Paris Hilton on Letterman

[FanIn80]

Something tells me that her little marketing department pulled enough strings with CBS to force Letterman to let her on the show. That doesn't mean he has to treat her like she belongs on his show, though.

...and for the the record, there are far too many people in this thread that are giving her far too much credit for simply being born into a rich family and not being ugly. About the only thing she did to "create" her fame was lower her own standards and self worth to a level to that of an amateur porn star.

Maybe I'm just too hard to impress, but I don't find even a single ounce of anything Paris Hilton brings to a table to be worth talking about or to even be taken serious.

(and no, I'm not discussing Paris Hilton in this thread... I'm discussing David Letterman and I'm discussing how people classify success)

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Maybe it's just a New York thing to invite people into the public eye as your guest and then insult them in front of everybody...

That's my thing about all this. Letterman can certainly do what every late night talk show host does and make cracks about celebrities during their monologue.
But bring someone on the show and humiliate them? I personally have little respect for Paris - I agree with those who feel she has done nothing of substance.
But she's human, and I don't know, the look in her eyes when he was relentless, I didn't find that comical.

[Crispy's Critter]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

...and for the the record, there are far too many people in this thread that are giving her far too much credit for simply being born into a rich family and not being ugly.

Are you serious? First time I ever saw her I thought I was watching Kids In The Hall and a Chicken Lady skit was on

She's one fugly little stick wench

[flip]

its not even that he's a jerk its that he speaks for 90% of the air time and doesn't give her a chance to talk.

i did think he was going on and on about the jail thing. and i do think he's a moron.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Believe it or not, I actually gained respect for her during that interview. She was clearly told that she was coming on the show to talk about her clothing lines and fragrance, and got ambushed by Letterman, who was only interested in making fun of her. She handled it with a lot more dignity than she could have.


With that said, she is pretty worthless, in my opinion. She may have "done things" that I haven't, but I don't find them to be valuable contributions to society. I don't hate her--I just don't think of her very often one way or another.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Something tells me that her little marketing department pulled enough strings with CBS to force Letterman to let her on the show. That doesn't mean he has to treat her like she belongs on his show, though.

This is my guess too, that someone pulled strings way above
Letterman. Letterman probably didn't want her on the show, but
lost the fight.

I think he's making sure she doesn't come back and sending a
message to CBS higher-ups.

ers

[LockedOut]

As a long time Letterman watcher, Dave didn't treat her any different than before. Paris has been on the show many times before and Dave treats her the same way. Same goes with others like her when they are on the show like Nicole Richie. It's just for entertainment and laughs otherwise it be a really boring interview. This isn't Larry King she was on.

[octothorp]

Letterman is in the business of providing entertainment. And while I'm not a big fan of his, the first two thirds of the interview are far more entertaining than the last third where he asks her about her clothing and fragrances. Would anyone tune in for the purpose of seeing Paris give her banal responses about how great it is to act and sing at the same time?

When Letterman was at his best (mid to late 90s), his show had this Kaufmannesque awkward absurdity to it. I'd say this interview is closer to that quality than a lot of the things I've watched him do in recent years.

[4X4]

I've never liked Letterman and this interview is a good example of why.

As for the Paris Hilton debate, I'm in the minority here that understands that what she does is a job. I really don't see it much differently than many other celebrities (rockstars, movie stars, athletes etc) who use their fame to be more famous.

Go ahead and argue that the only reason she bacame a household name is because of the sex tape. IIRC it was conveniently 'released' a month or two before her show 'Simple Life'.

Whatever. She's an exhibitionist. She does stuff you would never do and cringe when you think about your daughters. How many of you guys hit the peelers for bachelor parties? Where's the difference?

Reminds me of Anna Kornikova. She didn't do much either. Played a little tennis and was pretty. Haven't heard much from her lately. But I bet dollars to donuts that she could get right back into the public eye by acting like a celebrity... A little getting drunk at clubs, maybe a brush with the law... Bingo she's on the front pages again and her phone is ringing off the hook for club openings and whatnot.

Paris Hilton is good at something: She's good at being famous. She feeds the gossip mags, she feeds the entertainment shows, she helps perpetuate an entire industry. And because of that, she's rich. Money she made by herself, not granddaddy.

You may hate her, love her or anything inbetween. It matters not. The fact that this board has a 50 post thread on it is just great for her.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I've never liked Letterman and this interview is a good example of why.

As for the Paris Hilton debate, I'm in the minority here that understands that what she does is a job. I really don't see it much differently than many other celebrities (rockstars, movie stars, athletes etc) who use their fame to be more famous.

Go ahead and argue that the only reason she bacame a household name is because of the sex tape. IIRC it was conveniently 'released' a month or two before her show 'Simple Life'.

Whatever. She's an exhibitionist. She does stuff you would never do and cringe when you think about your daughters. How many of you guys hit the peelers for bachelor parties? Where's the difference?

Reminds me of Anna Kornikova. She didn't do much either. Played a little tennis and was pretty. Haven't heard much from her lately. But I bet dollars to donuts that she could get right back into the public eye by acting like a celebrity... A little getting drunk at clubs, maybe a brush with the law... Bingo she's on the front pages again and her phone is ringing off the hook for club openings and whatnot.

Paris Hilton is good at something: She's good at being famous. She feeds the gossip mags, she feeds the entertainment shows, she helps perpetuate an entire industry. And because of that, she's rich. Money she made by herself, not granddaddy.

You may hate her, love her or anything inbetween. It matters not. The fact that this board has a 50 post thread on it is just great for her.

Well put 4 x 4.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I have a question about Letterman.

Why is it that the board (in general) thinks it's ok to make fun of someone and point out their flaws in a monologue when the person can't respond? That's fine, but do the same thing with them there giving them a chance to tell their side of the story, or at very least have the ability to speak for themselves is wrong?

I was always taught if you have something to say about someone say it to their face rather than behind their backs. If you can't say it to their face, then don't say it at all.

So the consensus on the board is make fun of someone in the monologue then pull a 180 and be super nice to them in the interview? Seems phoney doesn't it?

If that's wrong in on the school yard, in the work place, and in your personal/professional lives, why is it the correct thing to do for Letterman?

[Dedly]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I have a question about Letterman.

Why is it that the board (in general) thinks it's ok to make fun of someone and point out their flaws in a monologue when the person can't respond? That's fine, but do the same thing with them there giving them a chance to tell their side of the story, or at very least have the ability to speak for themselves is wrong?

I was always taught if you have something to say about someone say it to their face rather than behind their backs. If you can't say it to their face, then don't say it at all.

So the consensus on the board is make fun of someone in the monologue then pull a 180 and be super nice to them in the interview? Seems phoney doesn't it?

If that's wrong in on the school yard, in the work place, and in your personal/professional lives, why is it the correct thing to do for Letterman?

Agreed.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There are literally thousands of people that have the money and opportunity and do crap with it.

Give her some credit, she's taken her name and run with it to the point that good or bad she's a recognized brand name, and she makes millions off of it.

She's certainly accomplished more then a lot of people I know.

Well said CC, well said.

Look at what PH does, true she's easy to laugh at, but she uses her wealth to build an empire. Contraversly, alot of people get poorer as they make more money. Whether she just stumbled onto the secret to wealth or knows whats she's doing, thats another matter, but she's doing what wealthy people do.

[Juventus3]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I have a question about Letterman.

Why is it that the board (in general) thinks it's ok to make fun of someone and point out their flaws in a monologue when the person can't respond? That's fine, but do the same thing with them there giving them a chance to tell their side of the story, or at very least have the ability to speak for themselves is wrong?

I was always taught if you have something to say about someone say it to their face rather than behind their backs. If you can't say it to their face, then don't say it at all.

So the consensus on the board is make fun of someone in the monologue then pull a 180 and be super nice to them in the interview? Seems phoney doesn't it?

If that's wrong in on the school yard, in the work place, and in your personal/professional lives, why is it the correct thing to do for Letterman?

Well put.

I'm actually shocked that people are standing for for Paris Hilton. Letterman isn't doing anything different than any other comics out there except that she's in the room.

And I still don't agree that being famous for being famous means you've accomplished anything. What she's 'done' is bring people it to work for her and make all these products.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I have a question about Letterman.

Why is it that the board (in general) thinks it's ok to make fun of someone and point out their flaws in a monologue when the person can't respond? That's fine, but do the same thing with them there giving them a chance to tell their side of the story, or at very least have the ability to speak for themselves is wrong?

I was always taught if you have something to say about someone say it to their face rather than behind their backs. If you can't say it to their face, then don't say it at all.

So the consensus on the board is make fun of someone in the monologue then pull a 180 and be super nice to them in the interview? Seems phoney doesn't it?

If that's wrong in on the school yard, in the work place, and in your personal/professional lives, why is it the correct thing to do for Letterman?

Agreed.

I am always disappointed when hosts play the nice game with their guests that they have repeatedly made fun of previously. Phoney is a good word to describe it. Especially with Paris. A lot of her popularity is derived from her bad behaviour. Because let's be honest, she is not famous for her perfume, singing, and acting. Those are all byproducts, a cash grab by her and her marketing team. She is famous for her name, and her bad behaviour, which includes: the simple life, her sex tape, and other debauchery. This is what made her famous. Why is it rude to poke of her while she is there? If they are not going to make fun of her, that is going to be an awfully dry interview. Does anyone care about her perfume and clothing line? Didn't think so. Heck, she wouldn't be on the show if they weren't going to make fun of her.

I am sure lots of you have seen the Paris Hilton South Park episode. I recommend you watch the commentary with matt and trey, it's hilarious. They call her a dog face. They said they have never once heard someone in Hollywood say something nice about Paris Hilton, not once. They talk about how she is a just a terrible human. Clearly those two are a little overboard, but it's tough to get a honest opinion out of most Hollywood people.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Well said CC, well said.

Look at what PH does, true she's easy to laugh at, but she uses her wealth to build an empire. Contraversly, alot of people get poorer as they make more money. Whether she just stumbled onto the secret to wealth or knows whats she's doing, thats another matter, but she's doing what wealthy people do.

I just realized that if she were to marry someone whose last name started with a 'D', her hyphenated initials would be PHD. Somehow that just seems wrong.

[simmer2]

Ahh, it wasn't that bad. I thought it was pretty damn funny actually. And Paris is a big girl and she went to jail. She should expect that this will come up.

[Flashpoint]

I liked where she said she was sad, and made the pouty face.

Then Dave asked her if she was happy. And she said she was.

Then he offered her a parakeet, and she smiled.

Which sort of spoke volumes about the level of her intelligence, and how vapid and shallow she is.

I still think she'll be a really interesting suicide.