Eddie Murphy Bio on netflix

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

?

They both got famous at the same time in the early 80s, and they both competed for the Alex Haley role in Spike’s Malcolm X movie.

I mean, they were contemporaries who competed for roles…until Denzel eclipsed him.

ICYMI: Eddie wanted to be a serious actor…but he fell short.

Connect the dots that myriad commentators already have: Eddie went all in on the family film schmaltz following his scandal and because he was losing his audience, positive press, etc. Plus: once he was labeled as difficult to work with, he was shut out of some work.

Perhaps refresh your memory of the 80s and 90s when it comes to Eddie and Denzel, pp?

I think you are only comparing them because of their physical and ethnic background.

They are very different types of actors

Denzel is a serious actor and one of the most talented actors of any ethnic background from the past 30-40 years.

Eddie Murphy is a comedian who is a strong comedic actor, doing light fluff movies.

Comparing the two of them is akin to saying that Will Ferrel or John Belushi would have been the next Anthony Hopkins or Colin Firth.

No one would ever compare Eddie and Denzel as peer actors.

It's like picking two randos out of a hat where the only similarity is a an appearance feature

Exacty. It’s really bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As previous posters have already stated, OPs assessment of Eddie Murphy’s career and comparison to Denzel is very odd. Almost proves the doc’s theory about “there can only be one.”

Ok just to clear this up, I am the OP and I definitely did NOT make the comparison between those two men. I only said, once it had been suggested that they were both very beautiful to look at - and basically the comparison ends there for me.

It ends there for everyone and both were great in different areas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eddie Murphy has always been a family man. He made an insane amount of money in the eighties and nineties; he came from nothing and was able to give everything to his kids and extended family members. He got comfortable, which is ok to do and be. I can’t imagine how it must have been to see so many Friends, die of drug overdoses and alcoholism and lose all of their money I’m certain between his brother and uncle Ray and other family members. He just didn’t wanna lose it all so after a certain level of success, he backed off of fame for a while. I don’t think anybody should knock that.

A family man???

He had children with multiple women, was routinely involved in paternity tests due to lawsuits, screwed over Mel B and his daughter, had a public scandal with a trans sex worker who died under mysterious circumstances less than a year following the incident, etc.

Plus, he had decades long beef with many people in Hollywood, was labeled arrogant and difficult to work with, etc.

Plenty of commentary online about his real life and career over the last 40+ years.

PS - Sidney Poitier dissuaded him from dramatic film roles by saying there’s only one Denzel and Eddie should stay in his lane with the silly comedy roles. So, at least one other person recognized the fact that both Eddie and Denzel were contemporaries competing for the same roles as they both shot to fame in the 80s at the exact same time.

[Anonymous]

To the above poster, I think that’s mixing a few things together. Eddie and Denzel really weren’t competing for the same roles in the 80s. Hollywood didn’t see them as interchangeable at all. Eddie was the biggest comedy star on the planet, while Denzel was coming up through serious dramatic and theater-based roles.

Poitier wasn’t saying Eddie couldn’t do drama, he was warning him about typecasting and the industry’s limited imagination at the time. Eddie later proved he could handle dramatic work (Dreamgirls). He talked about how he really enjoyed the role because he had never done anything like it before, it was different for him.

Denzel and Eddie valued different things. Denzel built his career around dramatic legacy. Eddie built one around independence, and staying power. Neither is wrong, they’re just different paths.

[Anonymous]

Im the above poster, I’m a big fan of both Denzel and Eddie, and have seen most of their movies but this comparison is ridiculous. I won’t be responding about it again.

[Anonymous]

If you don’t think Eddie regrets not broadening his career into more dramatic roles—particularly after being eclipsed/replaced by Tyler Perry (who used Eddie’s playbook and then elevated it into an empire, achieving what Eddie never could), that’s okay.

But I guarantee you Eddie has regrets…and compares himself to all the usual suspect black actors from his day and ever since.

[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.

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

?

They both got famous at the same time in the early 80s, and they both competed for the Alex Haley role in Spike’s Malcolm X movie.

I mean, they were contemporaries who competed for roles…until Denzel eclipsed him.

ICYMI: Eddie wanted to be a serious actor…but he fell short.

Connect the dots that myriad commentators already have: Eddie went all in on the family film schmaltz following his scandal and because he was losing his audience, positive press, etc. Plus: once he was labeled as difficult to work with, he was shut out of some work.

Perhaps refresh your memory of the 80s and 90s when it comes to Eddie and Denzel, pp?

The following have been widely reported to be difficult to work with, and yet they were not and have not been shut out of work. Hm, I wonder why Eddie has been singled out.
Bruce Willis
Jack Nicholson
Jared Leto
Val Kilmer
Ed Norton
Marlon Brando
Tom Cruise
Gene Hackman
And others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

?

They both got famous at the same time in the early 80s, and they both competed for the Alex Haley role in Spike’s Malcolm X movie.

I mean, they were contemporaries who competed for roles…until Denzel eclipsed him.

ICYMI: Eddie wanted to be a serious actor…but he fell short.

Connect the dots that myriad commentators already have: Eddie went all in on the family film schmaltz following his scandal and because he was losing his audience, positive press, etc. Plus: once he was labeled as difficult to work with, he was shut out of some work.

Perhaps refresh your memory of the 80s and 90s when it comes to Eddie and Denzel, pp?

The following have been widely reported to be difficult to work with, and yet they were not and have not been shut out of work. Hm, I wonder why Eddie has been singled out.
Bruce Willis
Jack Nicholson
Jared Leto
Val Kilmer
Ed Norton
Marlon Brando
Tom Cruise
Gene Hackman
And others.

But Eddie has worked consistently hi entire career, and far more than many of the actors on this list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Also, Relevant to this discussion, there was the bit where Bill Cosby called Eddie and scolded him for using profanity" "I would like to talk to youuuuuu . . . "

And Richard Pryor's response: "Do the people laugh? Yes. Do you get paid? Yes. Then tell Bill to have a Coke and a smile and shut the F up . . .

[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).

If by overrated, you mean he had two of the most popular and well-known stand up routines of all time, then sure. There are obviously no objective metrics to judge what is overrated or not, so you are free to keep proclaiming it to your heart's content. But it's just your opinion, and I'm guessing it's a distinct minority opinion.

You seem to hold it against him that he didn't in your words, "grind out shows on the road for decades." Why on earth would he do that? It's a brutally tough life. I'll bet that any comic who supposedly "lives for the stage" would trade that life in a heartbeat for Eddie's career. He's had a better career than all of the people you mention - wildly successful at stand-up, star of some iconic movies early in his career, one of the most recognizable voice acting roles of all time, and then the "silly movies" you mention, while conveniently ignoring the rest of his career. But when people think of Eddie Murphy, no one thinks of the Nutty Professor or the Clumps.

As for him being influential and important, I have no particular dog in that hunt, but I do like to challenge idiocy when I read it. To just name two things, he pioneered the buddy cop movie, and and is mentioned by an entire generation of comics as being a significant influence on their careers. What more to you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t think Eddie regrets not broadening his career into more dramatic roles—particularly after being eclipsed/replaced by Tyler Perry (who used Eddie’s playbook and then elevated it into an empire, achieving what Eddie never could), that’s okay.

But I guarantee you Eddie has regrets…and compares himself to all the usual suspect black actors from his day and ever since.

Now he wants to be Tyler Perry? 😂

Did you know that Eddie Murphy compared Tyler Perry to Rudy Rae Moore? He is a performer/filmmaker known for blaxploitation comedies (hugely popular in the 70s). His point was that Tyler Perry, like Rudy Rae Moore, built a grassroots audience and succeeded by believing in his work and grinding it out. Just like Rudy Rae Moore did. Even when others didn’t believe. He said Tyler Perry didn’t have industry advantages early on, yet still made it and became hugely successful.

Also, did you know that Tyler Perry credited Eddie Murphy’s portrayal of multiple characters (especially female ones like Mama Klump in Nutty Professor II) as an inspiration for his creation of Madea.

Maybe, Murphy has regrets. I bet a lot of his peers have them too, there’s nothing unusual about that. But this made up beef that you think Eddie Murphy has with Tyler Perry is weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t think Eddie regrets not broadening his career into more dramatic roles—particularly after being eclipsed/replaced by Tyler Perry (who used Eddie’s playbook and then elevated it into an empire, achieving what Eddie never could), that’s okay.

But I guarantee you Eddie has regrets…and compares himself to all the usual suspect black actors from his day and ever since.

Now he wants to be Tyler Perry? 😂

Did you know that Eddie Murphy compared Tyler Perry to Rudy Rae Moore? He is a performer/filmmaker known for blaxploitation comedies (hugely popular in the 70s). His point was that Tyler Perry, like Rudy Rae Moore, built a grassroots audience and succeeded by believing in his work and grinding it out. Just like Rudy Rae Moore did. Even when others didn’t believe. He said Tyler Perry didn’t have industry advantages early on, yet still made it and became hugely successful.

Also, did you know that Tyler Perry credited Eddie Murphy’s portrayal of multiple characters (especially female ones like Mama Klump in Nutty Professor II) as an inspiration for his creation of Madea.

Maybe, Murphy has regrets. I bet a lot of his peers have them too, there’s nothing unusual about that. But this made up beef that you think Eddie Murphy has with Tyler Perry is weird.

Um, yes…everyone knows Tyler Perry used Eddie’s playbook to launch his own career in comedy films—precisely by doing characters in the same vein. (As stated earlier in the thread.)

It’s interesting how many Eddie-stans are in Dcumlandia…and seemingly don’t remember Eddie’s history.

Perhaps the one-sided glowing documentary wasn’t needed after all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t think Eddie regrets not broadening his career into more dramatic roles—particularly after being eclipsed/replaced by Tyler Perry (who used Eddie’s playbook and then elevated it into an empire, achieving what Eddie never could), that’s okay.

But I guarantee you Eddie has regrets…and compares himself to all the usual suspect black actors from his day and ever since.

Now you just lost the plot talmbout Tyler Perry so I will no longer be responding in this thread either. Girl bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

If by overrated, you mean he had two of the most popular and well-known stand up routines of all time, then sure. There are obviously no objective metrics to judge what is overrated or not, so you are free to keep proclaiming it to your heart's content. But it's just your opinion, and I'm guessing it's a distinct minority opinion.

You seem to hold it against him that he didn't in your words, "grind out shows on the road for decades." Why on earth would he do that? It's a brutally tough life. I'll bet that any comic who supposedly "lives for the stage" would trade that life in a heartbeat for Eddie's career. He's had a better career than all of the people you mention - wildly successful at stand-up, star of some iconic movies early in his career, one of the most recognizable voice acting roles of all time, and then the "silly movies" you mention, while conveniently ignoring the rest of his career. But when people think of Eddie Murphy, no one thinks of the Nutty Professor or the Clumps.

As for him being influential and important, I have no particular dog in that hunt, but I do like to challenge idiocy when I read it. To just name two things, he pioneered the buddy cop movie, and and is mentioned by an entire generation of comics as being a significant influence on their careers. What more to you want?

Dig a little deeper, perhaps?

Eddie had precisely two comedy specials. He strategically leveraged them to propel him into films and stardom, and summarily dismissed stand-up for good. He dressed in Elvis-esque leather jumpsuits and styled himself as a rockstar. He even went so far as to release a music album.

Eddie took the “throw spaghetti against the wall” approach to fame and shrewdly stayed in his comedy film lane which is what everyone remembers. But what many of you seemed to miss is that he wanted more. He wanted to be a serious actor. He tried…hard. He positioned himself as a sex symbol (remember the topless posters?) and aggressively pursued more substantial roles.

Anyway, it’s really strange how some refuse to remember history…or ignore decades of what has been written about him or come out of his own mouth.

And where are the feminists? I mean, this guy has a really, really bad track record with women and his own children (never mind the dead trans sex worker).

Re: his icon comedy rep - it is well deserved for his movies, and his 2 stand-up specials were huge for the time, but history should not hail him as one of the great stand-ups (just like Sandler shouldn’t be hailed as a great stand-up). He did two shows then gave it up. The shows were so big for myriad reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t think Eddie regrets not broadening his career into more dramatic roles—particularly after being eclipsed/replaced by Tyler Perry (who used Eddie’s playbook and then elevated it into an empire, achieving what Eddie never could), that’s okay.

But I guarantee you Eddie has regrets…and compares himself to all the usual suspect black actors from his day and ever since.

Now he wants to be Tyler Perry? 😂

Did you know that Eddie Murphy compared Tyler Perry to Rudy Rae Moore? He is a performer/filmmaker known for blaxploitation comedies (hugely popular in the 70s). His point was that Tyler Perry, like Rudy Rae Moore, built a grassroots audience and succeeded by believing in his work and grinding it out. Just like Rudy Rae Moore did. Even when others didn’t believe. He said Tyler Perry didn’t have industry advantages early on, yet still made it and became hugely successful.

Also, did you know that Tyler Perry credited Eddie Murphy’s portrayal of multiple characters (especially female ones like Mama Klump in Nutty Professor II) as an inspiration for his creation of Madea.

Maybe, Murphy has regrets. I bet a lot of his peers have them too, there’s nothing unusual about that. But this made up beef that you think Eddie Murphy has with Tyler Perry is weird.

Um, yes…everyone knows Tyler Perry used Eddie’s playbook to launch his own career in comedy films—precisely by doing characters in the same vein. (As stated earlier in the thread.)

It’s interesting how many Eddie-stans are in Dcumlandia…and seemingly don’t remember Eddie’s history.

Perhaps the one-sided glowing documentary wasn’t needed after all?

We know his history, we just don’t agree that he’s comparable to Denzel, jealous of Tyler Perry, overrated, failed in his career, or kicked out of Hollywood.

I did not watch the documentary and I’m too old to be anyone’s “stan”.