Eddie Murphy Bio on netflix

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does the doc reference his 1997 scandal with a trans sex worker? That was the public incident that prompted him to retreat from the public for quite some time. And the sex worker died less than a year later…”falling” from a window (after selling their story to the media).

It's wild how people will straight up lie to prove their point.

Dr. Dolittle (1998)
Mulan (1998)
Bowfinger (1999)
Nutty Professor II: The Klumps (2000)
Shrek movies started in 2001.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the doc reference his 1997 scandal with a trans sex worker? That was the public incident that prompted him to retreat from the public for quite some time. And the sex worker died less than a year later…”falling” from a window (after selling their story to the media).

It's wild how people will straight up lie to prove their point.

Dr. Dolittle (1998)
Mulan (1998)
Bowfinger (1999)
Nutty Professor II: The Klumps (2000)
Shrek movies started in 2001.

If you google, it says he retreated from the public eye.

ICYMI: actors work on films anywhere 1-3 years before they are actually released, so he probably wrapped his work on those films before they are actually incident became public. No clue when it happened in 97 (could have been late in the year). And the real fallout didn’t come later when the trans sex worker sold their story.

Remember: in 1997 and 1998, most people didn’t have smart phones and relied on published media like The Enquirer and People magazine for celeb stories.

Anyway, it happened. And everyone knows Eddie really wasn’t working much or in the public eye for quite some time.

He’s obviously proactively trying to rewrite history and sanitize the record. I wonder why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I really enjoyed it. Learned quite a bit about Eddie and other celebrities.

OP here. I kind of enjoyed it, he came across as a really interesting guy. But then I remembered his stand up from the 80s and how it was just "f*ck this" and "mother-f*cker" etc and just was not funny (I was a very young teen)

Also I looked up his kids. The eldest three all came from different mothers, including the woman he married.

I think there was a lot of bad behavior that was not touched upon.

If that's all you got out of it, you weren't paying attention. It was some of the greatest standup of all time, up there with Robin Williams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you guy kidding? Raw and delirious are considered top 10 stand up specials of all time and he didn’t have the type of movies Denzel did but he was very successful in his movie career and had lots of hits

She is judging his comedy by today's Puritanical standards where nothing is funny and everything is offensive.

Wrong.

I’m in my 50s and watched his original stand-up when it came out. I thought it was funny…but I was young.

Have you rewatched it recently? It’s not that funny. A lot if it was boring. Silly.

And I’m not judging it by puritanical standards or today’s values. I love comedy and my taste skews off color/offensive/pushing limits.

Like some others deemed legendary/icons/GOATS by prior generations, subsequent talents have dramatically eclipsed him—illustrating that he was a bit overrated.

ICYMI: his stand-up career was very short-lived. He had a limited amount of material and at some point realized he needed to hang up the microphone lest he tarnish his reputation. That’s okay, but it underscores how he really wasn’t the stand-up genius some people thought. Yes, his silly movie career (a la Sandler) was quite lucrative. So much so that he could have transitioned to a more serious/quasi-serious film career (a la Sandler), but he didn’t…because his pompous and difficult reputation preceded him (along with baby mama drama and drug issues).

You are vastly underrating his early movie career by calling it "silly." 48 Hours was the start of an entire genre - the buddy cop comedy - and Beverly Hills Cop continued it along. For a time, he was one of the biggest movie stars in the US.

you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Eddie was (i) overrated and (ii) a tremendous talent who limited his career because he was an a-hole. Pick a lane.

And I'm also in his 50s, and still think the early standup was hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you guy kidding? Raw and delirious are considered top 10 stand up specials of all time and he didn’t have the type of movies Denzel did but he was very successful in his movie career and had lots of hits

She is judging his comedy by today's Puritanical standards where nothing is funny and everything is offensive.

Wrong.

I’m in my 50s and watched his original stand-up when it came out. I thought it was funny…but I was young.

Have you rewatched it recently? It’s not that funny. A lot if it was boring. Silly.

And I’m not judging it by puritanical standards or today’s values. I love comedy and my taste skews off color/offensive/pushing limits.

Like some others deemed legendary/icons/GOATS by prior generations, subsequent talents have dramatically eclipsed him—illustrating that he was a bit overrated.

ICYMI: his stand-up career was very short-lived. He had a limited amount of material and at some point realized he needed to hang up the microphone lest he tarnish his reputation. That’s okay, but it underscores how he really wasn’t the stand-up genius some people thought. Yes, his silly movie career (a la Sandler) was quite lucrative. So much so that he could have transitioned to a more serious/quasi-serious film career (a la Sandler), but he didn’t…because his pompous and difficult reputation preceded him (along with baby mama drama and drug issues).

You are vastly underrating his early movie career by calling it "silly." 48 Hours was the start of an entire genre - the buddy cop comedy - and Beverly Hills Cop continued it along. For a time, he was one of the biggest movie stars in the US.

you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Eddie was (i) overrated and (ii) a tremendous talent who limited his career because he was an a-hole. Pick a lane.

And I'm also in his 50s, and still think the early standup was hilarious.

I’m really not underestimating his early career. In fact, I think he had quick success with a number of legit films early on—so much so that he was well primed to transition into a far more substantial acting career. Heck, I said he could have transitioned to play roles like Denzel!

He always had presence. It’s what got him the SNL gig (after another black comic got it but was quickly let go) which opened the door to his two big stand up specials and movies. He was everywhere, riding a big wave of popularity.

But he had some scandals and generally burned some bridges in Hollywood, which obviously impacted his trajectory.

I’m not saying he was a failure. Rather, he could have been more successful but for his missteps and personality issues. I suspect he knows this and it probably irritates him.

His legacy is essentially a couple stand up specials that were raw and unique at the time (but not as funny as many of his successors), SNL (a handful of classic skits), and a highly profitable catalogue of movies—a few of which remain classics/solid but many of which skew silly.

Seems entirely plausible that a man of his age might look back and wish he could have been taken more seriously as an actor. Personally, I think he’s more talented than Will Smith, yet Will transitioned to a more substantial body of work than Eddie did.

Anyway, the ping of this thread is he’s put out a whitewash history…which I guess is to be expected. Everyone knows his ego is huge and he demands respect. Zero chance a more honest account of his life/career would happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the doc reference his 1997 scandal with a trans sex worker? That was the public incident that prompted him to retreat from the public for quite some time. And the sex worker died less than a year later…”falling” from a window (after selling their story to the media).

It's wild how people will straight up lie to prove their point.

Dr. Dolittle (1998)
Mulan (1998)
Bowfinger (1999)
Nutty Professor II: The Klumps (2000)
Shrek movies started in 2001.

If you google, it says he retreated from the public eye.

ICYMI: actors work on films anywhere 1-3 years before they are actually released, so he probably wrapped his work on those films before they are actually incident became public. No clue when it happened in 97 (could have been late in the year). And the real fallout didn’t come later when the trans sex worker sold their story.

Remember: in 1997 and 1998, most people didn’t have smart phones and relied on published media like The Enquirer and People magazine for celeb stories.

Anyway, it happened. And everyone knows Eddie really wasn’t working much or in the public eye for quite some time.

He’s obviously proactively trying to rewrite history and sanitize the record. I wonder why?

Ask Google to define "retired". In addition to what I already listed....

Dr. Dolittle 2 (2001)
I Spy (2002)
Showtime (2002)
The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)
Daddy Day Care (2003)
The Haunted Mansion (2003)
Norbi (2007)
Meet Dave (2008)
Imagine That (2009)
Why We Laugh: Black Comedians on Black Comedy (Documentary) (2009)
Shrek Forever After (2010)
Tower Heist (2011)
A Thousand Words (2012)......

His hiatus was 14 years after that incident, and had nothing to do with why he stepped away for those years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you guy kidding? Raw and delirious are considered top 10 stand up specials of all time and he didn’t have the type of movies Denzel did but he was very successful in his movie career and had lots of hits

She is judging his comedy by today's Puritanical standards where nothing is funny and everything is offensive.

Wrong.

I’m in my 50s and watched his original stand-up when it came out. I thought it was funny…but I was young.

Have you rewatched it recently? It’s not that funny. A lot if it was boring. Silly.

And I’m not judging it by puritanical standards or today’s values. I love comedy and my taste skews off color/offensive/pushing limits.

Like some others deemed legendary/icons/GOATS by prior generations, subsequent talents have dramatically eclipsed him—illustrating that he was a bit overrated.

ICYMI: his stand-up career was very short-lived. He had a limited amount of material and at some point realized he needed to hang up the microphone lest he tarnish his reputation. That’s okay, but it underscores how he really wasn’t the stand-up genius some people thought. Yes, his silly movie career (a la Sandler) was quite lucrative. So much so that he could have transitioned to a more serious/quasi-serious film career (a la Sandler), but he didn’t…because his pompous and difficult reputation preceded him (along with baby mama drama and drug issues).

You are vastly underrating his early movie career by calling it "silly." 48 Hours was the start of an entire genre - the buddy cop comedy - and Beverly Hills Cop continued it along. For a time, he was one of the biggest movie stars in the US.

you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Eddie was (i) overrated and (ii) a tremendous talent who limited his career because he was an a-hole. Pick a lane.

And I'm also in his 50s, and still think the early standup was hilarious.

I’m really not underestimating his early career. In fact, I think he had quick success with a number of legit films early on—so much so that he was well primed to transition into a far more substantial acting career. Heck, I said he could have transitioned to play roles like Denzel!

He always had presence. It’s what got him the SNL gig (after another black comic got it but was quickly let go) which opened the door to his two big stand up specials and movies. He was everywhere, riding a big wave of popularity.

But he had some scandals and generally burned some bridges in Hollywood, which obviously impacted his trajectory.

I’m not saying he was a failure. Rather, he could have been more successful but for his missteps and personality issues. I suspect he knows this and it probably irritates him.

His legacy is essentially a couple stand up specials that were raw and unique at the time (but not as funny as many of his successors), SNL (a handful of classic skits), and a highly profitable catalogue of movies—a few of which remain classics/solid but many of which skew silly.

Seems entirely plausible that a man of his age might look back and wish he could have been taken more seriously as an actor. Personally, I think he’s more talented than Will Smith, yet Will transitioned to a more substantial body of work than Eddie did.

Anyway, the ping of this thread is he’s put out a whitewash history…which I guess is to be expected. Everyone knows his ego is huge and he demands respect. Zero chance a more honest account of his life/career would happen.

Why do you insist on comparing Eddie and Denzel? Eddie is a stand-up comedian who transitioned into acting with no formal training. Denzel studied Drama at Fordham University (and graduated) and also spent time studying at American Conservatory Theater (ACT). Denzel started his career on Broadway. They are not similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I really enjoyed it. Learned quite a bit about Eddie and other celebrities.

OP here. I kind of enjoyed it, he came across as a really interesting guy. But then I remembered his stand up from the 80s and how it was just "f*ck this" and "mother-f*cker" etc and just was not funny (I was a very young teen)

Also I looked up his kids. The eldest three all came from different mothers, including the woman he married.

I think there was a lot of bad behavior that was not touched upon.

If that's all you got out of it, you weren't paying attention. It was some of the greatest standup of all time, up there with Robin Williams.

Quote some great lines, please. Otherwise, no. BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I really enjoyed it. Learned quite a bit about Eddie and other celebrities.

OP here. I kind of enjoyed it, he came across as a really interesting guy. But then I remembered his stand up from the 80s and how it was just "f*ck this" and "mother-f*cker" etc and just was not funny (I was a very young teen)

Also I looked up his kids. The eldest three all came from different mothers, including the woman he married.

I think there was a lot of bad behavior that was not touched upon.

If that's all you got out of it, you weren't paying attention. It was some of the greatest standup of all time, up there with Robin Williams.

Quote some great lines, please. Otherwise, no. BS.

I'm not the person you quoted and have been going back and forth with, but you’re remembering the language, not the comedy. The jokes landed because of the observations, timing, and storytelling. The words were just seasoning.

Remember his ice cream truck joke, something about how when you're a kid the ice cream truck is the highlight of your life. Every kid turns into an Olympian when they hear that music. It was funny as hell because it was so relatable. Kids nowadays won't get it, but back in the 80s , yes, the ice cream truck was EVERYTHING and made kids lose their minds. That’s why people put Eddie Murphy up there with Robin Williams. Not because of swear words, but because he was sharp, observational, and charismatic. If you only remember the profanity, you missed the point

[Anonymous]

^^^ the ice cream skit! lmao **NSFWK**

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you guy kidding? Raw and delirious are considered top 10 stand up specials of all time and he didn’t have the type of movies Denzel did but he was very successful in his movie career and had lots of hits

She is judging his comedy by today's Puritanical standards where nothing is funny and everything is offensive.

Wrong.

I’m in my 50s and watched his original stand-up when it came out. I thought it was funny…but I was young.

Have you rewatched it recently? It’s not that funny. A lot if it was boring. Silly.

And I’m not judging it by puritanical standards or today’s values. I love comedy and my taste skews off color/offensive/pushing limits.

Like some others deemed legendary/icons/GOATS by prior generations, subsequent talents have dramatically eclipsed him—illustrating that he was a bit overrated.

ICYMI: his stand-up career was very short-lived. He had a limited amount of material and at some point realized he needed to hang up the microphone lest he tarnish his reputation. That’s okay, but it underscores how he really wasn’t the stand-up genius some people thought. Yes, his silly movie career (a la Sandler) was quite lucrative. So much so that he could have transitioned to a more serious/quasi-serious film career (a la Sandler), but he didn’t…because his pompous and difficult reputation preceded him (along with baby mama drama and drug issues).

You are vastly underrating his early movie career by calling it "silly." 48 Hours was the start of an entire genre - the buddy cop comedy - and Beverly Hills Cop continued it along. For a time, he was one of the biggest movie stars in the US.

you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Eddie was (i) overrated and (ii) a tremendous talent who limited his career because he was an a-hole. Pick a lane.

And I'm also in his 50s, and still think the early standup was hilarious.

I’m really not underestimating his early career. In fact, I think he had quick success with a number of legit films early on—so much so that he was well primed to transition into a far more substantial acting career. Heck, I said he could have transitioned to play roles like Denzel!

He always had presence. It’s what got him the SNL gig (after another black comic got it but was quickly let go) which opened the door to his two big stand up specials and movies. He was everywhere, riding a big wave of popularity.

But he had some scandals and generally burned some bridges in Hollywood, which obviously impacted his trajectory.

I’m not saying he was a failure. Rather, he could have been more successful but for his missteps and personality issues. I suspect he knows this and it probably irritates him.

His legacy is essentially a couple stand up specials that were raw and unique at the time (but not as funny as many of his successors), SNL (a handful of classic skits), and a highly profitable catalogue of movies—a few of which remain classics/solid but many of which skew silly.

Seems entirely plausible that a man of his age might look back and wish he could have been taken more seriously as an actor. Personally, I think he’s more talented than Will Smith, yet Will transitioned to a more substantial body of work than Eddie did.

Anyway, the ping of this thread is he’s put out a whitewash history…which I guess is to be expected. Everyone knows his ego is huge and he demands respect. Zero chance a more honest account of his life/career would happen.

Why do you insist on comparing Eddie and Denzel? Eddie is a stand-up comedian who transitioned into acting with no formal training. Denzel studied Drama at Fordham University (and graduated) and also spent time studying at American Conservatory Theater (ACT). Denzel started his career on Broadway. They are not similar.

Eddie’s stand-up career was very overrated…and he knows it. He shrewdly went all in on movies. Smart move, but not unusual.

Fun fact: tons of comics are really aiming for movie careers or tv shows.

Nobody said Eddie and Denzel were exactly the same. But if you were paying attention, Eddie became a sex symbol and was regularly featured on mainstream magazines for a long time—at the same time he was in movies with some gravitas.

Given his wide appeal coupled with his ability to open a film, he absolutely could have done many of the roles offered to other black actors.

His arrogance and being labeled as difficult (coupled with the personal issues) created roadblocks to the career any actor would have wanted.

Anyway, you don’t need to agree. That’s okay with me. But you seem really invested in making Eddie seem more influential and important than he was. Yes, the world was looking for the next Richard Pryor…which is why he was propelled onto the national stage so quickly…but Eddie has never had the same stand-up talent as Pryor. Eddie was more like a shock jock comic who quickly dropped the mic to do movies and never looked back. That’s ok, but he really underscores that he was never a comic at the same level as Chris Rock, Chappelle, heck even Gaffigan or any other comic who lives for the stage and grinds out shows on the road for decades.

Eddie and Sandler are very similar imho: ho-hum comics who America loves for their silly movies. But Sandler seems to have avoided alienating Hollywood (as well as scandals).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I really enjoyed it. Learned quite a bit about Eddie and other celebrities.

OP here. I kind of enjoyed it, he came across as a really interesting guy. But then I remembered his stand up from the 80s and how it was just "f*ck this" and "mother-f*cker" etc and just was not funny (I was a very young teen)

Also I looked up his kids. The eldest three all came from different mothers, including the woman he married.

I think there was a lot of bad behavior that was not touched upon.

If that's all you got out of it, you weren't paying attention. It was some of the greatest standup of all time, up there with Robin Williams.

plus 1. He set the standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I really enjoyed it. Learned quite a bit about Eddie and other celebrities.

OP here. I kind of enjoyed it, he came across as a really interesting guy. But then I remembered his stand up from the 80s and how it was just "f*ck this" and "mother-f*cker" etc and just was not funny (I was a very young teen)

Also I looked up his kids. The eldest three all came from different mothers, including the woman he married.

I think there was a lot of bad behavior that was not touched upon.

If that's all you got out of it, you weren't paying attention. It was some of the greatest standup of all time, up there with Robin Williams.

plus 1. He set the standard.

Also, Robin was accused of stealing jokes many times and Eddie never did. He was brilliant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you guy kidding? Raw and delirious are considered top 10 stand up specials of all time and he didn’t have the type of movies Denzel did but he was very successful in his movie career and had lots of hits

She is judging his comedy by today's Puritanical standards where nothing is funny and everything is offensive.

Wrong.

I’m in my 50s and watched his original stand-up when it came out. I thought it was funny…but I was young.

Have you rewatched it recently? It’s not that funny. A lot if it was boring. Silly.

And I’m not judging it by puritanical standards or today’s values. I love comedy and my taste skews off color/offensive/pushing limits.

Like some others deemed legendary/icons/GOATS by prior generations, subsequent talents have dramatically eclipsed him—illustrating that he was a bit overrated.

ICYMI: his stand-up career was very short-lived. He had a limited amount of material and at some point realized he needed to hang up the microphone lest he tarnish his reputation. That’s okay, but it underscores how he really wasn’t the stand-up genius some people thought. Yes, his silly movie career (a la Sandler) was quite lucrative. So much so that he could have transitioned to a more serious/quasi-serious film career (a la Sandler), but he didn’t…because his pompous and difficult reputation preceded him (along with baby mama drama and drug issues).

You are vastly underrating his early movie career by calling it "silly." 48 Hours was the start of an entire genre - the buddy cop comedy - and Beverly Hills Cop continued it along. For a time, he was one of the biggest movie stars in the US.

you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Eddie was (i) overrated and (ii) a tremendous talent who limited his career because he was an a-hole. Pick a lane.

And I'm also in his 50s, and still think the early standup was hilarious.

I’m really not underestimating his early career. In fact, I think he had quick success with a number of legit films early on—so much so that he was well primed to transition into a far more substantial acting career. Heck, I said he could have transitioned to play roles like Denzel!

He always had presence. It’s what got him the SNL gig (after another black comic got it but was quickly let go) which opened the door to his two big stand up specials and movies. He was everywhere, riding a big wave of popularity.

But he had some scandals and generally burned some bridges in Hollywood, which obviously impacted his trajectory.

I’m not saying he was a failure. Rather, he could have been more successful but for his missteps and personality issues. I suspect he knows this and it probably irritates him.

His legacy is essentially a couple stand up specials that were raw and unique at the time (but not as funny as many of his successors), SNL (a handful of classic skits), and a highly profitable catalogue of movies—a few of which remain classics/solid but many of which skew silly.

Seems entirely plausible that a man of his age might look back and wish he could have been taken more seriously as an actor. Personally, I think he’s more talented than Will Smith, yet Will transitioned to a more substantial body of work than Eddie did.

Anyway, the ping of this thread is he’s put out a whitewash history…which I guess is to be expected. Everyone knows his ego is huge and he demands respect. Zero chance a more honest account of his life/career would happen.

Something is so odd about you comparing Eddie to the biggest and best known black actor on the planet and saying he could of been more like him. One is a comedic actor and one isn’t but you making the comparison is this weird race thing you’ve got going on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you guy kidding? Raw and delirious are considered top 10 stand up specials of all time and he didn’t have the type of movies Denzel did but he was very successful in his movie career and had lots of hits

She is judging his comedy by today's Puritanical standards where nothing is funny and everything is offensive.

Wrong.

I’m in my 50s and watched his original stand-up when it came out. I thought it was funny…but I was young.

Have you rewatched it recently? It’s not that funny. A lot if it was boring. Silly.

And I’m not judging it by puritanical standards or today’s values. I love comedy and my taste skews off color/offensive/pushing limits.

Like some others deemed legendary/icons/GOATS by prior generations, subsequent talents have dramatically eclipsed him—illustrating that he was a bit overrated.

ICYMI: his stand-up career was very short-lived. He had a limited amount of material and at some point realized he needed to hang up the microphone lest he tarnish his reputation. That’s okay, but it underscores how he really wasn’t the stand-up genius some people thought. Yes, his silly movie career (a la Sandler) was quite lucrative. So much so that he could have transitioned to a more serious/quasi-serious film career (a la Sandler), but he didn’t…because his pompous and difficult reputation preceded him (along with baby mama drama and drug issues).

You are vastly underrating his early movie career by calling it "silly." 48 Hours was the start of an entire genre - the buddy cop comedy - and Beverly Hills Cop continued it along. For a time, he was one of the biggest movie stars in the US.

you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Eddie was (i) overrated and (ii) a tremendous talent who limited his career because he was an a-hole. Pick a lane.

And I'm also in his 50s, and still think the early standup was hilarious.

I’m really not underestimating his early career. In fact, I think he had quick success with a number of legit films early on—so much so that he was well primed to transition into a far more substantial acting career. Heck, I said he could have transitioned to play roles like Denzel!

He always had presence. It’s what got him the SNL gig (after another black comic got it but was quickly let go) which opened the door to his two big stand up specials and movies. He was everywhere, riding a big wave of popularity.

But he had some scandals and generally burned some bridges in Hollywood, which obviously impacted his trajectory.

I’m not saying he was a failure. Rather, he could have been more successful but for his missteps and personality issues. I suspect he knows this and it probably irritates him.

His legacy is essentially a couple stand up specials that were raw and unique at the time (but not as funny as many of his successors), SNL (a handful of classic skits), and a highly profitable catalogue of movies—a few of which remain classics/solid but many of which skew silly.

Seems entirely plausible that a man of his age might look back and wish he could have been taken more seriously as an actor. Personally, I think he’s more talented than Will Smith, yet Will transitioned to a more substantial body of work than Eddie did.

Anyway, the ping of this thread is he’s put out a whitewash history…which I guess is to be expected. Everyone knows his ego is huge and he demands respect. Zero chance a more honest account of his life/career would happen.

Why do you insist on comparing Eddie and Denzel? Eddie is a stand-up comedian who transitioned into acting with no formal training. Denzel studied Drama at Fordham University (and graduated) and also spent time studying at American Conservatory Theater (ACT). Denzel started his career on Broadway. They are not similar.

Eddie’s stand-up career was very overrated…and he knows it. He shrewdly went all in on movies. Smart move, but not unusual.

Fun fact: tons of comics are really aiming for movie careers or tv shows.

Nobody said Eddie and Denzel were exactly the same. But if you were paying attention, Eddie became a sex symbol and was regularly featured on mainstream magazines for a long time—at the same time he was in movies with some gravitas.

Given his wide appeal coupled with his ability to open a film, he absolutely could have done many of the roles offered to other black actors.

His arrogance and being labeled as difficult (coupled with the personal issues) created roadblocks to the career any actor would have wanted.

Anyway, you don’t need to agree. That’s okay with me. But you seem really invested in making Eddie seem more influential and important than he was. Yes, the world was looking for the next Richard Pryor…which is why he was propelled onto the national stage so quickly…but Eddie has never had the same stand-up talent as Pryor. Eddie was more like a shock jock comic who quickly dropped the mic to do movies and never looked back. That’s ok, but he really underscores that he was never a comic at the same level as Chris Rock, Chappelle, heck even Gaffigan or any other comic who lives for the stage and grinds out shows on the road for decades.

Eddie and Sandler are very similar imho: ho-hum comics who America loves for their silly movies. But Sandler seems to have avoided alienating Hollywood (as well as scandals).

You know who disagrees with you? Basically every world class comic. They all name Eddie as an influence.
His bit on Italians when they go see Rocky was brilliant. His impressions, Mr t, Michael Jackson were just amazing.