• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Russell Brand: From Comic To Icke-Esque Conspiracist & Possible Abuser?

I bet Brand's kicking himself. :lol:
 
escargot1 said:
I bet Brand's kicking himself. :lol:
Click to expand...
He should get in the queue.

To be fair, he can be quite funny on the day. Both he and Ross seriously needed bringing down a peg or three, though.

It would be nice if they donated a large part of Ross's unpaid salary to Children in Need, as he does go on about it a bit.
 
Thank'ee kindly, Mester! :D

The vid on there about the 'too scary' house decorations is good too.
 
rynner said:
gncxx said:
I have to assume most of the complainers have never heard of Brand or Ross before and had no idea how they behaved in front of a microphone.
Click to expand...
Why do you assume that?

Maybe, for many who have endured the puerile knob-related posturings of this pair for some time, this was the final straw?

(And even if many listeners had never heard of them before, does this make the performance acceptable? I think not!)
Click to expand...

Well, I was being sarcastic, but Ross and Brand's stock in trade is famously "edgy" comedy, so why the outrage at their behaviour now? Personally I prefer comedians who, you know, tell jokes, but I was well aware of these two chaps' sense of humour. I think there's a lot of resentment behind this reaction, not only for that pair but for the BBC as well, as if they have to produce material which appeals to everyone at the same time. I'm tired of the BBC bashing, is what I'm saying.
 
I agree. The poor old Beeb can't do right for doing wrong.

The thing about the 'edgy' comedy is that it's 'edgy', and dangerous. It's like the TT or the Grand Prix - the whole point is that someone will come a cropper. Sad, but true.
 
escargot1 said:
The thing about the 'edgy' comedy is that it's 'edgy', and dangerous. It's like the TT or the Grand Prix - the whole point is that someone will come a cropper. Sad, but true.
Click to expand...
Edgy comedy is one thing.

Unfunny, pointless abuse, aimed at one particular harmless old actor (not even thespians in general) is another. Especially when the victim of the 'prank' is not in a position to respond.

This is something the BBC could have prevented, but failed to do.
 
Yup, it's like, wassit called, 'car crash TV'? Where you know you shouldn't watch because someone's going to be humiliated but you do anyway...

None of this is my idea of fun but a lot of people do like it. Is it a modern version of the Roman gladiators, who could be slaughtered or spared on the whim of the crowd?
 
Ross and Brand are infamously divisive, but where are their fans in all this? I know Brand has followers round here, there was a big thread on him last year after his HIGNFY appearance. Is he an embarrassment now? I wonder how his new TV series did in the ratings?
 
gncxx said:
Ross and Brand are infamously divisive, but where are their fans in all this? I know Brand has followers round here, there was a big thread on him last year after his HIGNFY appearance. Is he an embarrassment now? I wonder how his new TV series did in the ratings?
Click to expand...
I started the post-HIGNFY thread out of curiosity, as up to then I'd not heard of Brand. I found him intriguing, but I wouldn't call myself a fan, although I have looked at some of his later stuff.

Around our town, the bus shelters are carrying adverts for Jonathon Ross's book - I guess this latest business will not help his Xmas sales much.... :twisted:
 
Rynner, I wonder if you're thinking of the concept of 'edgy' humour as meaning something like nervous, or on edge,

In this context it's actually intended to imply 'close to the edge of acceptable' - the whole point of it is to 'push the boundaries', ie take a strong risk of offending some of the audience.

The rest of the audience is expected to enjoy it, of course.

The current farrago reminds me of the fuss about Angus Deayton's little problem a couple of years ago. He was subjected to quite vigorous derision on HIGNFY afterwards.

What this told me was that, although one had the impression that the show's regulars were quite pally, they still felt the need to rip into Deayton when he was caught out. He became just another target for Hislop and co. to abuse and ridicule.

Unlike most of their subjects, though, with the notable exception of Paula Yates, Deayton was present to hear it all. Must've been horrendous for him (although he might've thought of that before his cocaine-and-prostitute hotel romp!)

What I'm trying to express here is that the sort of comedy which relies on derision and mickey-taking can have no loyalty or affection behind it. It's dog-eat-dog, and the audience know it, and part of the joke is that it can easily rebound in the joker's face. This is what's happened to Brand and Ross, and they're paying the price now.
 
escargot1 said:
What I'm trying to express here is that the sort of comedy which relies on derision and mickey-taking can have no loyalty or affection behind it. It's dog-eat-dog, and the audience know it, and part of the joke is that it can easily rebound in the joker's face. This is what's happened to Brand and Ross, and they're paying the price now.
Click to expand...
'Derision and mickey-taking' among equals is fair game (i.e. Deayton and the rest of the HIGNFY crew), because they've all dished it out themselves.

But Andrew Sachs was not that kind of performer, and did not deserve such public humiliation.
 
stuneville said:
Very noble of Lesley Douglas to quit and all that, but what about the person that spectacularly didn't do their job?
Click to expand...
What I hear it was Lesley Douglas who spectacularly didn't do her job, it went right up to her and she ok'd it. Which goes to show how uneasy her underlings were about it. She certainly was right to go.
Though I think Ross and Brand might have got away with it if the whole thing had actually been, you know, funny at all. :roll: I can forgive a lot of bad taste if it makes me laugh like a drain. This had no potential to do that, surely even for the most puerile and desperate members of the BBC audience.
 
That's my point. They got it wrong, by hitting on 'Harmless Old Man' Sachs, and all the spite blew up in their faces. Living by the sword, and all that.
 
Doing the rounds at the minute...

Dear Jonathan Ross,

I've sha*ged your daughter.

Who's laughing now?

Yours Sincerely,

Gary Glitter
 
They're both now on the Sachs offenders' register.
 
escargot1 said:
They're both now on the Sachs offenders' register.
Click to expand...
A bag of virtual jelly-babies for that! :D
 
Oooh, thank you!


Do you have any puppies?
 
beakboo said:
stuneville said:
Very noble of Lesley Douglas to quit and all that, but what about the person that spectacularly didn't do their job?
Click to expand...
What I hear it was Lesley Douglas who spectacularly didn't do her job, it went right up to her and she ok'd it. Which goes to show how uneasy her underlings were about it. She certainly was right to go.
Click to expand...
Ah, right - the spin I'd got was that it was a rather more junior figure who'd just signed it off as OK without paying too much attention.
 
for one the only innocent one here is her grandad.

sachs grandaughter: she knew of Brands reputation beofre she slept with him, she knew he is the knid of person to brag about his "conquests" and she still decided to be his "lover", she asked for a apology what for?

Russell Brand & Jonathan Ross: they should both know better than to make phone calls like that prank or not, there is no need for the way they behaved at all there is a joke and they crossed the line you dont need to know about your grandchildrens sexual activites do you?
then saying they were going to break in and abuse him and delete the messages again too far!

the producers: they should not of of put that on air, if they knew it was wrong to do, which im guessing they did.

in a overview its a prank call that got way out of hand!
 
Well I'm not above poking dog turds through famous pensioner's letterboxes for a laugh as long as I can do it on a three year contract for £18m quid of other peoples money.
Mind you. For that amount, I'll make sure it's professionally done , in a post-modern ironic style, dripping with metrosexualism.

One of the best things I've read about Brand in all of this is the description of him as 'a cross between Charlie Drake and Max Wall' although personally I think there's something a bit 'Steptoe' about him.
 
My personal opinion on the whole thing:

After listening to the calls on YouTube, I think it was right that they should be sacked for it, for the simple reason that anyone else acting in any other workplace would be instantly dismissed for gross misconduct. I'm certainly under no illusions about what would happen if I was found in work leaving a series of lewd messages on somebody's voicmail. Also, the idea that Jonathan Ross getting £16 million a year for his irritating, terminally unfunny presenting strikes me as a mystery worthy of anything in FT.

That said, does this need to have been the top story in all the newspapers at a time of two wars and a global economic crisis? I think not.
 
Apologies if this has been said already, but as the head of his own production company, Ross isn't exactly on a total loser here.

His suspension means--according to what I've read--that the BBC has to compensate the production company: his.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oc ... ell-brand3

It seems the situation is 'unclear'.
 
Well, I believe in total artistic freedom, where available.

My personal view is clouded by my belief that brand and ross are wankers.

I also dislike the battle this has been turned into: the youth versus the old. An article in the Observer quoted a 20 year old as saying 'everyone my age finds it funny'. I'm 21 and I don't - I find some dreadful, disgraceful things funny, things in extremely questionable (or beyond question) taste, but I didn't find this funny.

It's partly the implication that the youth are all the same, all radio 1 listeners (oh my god!) with a sense of humour in line with Channel 4's (E4's), the BBC (BBC3 :eek:)'s pathetic boardroom sense of what is 'edgy'. The people who make these things are out-of-touch, as much as anything else. And who's to say we can't like a bit of Tony Hancock as well as jokes about AIDs?

Jonathan Ross is about as far from someone connected to 'the youth' as anyone can be - he's practically a national treasure. In this context, national treasure means 'someone really dreadful and orange off the telly, who has an ice-cold soul underneath the smiling exterior'. See michael parkinson, paul o'grady, carol vorderman, etc.
 
Agree about Parkinson, but Ross's The Last Resort was the best UK chat show ever. Friday Night with JR is not, however.
 
like i have already said there is a fine line between a prank for a laugh to get your readers/listeners in on the show and then there is over the mark which is what Ross and Brand did.

they could of stopped there but they never and the producers could of editted it or not aired the prank.
 
As I understand it, Sachs spoke to the people responsible for the programme before it was broadcast and was content, once the situation had been fully explained to him, for the broadcast to go ahead providing the segments containing the phonecalls were 'reined-in' a bit - the fact that this did not happen is entirely down to the producers of the programme and, as such, it is they who should have been sacked/suspended/persuaded to resign and not Brand and Ross.
 
WhistlingJack said:
As I understand it, Sachs spoke to the people responsible for the programme before it was broadcast and was content, once the situation had been fully explained to him, for the broadcast to go ahead providing the segments containing the phonecalls were 'reined-in' a bit - the fact that this did not happen is entirely down to the producers of the programme and, as such, it is they who should have been sacked/suspended/persuaded to resign and not Brand and Ross.
Click to expand...

Well not quite as Ross and Brand made unwanted harrassing phone calls to a pensioner of a lewd nature which is against the law isn't it?
 
They should have been made to apologise very publicly and suspended. Whoever cleared it should get the punt and that should have been the end of it. Unfortunately it's become open season for people who don't like particular Beeb programmes or personalities to voice their dislike. I hope everyone who thinks screening Speed as a replacement to the Johnathon Ross show on friday night got just as upset. Such is the nature of the BBC - it has to appeal to everybody, including the mindless, who pay their license fee whilst at the same time producing tv that may not be popular to a mass market.

The ongoing existence of the license fee is a long overdue debate, the delay of which I have to say I'm glad of when I look at the output of the other channels. The BBC makes programmes that are every bit as bad as the other networks. They tend to produce programming which is vastly superior as well. In reality there's very little else on in the UK save for Beeb and occasionally C4 productions on their various non-terrestrial channels.

The worst thing about all this, though, is that Russell Brand now has more material than he'll ever need for his cheap "here's what the papers said about me now" shows. I saw him years ago before he got his gig on Big Brother, the one that made him famous, and he was producing copies of local newspapers in front of an audience of about 20 people (most of them there to see mates who were performing on a bottom-of-the-barrell bill). He wasn't funny then either. I really hope that a light motor accident or something related to stairs and falling down them will make plain that the only thing worse than being talked about isn't always not being talked about and he gives himself and us some peace.

Somebody say Hare Krishna...
 
see thatsthe thing while Jonathan Ross got suspended, Russell Brand never he resigned so thats not as bad he got away with the sack because he said it was only fair he resigned fro mhis post what aload of b*****ks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top