further damage to Germany, to its people and to most of the other European nations". "Stauffenberg was aware that by German law (then and now) he was about to commit high treason. He openly told young conspirator Axel von dem Bussche in a meeting late 1943: "Let's be blunt, I am committing high treason with all my might and main...." ("Gehen wir in medias res, ich betreibe mit allen mir zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln den Hochverrat...").[9] He justified his project to Bussche by reference to the right under natural law ("Naturrecht") to defend millions of people's lives from the criminal aggressions of Hitler ("Nothilfe")." His last words before his execution were, "Es lebe unser heiliges Deutschland!" ("Long live our holy Germany!").

This is why "one generation later, 35 years after the end of the war, the German government established a memorial for the failed anti-Nazi resistance movement in a part of the Bendlerblock, the remainder of which currently houses the Berlin offices of the German Ministry of Defense (whose main offices remain in Bonn). The Bendlerstrasse was renamed the Stauffenbergstrasse, and the Bendlerblock now houses the Memorial to the German Resistance, a permanent exhibition with more than 5,000 photographs and documents showing the various resistance organisations at work during the Hitler era. The courtyard where the officers were shot on July 21, 1944, is now a site of remembrance with a plaque commemorating the events and includes a memorial bronze figure of a young man with his hands symbolically bound which resembles Count von Stauffenberg."

So, since Count Claus von Stauffenberg is such a historical figure, even his photograph is considered a historical document. Which means, by United Artists photoshopping Tom Cruise's face onto a picture of Count Claus von Stauffenberg... United Artists is guilty of falsifying historical documents, and this tends to upset people.

My only question is: Why did Tom Cruise and United Artists (which Tom Cruise owns a stake in) even bother altering a picture of Count Claus von Stauffenberg to try and create the idea that they share some sort of resemblance? I mean, so what if they were to look a little alike in the face? They're still negating the fact that Count Claus von Stauffenberg was 6' something and Tom Cruise is about 5' nothing. Not to mention, to even understand what this movie is about, you have to know who Count Claus von Stauffenberg is, and if you know who he is... you would know that that picture they are trying to pass off as Count von Stauffenberg is not accurate. Does Tom Cruise think this ignorant attempt at a publicity stunt will save his failing company United Artists? I, personally, think all that it does is nominate them for the Darwin Award.

To see true pictures of Count Claus Von Stauffenberg, you can go to http://www.gdw-berlin.de/b12/b12-1-e.php (the German Resistance Memorial Center's website).

All quotes were taken from Wikipedia.

Posted at 7:09PM on Jul 9th 2008 by Bekka

9. Indecks, read the post to know why people are commenting. It simply states... do you think the photo was altered? People are simply answering yes or no on if they think it was altered or not. Then there are some people who are trying to inform other people that don't think that it was altered to the facts. The fact is that it was altered.

Posted at 10:04PM on Aug 30th 2008 by Bekka