Tom don't be "that guy" that uses the acc. speech to politically soapbox

This message has been deleted by the poster

for once, I agree with you, luv.

My favorite tweet so far:


‏@JoshMalina
Thank you to Tom Hiddleston and all actors who dare to perform in projects that are shown in some of the most dangerous parts of he world.

Edited to add: if you feel like bashing me, please read my post replying to Bodelious below first.

I don't agree with any of you. Have you missed Tom saying things like "If you love someone/something, shout it from the rooftop"? I'm paraphrasing badly, but you know he believes in expressing his feelings, and without thought to personal embarrassment (his dancing). He loves UNICEF and Doctors without Borders, and expressed that. Do you also think Meryl Streep was inappropriate? It was a lifetime achievement award, yet she gave a hughly political speech. So I guess she's a problem as well. It's an emotionally charged moment, let them be.

Would he have been so self-congratulatory if they had watched Game of Thrones or Scooby Doo while the bombs dropped?


@JoshMalina
Thank you to Tom Hiddleston and all actors who dare to perform in projects that are shown in some of the most dangerous parts of he world

Edited to add: if you feel like bashing me, please read my post replying to Bodelious below first.

What does that even mean? He loves UNICEF, he mentioned them. They are doing good work.

That means that he was self-serving in saying that the medics were watching TNM with him and he was impressed by that. If they had told him they were watching GOT, would he have been so impressed with himself?

Edited to add: if you feel like bashing me, please read my post replying to Bodelious below first.

You know what, I think the Tom I know would still be impressed, or just proud for his fellow actors. Because this would mean being an actor, or even working in show biz is not all frivolous, it can mean something. If I rather see the good of people and of Tom, and that makes me a stan, so be it. And I think the Tom you know probably wouldn't be impressed, since you pretty much suggested so in your post. Which is no big deal. Because in reality, you and I both do not know Tom, so who's to say which one of us is right about Tom anyway. Although I like to think that I do know Tom better, if not because of the many years I follow him more so than you do. Plus I like to think that because I think he's a person worth knowing, that I pay attention to his words as well as his actions over the years, which have convinced me that he is one of the better guy.

But I guess that's just me. I'm a nobody. I do a nobody job. But guess what, I'm proud of what I do too. And I like to think that however insignificant my job is, I'm still in some way contributing, that my work is worth something. And if that makes me a self-indulgent a**hole, then so be it. Say if a factory worker won a best worker award and he said he likes to think that he contributes to the greater good, is he an arrogant jerk? I don't think so. But you may.

Thing is, the Tom I know is a bit of an idealist. Naive he may be, or a bit ignorant at times. But what harm does he do if he didn't know any better and think he can help. Is that such a crime? Sure he grew up in privilege, without much hardship, that doesn't make him a bad person. He has always shown his appreciation and respect towards others who are have or have-not, who do big or small jobs. So he thinks he can help those who live lives so unthinkable that he certainly has never experienced (and yet, having been to visit South Sudan, he probably knows more than you and me, and the ppl who criticized him). But why that makes him unqualified to help, is what I don't understand. Do we all have to experience war to feel for the war zone suffering, to do something about it?

And I'm saying all these (and some totally has nothing to do with what you said, so thanks for bearing with me) because this is how I feel. I'm not here to pick fight. And I'm also pretty tired of arguing with ppl (so I don't do that much anymore). I know I can't convince people who don't want to be convinced. I just think that Tom is a good nature person that's worth defending. So I'm just here saying my peace, you don't need to agree.

And in case anyone care, he said this in his Guinea Field Diary after visiting the country in 2013. "I am no saviour. I’m absolutely the last person on the planet who can practically help. I don’t know how to make the different types of therapeutic feeding milk. I’m no chemist. I’m no doctor. I’m no engineer. I can’t manufacture polio vaccines or organise their transportation to the health centres in Saramoussayah or Bissikirima. I can’t build schools, or design drainage systems. I can’t provide the women and children of Mandiana with water. I’m just an actor...The people who are really helping are those on the ground. They are heroic, and mostly if not entirely unsung...All I can do now is help make people aware of what is happening, of what they are doing. That is all that I can do. For now."https://www.unicef.org.uk/tom-hiddlestons-guinea-field-diary-back-london/

The Tom you know? The Tom I know? You know Tom better than I do? Wow. Did anyone actually say that being an actor is frivolous? Not me, not anyone here. That may be part of his Daddy issues (see, I do know stuff about him 😉) No one called you a "stan" or a "nobody" or a "self-indulgent a*****". And I never called him a "self indulgent a******", or an "arrogant jerk". Those are YOUR words, not mine, and I do not permit anyone to put words in my mouth. There was a lot of stuff in your post that has absolutely nothing to do with my post, or anything I've ever said, much of it was entirely your own issues and was completely irrelevant to anything I said, so it seems that you just needed to vent. I hope you feel better for it.

People have differing, valid opinions and that's actually ok. Whatever. If you choose to blindly adore Tom, that's your deal. I don't blindly adore him, but I am a fan of his work.

FYI: I rewatched his speech several times yesterday night to see what happened and why I and many others felt the way we did while watching the broadcast. My first impression was a valid one, especially when he said "I" and had to change it to "we" when referring to his work and how it entertained the doctors. I believe that is what set people off, including me at the time. It made it seem as if he thought that he alone was entertaining the troops and was lauding himself. The correction was awkward and it seemed tacked on and it showed, and it set people off - not just me, but a whole lot of people. On subsequent viewings, it appears more that he was trying to cram too much into a short amount of time while speaking entirely off the cuff, something he's just not very good at. If, as you point out, someone has to know his entire backstory with Unicef, and have read his three year old diary in order to appreciate his speech, then it was simply a bad speech. That doesn't make him the devil. As he himself said " I completely agree that my speech at the Golden Globes last night was inelegantly expressed. In truth, I was very nervous, and my words just came out wrong"

I do think his main point was really good - that art provides distraction and solace when we're in a bad place - physically, spiritually and mentally. I know I have turned to my favorite shows and music when I'm down, so it must have been a blessing for those doctors to have a terrific show to distract them when the bombs were falling.

The man will win many more awards, and I hope he takes the time to write out an acceptance speech ahead of time so he's not as nervous and is more cogent when he's on stage.