Brand v Paxman
- Thread starter newbiejim
- Start date
To be fair, while I don't like the guy - he didn't say he was the best person in the world to get the message across, just it's something he seems to be reasonably passionate about.
As I said earlier, the biggest irony is that people are only listening to a message which has been around for ages due to who is presenting it.
His comedy is still terrible.
I mean, Sagan had touched on many of the issues many years ago - as had many before him.
As I said earlier, the biggest irony is that people are only listening to a message which has been around for ages due to who is presenting it.
His comedy is still terrible.
I mean, Sagan had touched on many of the issues many years ago - as had many before him.
I liked Forgetting Sarah Marshall and, to a lesser degree, Get Him to the Greek.
The only two things out of his entire career that i didn't want to punch his lights out, but remember editors and directors were there to cut out and edit the worst aspects of his personality
"Even when I do things like the MTV Awards, I’m not trying to criticise human beings, they’re only trying their best – even people in government." - Russell Brand July 2012
Lol
and
http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...al-complaint-against-russell-brand-katy-perry
He doesn't give a **** about society or the environment. Don't delude yourselves. Whilst the point he makes is in some ways correct, that is not what he believes. He is only saying that because he knows it will be popular and help him make **** loads of money on his next 'booky wook'.
He is a hypocritical charlatan that doesn't deserve anyone's time or thoughts quite frankly.
Lol
and
http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...al-complaint-against-russell-brand-katy-perry
He doesn't give a **** about society or the environment. Don't delude yourselves. Whilst the point he makes is in some ways correct, that is not what he believes. He is only saying that because he knows it will be popular and help him make **** loads of money on his next 'booky wook'.
He is a hypocritical charlatan that doesn't deserve anyone's time or thoughts quite frankly.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
I don't understand the first quote's relevance to anything tbh, the second one was about smoking and drinking in a national park during a wedding...
I guess it's impossible for anyone to ever think about things and develop a point of view as they get older and more experienced, lets just shout him down rather than discuss any ideas because he's not "the best" person to talk about it...
I guess it's impossible for anyone to ever think about things and develop a point of view as they get older and more experienced, lets just shout him down rather than discuss any ideas because he's not "the best" person to talk about it...
As I wrote in my post, the point he was making was correct....but it is a point that has been made countless times before and one that we really all (or should) know.
What I am saying is that I don't think he believes any of it. Its all just a publicity stunt...just like his whole life.
You seem to be speaking from a perspective of certainty.
Please could you share this information with the rest of us which conclusively proves what you are saying is factual, not just your subjective evaluation.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I don't know - but I have a feeling you don't either.
Well so does Brand, but that's ok is it?
Of course it is my subjective evaluation.
I strongly believe I am not wrong. His whole life has been one long publicity stunt.
People like him are the very reason corporations make huge profits and damage the environment.
Rich people, flying all over the world all the time, buying expensive Mercedes and Range Rovers, selling dvd's, books, e.t.c.
Yet Brand claims to be against all that when he has spent his life taking advantage of all of it and becoming hugely wealthy at the same time?
His very livelihood depends on being in the public eye and making website/newspaper headlines. Pretty clever to go on Paxman and say everything that the layman wants to hear and sound intelligent whilst doing it...
It is quite clear ( to me at least) that he is a hypocritical charlatan.
But he said himself he's complicit in the whole thing during the interview, you can be involved in something & criticise it.Well so does Brand, but that's ok is it?
Of course it is my subjective evaluation.
I strongly believe I am not wrong. His whole life has been one long publicity stunt.
People like him are the very reason corporations make huge profits and damage the environment.
Rich people, flying all over the world all the time, buying expensive Mercedes and Range Rovers, selling dvd's, books, e.t.c.
Yet Brand claims to be against all that when he has spent his life taking advantage of all of it and becoming hugely wealthy at the same time?
His very livelihood depends on being in the public eye and making website/newspaper headlines. Pretty clever to go on Paxman and say everything that the layman wants to hear and sound intelligent whilst doing it...
It is quite clear ( to me at least) that he is a hypocritical charlatan.
If it's just a subjective evaluation then it's better to use the correct language, not speak as though you are discussing facts.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
All the way through he claims that he doesn't want to be complicit with the system by not voting!?
""It’s not that I’m not voting out of apathy, I’m not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the political class which has been going on for generations now, and which has now reached fever pitch where you have a disenfranchised, disillusioned, despondent underclass that is not being represented by that political system, and voting is tacit complicity with that system."
you're letting facts get in the way of someone's preconceived beliefs, careful
What facts?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
What facts?
if you listen to the words of the interview he uses the word "we" and "our" quite often when talking about the current situation - to most that is an admission of complicity
clearly your preconceived ideas of who brand is and what he represents are clouding your ears in this instance
he also says many times, that he isn't the best person to talk about, that there are better people to talk about alternatives ideas etc, but guess that's just him self promoting again...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
ITT dudes (specifically I find always mostly dudes...) hate on Russell brand cause he's more charismatic, way more intelligent, way funnier and gets way more woman.
ITT........
what's new?!
ITT........
what's new?!
Some video timings for where this happens?
Why is he there then? Publicity. Nothing more, nothing less.
He is a hypocrite. He actively takes part in what he his arguing against.
He does the voice for a character in Despicable Me 2, a Universal film. Universal being a colossal corporation. Despicable Me 2 being one of their most profitable films ever:
http://www.slashfilm.com/which-2013-movie-is-universals-most-profitable-film-ever/
I though profit was a dirty word according to Brand? Presumably a lot of 3rd world workers were exploited in making all the merchandise for the film and all the little toys you can buy for it as well.
Yet Brand goes, oh thank you very much, and walks off with his paycheck. He knowingly and actively takes part in what he claims to be against and not wanting to be part of.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
Some video timings for where this happens?
Why is he there then? Publicity. Nothing more, nothing less.
He is a hypocrite. He actively takes part in what he his arguing against.
He does the voice for a character in Despicable Me 2, a Universal film. Universal being a colossal corporation. Despicable Me 2 being one of their most profitable films ever:
http://www.slashfilm.com/which-2013-movie-is-universals-most-profitable-film-ever/
I though profit was a dirty word according to Brand? Presumably a lot of 3rd world workers were exploited in making all the merchandise for the film and all the little toys you can buy for it as well.
Yet Brand goes, oh thank you very much, and walks off with his paycheck.
tbh I can't be bothered to watch it again, if you decide to actually watch it (it's somewhere near the start), you could try to put it on a minimised window then you can listen without looking at the man you hate so much.
he is there because he has been invited on to a political programme to be interviewed because he has a job editing a political journal, it's not really that uncommon for people in positions like that to be interviewed - he is asked questions and replies, what would you like to see happen in an interview?! or would you prefer that no one ever is interviewed because all they are doing is trying to get publicity?
it seems questionable that you resent brand so much for getting paid (for anything seemingly) but you have a major problem with the points he is raising for discussion (about the very same matter) - can you not see past his bad acting?
Last edited:
Are we arguing about whether I like interviews now or whether I agree with people showering Brand with praise over what he has said in this one?
I don't have a problem with the points he is raising at all. They are valid points.
I don't have a problem with him being paid what he does either. He manipulates the public (especially women) very well and makes money from that. Good for him.
My problem is people showering praise on him for saying it like he is some sort of intelligent new philosopher of our time. He has said what people want to hear. However, he claims to not want to be part of exactly what he actively takes part of on a day to day basis!
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
Are we arguing about whether I like interviews now or whether I agree with people showering Brand with praise over what he has said in this one?
you are dismissing him as a charlatan and a hypocrite - you say he takes part in what he arguing against, but then say we can't possibly listen to the guy because he doesn't know what he's talking about - or that he is only there for publicity, but he was invited to an interview about politics...
I don't understand how you link him (or people like him) to be the reason that massive corporations are turning big profits and damaging the environment?
At no point in the interview does he claim to have the answer to anything, or say that he is the guy to change anything, all he points out is that there are alternative political systems and we don't have to buy into this one - but you are making out that he is just a showman looking for publicity and you can't believe what he says - he hasn't actually tried to make you believe anything, have you listened to what he's said or purely reacted to the views that others have expressed following the interview and then added your personal opinion of him
When did I say he is trying to make me believe anything?
I didn't say he doesn't know what he is talking about either. You seem to just be putting words in my mouth.