Home : Movies, Tom & Katie : Cruise Nailed Over Hitler's Ball

Cruise Nailed Over Hitler's Ball

Posted Jan 2nd 2009 8:00AM by TMZ Staff

As if "Valkyrie" weren't crap enough on its own, Tom Cruise is in trouble for allegedly using a replica of Hitler's favorite globe in the movie.

Robert Pritikin, an SF ad exec, tells the New York Post he owns the globe Hitler used to plan U-boat attacks, among other things, and was shocked to see a replica of it in Cruise's movie. Pritikin claims he owns the copyright to the globe's likeness so it couldn't be co-opted by neo-Nazi groups.

Lawyers for Pritikin, who created the Rice-a-Roni jingle, say the whole thing could be just an "oversight." Cruise's reps couldn't be reached.

Comments [31]
SHARE |
4ie6

Reader Comments

(Page 2 of 3) Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 |

16. Everyoe ends up dead.
Why would you go see such a movie over the holidays?
The movie may be good,I don't know, but the release date was bad timing.

Posted at 11:30AM on Jan 2nd 2009 by Joe

17. Cruise sucks, scientology sucks, valkyrie sucks.

nuff said

Posted at 11:39AM on Jan 2nd 2009 by Cruise is nuts

18. Like you said his boyish looks are gone now and he is just an over-rated actor same as his ex Nicole. Don't know which one is worse.

Posted at 12:02PM on Jan 2nd 2009 by scooobie

19. Cruise is far worse; through his millions in 'donations' to $cientology he is assisting the cult in destroying lives and breaking apart families, not to mention the 'fair-gaming' of anyone critical of the cult.

google 'scientology crimes' or 'ientology paulette cooper' to learn just how evil this organization really is.

Posted at 12:13PM on Jan 2nd 2009 by not a fan

20. People go to the movies. You have to pick one, so if this movie is #3 as another poster said, it's only because you have to pick one out of all the rotten movies they are making nowadays.

Posted at 12:25PM on Jan 2nd 2009 by yep.

21. The movie creators/producers undoubtedly had no idea that the globe was "copyrighted" by anybody. Who would ever imagine such a thing?!? It's not a reasonable expectation for such an historical object, so it would not be normal procedure to check.

My guess is that Pritikin filed for a copyright (as anybody can, by just submitting the proper form), perhaps actually believing that would protect it from use by neo-Nazis, but any sane court would toss it out if that copyright were ever challenged. If he tries to extract money for its use in the film, he will most likely regret it.

Posted at 12:28PM on Jan 2nd 2009 by jwoolman

22. #11 said it was "#3 in box office," so I have to wonder just what freaking SOURCE he's using since everyone else has it listed at #4 at barely $40 million (estimated as UA apparently is unwilling to havev exact figures published) for a FOUR DAY HOLIDAY WEEKEND just like MI3. $70 mil to publicize a $95 mil movie that MIGHT make back $100 mil after foreign box fails miserably. I'm thinking the good folks at Merrill Lynch nee to reassess their duty to shareholders and to pull CruseyBaby's line of credit and shut down that losing proposition known as United Artists (of $cientology),

Posted at 12:30PM on Jan 2nd 2009 by Anonymous

23. I'm not a laywer, but I don't see how that guy could own the copyright to that global. The *creator* of a work owns the copyright to it.

Posted at 12:44PM on Jan 2nd 2009 by gitRdun

24. If I was a collector of Nazi souveniers, I wouldn't go around bragging about it Mr. Pritikin.

Posted at 2:06PM on Jan 2nd 2009 by Hawkeye

25. this flop will be lucky to make enough to cover production costs and may well bankrupt ua. guess your plan to persuade the germans to feel all warm and fuzzy about your cult failed, eh tommy?

expect us

Posted at 2:44PM on Jan 2nd 2009 by Anonanon

26. Valkyrie going down the drain has nothing to do with the movie being bad, and has EVERYTHING to do with Tom Cruise being in the movie! He's the male Demi Moore! His mere presence in a movie causes it to BOMB!!! (LOL!!!)

Posted at 3:34PM on Jan 2nd 2009 by DeepFreeze3

27. havent seen the movie. havent heard anything that would make me want to. just wanted to ask if using "an" in front of "SF" is correct grammar?

Posted at 9:57PM on Jan 2nd 2009 by greg

28. A person cannot own a copyright for anything without being the author o creator, or having purchased the copyright from the author. Being that this was a glode owned by Hitler, I can't see how anyone could claim to own the copyright to it. Sure, this idiot may have asserted he has a copyright, but it makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, even if there was a copyright for this globe, which I doubt, it would have likely passed into the public domain since it was originally filed, so this guy sounds like a fake who is looking for publicity.

Posted at 3:23PM on Jan 3rd 2009 by Steve

29. As if the "Valykrie wasn't crap" WTF?! The movie is a solid #4 and is on it's way to grossing 100 mil. It will be at 60 by Monday. It's a hit and Tom is part owner of UA who made it. He's going to make a gazillion.

Some old fart has a globe and he thinks that he can sue because the movie depicts a globe. That is stupid on it's face. You guys don't like Tom and that's been evident and that's why you ran this sh...t.

Posted at 1:36AM on Jan 5th 2009 by Roger

30. I can't stand to even look at this crazy man, whether in a movie or in photos. Every time I see his stupid face I see him jumping on Oprah's cough or hear that crazy laugh of his. He truly give me the creeps.

Posted at 8:44PM on Jan 3rd 2009 by southernbelle

Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 |