I think RDJ was just jumping on the bandwagon. All the major stars were offended so why shouldn't he be offended? Gervais made the mistake when he made fun of The Tourist. A movie with two veteran actors who have major connections in hollywood is going to be nominated for awards weather it's good or not for the sake of reputation. The facade that it was actually a good movie is imperative to future success.
For some reason I feel the need to defend a rich and famous dude who doesn't know I even exist on a random messageboard. Perhaps it's because the nerd-boner I got from Iron Man, but oh well, here it goes: Like I said, RDJ should take a joke like a man, and shouldn't have acted like a hurt little princess. But on the grand and objective scale of mean comedy I just came up with, I'd have to say that making jokes about a guy's past as a junkie is a little bit more offensive than talking about banging some actresses. The only difference was that Gervais made the joke with style, whereas Downey Jr. came across as a rapist. I don't believe Gervais went over the line with any of his jokes. But I do understand if some people might have gotten a little bit offended by that. But when somebody for example makes a joke on my expense, I never admit if it might have gotten to me. Hollywood-people should try that sometimes. (Yes, I said it. Succesful people should try to be more like me.)
For better or worse, Downey's past drug use is an objective part of who he is. Is telling a well-known truth "offensive"? I don't believe so. But vulgarly joking about fucking those actresses, on a nationally televised event with their families, and boyfriends/husbands present a few feet away? In the "real" world, people have caught beatings for far less.
Dude, this is insanely wrong. No self-respecting awards show would nominate this movie for an award. In fact none did, with the exception of the Globes. Even then they couldn't justify nominating it for best drama and had to absurdly find it a home under best comedy. It was a move that pathetic even by Hollywoods sycophant standards and Gervais rightly called this out.
He insulted the people who brought him there and their decision making and that's why he's not getting invited again. Either way his goal was to be banned so you could say he's just fighting the good fight and telling it like it is.
He said the exact thing before last year, even saying during the show roughly 'who cares this will be the only time I will be asked to do this'. He can insult any celeb he wants, it won't matter shit. Celebs will rock up for the press and the HFPA will incite controversy for the press. It is viewers that count and this year was a resounding success. (HFPA is a NFPO that generates almost all it's income off the GG's) Based off this years viewers and press their isn't a celeb in Hollywood who won't turn up next year to be insulted. The ensuing outrage is generated solely for the press, there will be zero ramifications to next years GG's. The only factor potentially hurting Gervais is directly insulting Philip Berk.
Slightly following on from my last post but apparently this needs clarification. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association is a non for profit organisation comprising of a stupidely small amount of Non-American Journalists who cover Hollywood. The funds to pay for their club are essentially from the TV rights to the Golden Globes. (the bribes they regularly get are usually personal and not to the HFPA) Ricky Gervais was equally offensive last year, bizarely he was invited back. This year was even more viewed. Gervais will be back next year and so will every celeb attempting to whore a product. * I am not a Hollywood insider or movie- I formerly worked in the Tech, Media and Tele sector and am familar with the economics of the industry.
He deff got a lot of hits on youtube, the vid of his monologue was almost at 2mil views last time I checked.
<a class="postlink" href="http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/01/17/hollywood-foreign-press-association-on-ricky-gervais-outrageous-material/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/01/17/holly ... -material/</a>
Shows what little cocoons most celebrities live in, and how hard it is to take a joke when you're accustomed to 24-hour on-call analingus. "Who is this British imp making fun of us? Why, this cannot stand! EVERYONE LOVES US!"
Look at us, having our own pretty conversation in here. Anyway; yes, it's objectively a part of who he was/is/whatever. Yes, Downey Jr saying he would like to fuck some women while their husbands/boyfriends were there was vulgar and could result in an ass-beating in a different situation. But weren't Downey Jr's relatives watching that show? Or his friends? Or other people who had to deal with him when he was shooting coke in his eyeballs? What about them? Commenting about somebody's troubled past can be hurtfull. If you make jokes about somebody's ugly nose or big ears, or his past troubles with coke, you might be objectively right, but also a bit harsh. The guy you just insulted might not try to kick your ass for it, but will sulk a little bit in the corner. And maybe cry a lonely tear. What Downey Jr said was obviously in jest and a joke (albeit a horribly delivered one). It wasn't exactly clean, but I still think it's less offensive than making fun of some serious problems a guy used to have. And like I said, these people should learn to laugh at themselves and shouldn't take themselves so seriously. A joke is a joke, get over yourselves etc. etc. Those people partially get paid because people care so much about them, for better or worse. But Downey Jr getting mad at Gervais' remarks is something I would sooner understand than the actresses getting mad (which they all didn't, mind you) at RDJ's remarks. Look, what would sooner piss you off. A guy making fun of the serious mistakes you made, or telling you he'd like to fuck your girlfriend?
It was absolutely a "hurtful" comment, but I make a distinction between that and "offensive". Your own definition is probably different, but I don't feel that saying the truth, no matter how horrible or hurtful, is ever truly offensive. Especially when it's so well-known and well-chronicled, as it was in this case. My point was, I can't imagine one of Downey Jr.'s relatives being more upset at that comment than the boyfriend/husband/kid of one of the actress Downey talked about fucking a few moments later. Speak for yourself. I've had someone once joke about having slept with my girlfriend at a party. While I'm normally a calm guy in real life, I didn't take it well, and immediately went over and slapped him in the face before we were separated. And you're delusional if you don't think a husband/brother/son has never decided to throw down over comments like the ones Downey made. I'm not saying it always happens, or even should, but it's far from an unusual reaction. How do you know this? And how do you know none of their family members were offended? Downey said he had slept with them, not that he would like to. And see above. On an unrelated note, Ricky G said he won't host the Golden Globes again. Boo. Watch their ratings plummet next year.
I have no idea if we should keep talking about it here or move it to a PM, but I'll try it in here for the moment. I think it's clear we have different definitions here. I think you can be offensive about something even though it's the truth. But let's not argue this further, because it just comes down to different perspectives. You can't? Really? You can't, for example, imagine Downey's wife (who I thought was with him when he was addicted, but I could be wrong) being upset by that remark? Seeing someone make fun of a not so fun part of their life? I'm not saying she should, but I can imagine the fuck out of that. I can even imagine her riding a Triceratops while being indignified by Gervais. Where did I say I thought people never got mad about remarks regarding their partners? I've seen fights erupt numerous times about this kind of shit. I think about that stuff like the way you said it; it doesn't always happen and shouldn't always happen, but it's a distinct possibility. Uhm........because the women he adressed all fucking laughed? And seriously, what the hell? I can ask you the same thing. How do you know the family of those actresses were offended? You don't. Neither do I. We're just playing a big, fun game of 'assume the shit out of this'. Look, we also have to realise this whole 'offended family' thing is a little bit of bullshit anyway. Yes, there are probably some family members who could be offended by either remarks. There may also be some family members who laughed at the jokes. We don't know that. This whole discussion is just about which remarks we thought were more hurtful. I don't think it would really matter to our respective definitions of 'hurtful' no matter how many family members were offended or not. Would that change either of our perspectives? Do we rate their hurt feelings, add it to the number of offended family members and decide a winner? I just saw Downey Jr get pissed at Gervais and I thought 'I understand why's he could be mad, but he should stop being a sissy'. And after RDJ made those stupid jokes, I just thought 'that fucking sucked, at least the actresses are loving it'. While you, on the other hand, thought the actresses and company would have more right to be mad than Downey Jr. Does that mean he really had sex with them? If not, then it was a (dumb) joke. If so, it was the truth, which couldn't really be hurtful in your book, right?
As much as it pains me to agree with KIMaster, you're totally wrong dude. Laughter in an uncomfortable situation doesn't equal full-on endorsement of the source of the tension...which, in this case, was RDJ. You want to know what happens if it looks like you can't laugh at your own expense during a nationally-televised event? People will talk shit about you later. "That cunt can't take a joke" and so forth...I really don't need to elaborate, do I? There is no other positive alternative to the situation--once RDJ started his schtick, the only thing to do is play along and pray that he finishes quickly. And, not to beat a dead horse or anything, but Emma Stone looked really fucking uncomfortable with the subject matter. That was a tight-lipped smile if I've ever seen one. She, at least, did not "love it." So Gervais made fun of RDJ's former stint(s) in rehab and his prior drug addiction(s). So? Awkward, yes...but it's not like it was any meaner than making a joke about Mel Gibson's obsession with Jews/racist views. These things have been widely publicized, discussed ad nauseum in the media, and reflect poor choices/personality traits made by those individuals. And it was funny-- it was in the context of an introduction, short & quippy, and more of a zing than a burn. RDJ delivered a ridiculously drawn-out monologue that basically boiled down to sucking his own cock for three minutes. And it wasn't funny past the first minute. I personally find the lack of humor more offensive than the fact that he attempted to use a handful of actresses as props for his joke, but whatever. Different strokes. You can say something really fucking offensive, really fucking awkward, and even straight-up mean...but it had better be funny. Humor washes away some of the bitter taste that comes with off-color jokes, and RDJ simply didn't bring enough funny to make that happen. It left a bad taste in my mouth, and I know I'm not alone in that. But Gervais nailed it, so he wins.
Well said Ms. Pinkcup. I agree with most of Pinkcup's reply but here's my 2 cents for something that has been overlooked. The actresses laughed because they were ON CAMERA with several hundred million people watching them! What would you do? Run up and slap the dude and risk the ire of a shitload of people who may then not watch your movies based on actions at an Awards ceremony? I suppose if you were a recluse like Julie Christie, then maybe. Otherwise, most of those ladies would like to continue to work in Hollywood, so they just laughed at Rapey Downer Jr. because they had no other real option (e.g. The "Laugh and maybe he/she'll go away" defence mechanism. I know I've used it a few times). It's all about the Benjamins for many of these people, since I don't think many of them have a soul (Pacino, De Niro and some others excluded - you KNOW who the assholes who don't have a soul are immediately by their behaviour). I don't think ANY of those actresses will star in a movie with RDJ, ever. Well done, dick. You just made producers' jobs more difficult, and probably cost yourself a few future projects.
I have no idea why you would possibly want to belabor this point so much. Are you related to Robert Downey Jr or something? If she is like most wives I know, she was more upset by her own husband so flippantly joking about fucking other women. By the way, for better or worse, Downey's drug addiction is one of the first things that comes to mind when the average person thinks of him. Ricky was not letting some giant cat out of the bag there. He was telling a very well-known truth. First of all, that's not even true; some were not laughing, and had a noticeably pissed-off facial expression. (Anne Hathaway) But more importantly, Pinkcup is correct; since when is laughing in an uncomfortable situation a sign that no one is offended? I'm actually kind of astounded by your comment; if you've ever interacted with women, you know that they can laugh, but still be offended by/hold it against the speaker. But you just admitted above that you've personally witnessed guys getting beaten down for the kinds of remarks RDJ made! If a number of people (myself included) are willing to take it to the level of physical violence, don't you think that the "offended" part is a pretty fucking safe bet? Are you seriously telling me that if someone went on national TV in front of 17 million people and joked about fucking your girlfriend or mom as he stood about 15 feet away from both of you, you wouldn't be upset?
Look, I don't know how many times and in how many different ways I can explain this, and I get the feeling I'm doing a pretty horrible job at it, so I'll just break it down: 1) I wasn't saying RDJ was right to have a hissy-fit or critisizing Gervais. Gervais was hilarious and RDJ was as funny as a sack full of drowning orphans. 2) RDJ and other actors who were offended by Gervais should learn to take a joke. 3) But, regarding number 2, I was just saying that I understand why Downey would be mad at the joke. I'm not saying he should be mad, but I understand his reaction. I don't like sugar in my coffee, but I understand why some people do like it. There's a difference between agreeing on something or understanding something. 4) I thought a joke about someone's past with drugs is a bit meaner than saying you banged somebody's girlfriend. That's all. Like making a joke about someone's dead grandmother is a bit meaner ridiculing a person's fashion. Maybe you have a different perspective, that's fine. I just tried to explain my perspective. Gervais nailed his joke and I thought it was really funny, while RDJ creeped everyone out with his little schtick. In my book, mean and funny aren't mutually exclusive. They often enhance eachother. Maybe I don't have the right word for trying to describe what I mean (yay for non-native speakers), but I hope you get what I'm saying. Mean/harsh/tough/hard jokes aren't bad jokes, but they're different than a 'what's the deal with airline-peanuts'-jokes. I'm not morally outraged about Gervais' joke. I believe that almost anything goes in comedy as long as it's funny, and Gervais' remarks aren't even near my limit. I laugh at the most horrible jokes. I was only saying that, if I would be really bored (which I often am) and came up with some kind of hierarchy of edgy jokes, the drug-thing would rank one place higher than the whole 'I fucked your girlfriend'-thing. That's all. And if I have to take a lot of time and try to explain myself again, I'm going to put my Iron Man-pyama on and cry myself to sleep on my Robert Downey Jr.-doll.
We get it - you had an addiction problem that you kicked and you're sensitive about it. RDJ cemented himself in my mind as an hypocritical ass. Ricky Gervais is the guy with enough balls to tell Hollywood to get over itself. The difference between the two is the comments RG made were based on each person's own actions - there were no innocent victims. Those actresses didn't do anything to prompt RDJ to tell millions of viewers that he wanted to fuck them. They were victims. Imagine if RDJ had said something like "I had problems and I got help; look at me now. If anyone out there has problems, get the help you need because it changed my life." Instead, he went up there with his ass on his shoulders and made a far more offensive joke. He deserves no sympathy. I've never watched the Golden Globes before, but my wife wanted to watch it because "The Social Network" was nominated for so many awards. If Ricky Gervais were to ever host another awards show I would definitely watch it.