Another Hack Attack On Eddie Murphy
Brooks Barnes’ NYT piece commits the ultimate sin for a journalist. It seems to purposefully avoid the facts and instead throws around snarky opinion without backup, like “That harsh sentence…is as good an example as any of the prevailing sentiment about Mr. Murphy these days.” Prevailing sentiment? Did they do a survey or did he just read a bunch of blogs?
Again… the facts… Eddie Murphy’s had two flops in a row. The three films before that grossed, worldwide, $799 million, $159 million, and $155 million.
As I wrote 10 days ago, the ONLY stars who can match that run of success in the last 2.5 years are Will Smith, Ben Stiller, Matt Damon, and depending whether you count Shrek The Third or not, Vince Vaughn.
That is why people still want to be in the Eddie Murphy business. No one cares if you hated Norbit when it grossed over $150 million.
As I also pointed out, if the New York Times is going to do stories about why actors are working, they will need to go after Clooney, Pitt, DiCaprio, Wahlberg, and pretty much everyone else also, because Eddie has delivered better than they have in the last 2.5 years… even with his two flops.
This doesn’t make Eddie a great guy to all or easy or the studios’ friend. But a movie star he still is. And one of the top 10 in the world without much doubt.
The question I always ask when a story that seems to intentionally tell only one side of the story, even quoting friends of the victim, is who wanted this story out there and why? And the answer here seems to be Brad Grey’s camp, who are working every press angle they can these days to spin the second major screwed-up in hire of a president of production at Paramount.
In addition, the Richard Pryor movie that has been kept out of the press gossip rounds for the sake of getting a deal closed, was most certainly not some sort of “we don’t like Eddie anymore” flat rejection by Paramount, but rather a personal stand-off between Murphy and Grey over a deal point taken very seriously by Murphy and which added no intrinsic value to the film, making Grey’s stubbornness equally if not more dubious. If not for this minor point, raised to a stand-off, the film would be in production right now for the studio with Murphy working for almost nothing, sharing risk with the studio.
But, for the record, Murphy has issues with Fox as well, over Meet Dave, which prevented Murphy’s dream project from landing there as well.
So the list of people and studios that Eddie refuses to work with grows. Though ironically… other studios where there have been issues on both sides would still be happy to work with him on the right project.
But forgiving and moving back into business is not Mr. Grey’s way. So now, we are getting a Tom Cruise-style smear job. Now it’s John Lesher AND Eddie Murphy’s fault that the studio has no big summer movie next year, aside from the Marvel sequel on which they get paid 8%.
(Note To Aspiring Smearers: When you are the company that released the last 3 hits, owns the most recent failure, and fears the presumed next failure and you aren’t even “no comment”ed in an attack story that you had to be called on by a legit news publication, your fingerprints get CSI-clear.)
Eddie Murphy is many problematic things. And he is in that 50-year-old range where stars find their old tricks failing them. But this effort to throw him out in the trash is simply idiotic… not my opinion… just the facts.
“As I also pointed out, if the New York Times is going to do stories about why actors are working, they will need to go after Clooney, Pitt, DiCaprio, Wahlberg, and pretty much everyone else also”
Dave,
This is a pretty stupid comment if I may say. Clooney, Pitt and DiCaprio (I’m not counting Wahlberg) are quite cleary choosing scripts based on their critical appeal and for audiences with half a brain, and not for the mass-market. Clearly they’re not trying to choose flops, but they are content with the fact that Revolutionary Road, The Assassination of Jesse James…, and Michael Clayton are not exactly going to set the world’s box office on fire. A modest return and some critical praise is exactly what they are after and, arguably, all three films delivered to at least some extent. And there’s obviously no question that all three excellent films are infinitely better than Norbit, even if they took less money.
Murphy to my knowledge has taken done taken just one quality script in the past two decades. He makes shit after shit after shit, and if someone was to ban him from making films, who cares if the people that actually go to cinemas and pay real money to see Meet Dave have to go and see some Martin Lawrence trash instead?
So the story originated with the studio.
So what? Isn’t that the game? If Eddie really cared wouldn’t he be planting his own stories. He doesn’t care. Because you’re right. He’s still a star. And will still get to make the Meet Dave’s and Norbit’s that make him happy. Eddie is what he is and clearly doesn’t care to be more. But the NY Times in no different than any other outlet. It’s all manipulation.
I’m not in the smearing business, but I have to agree with sentiment expressed by adaml. Not counting Shrek, Eddie has been in eleven films this decade, of which four got passed $100M. Norbit missed it by $5M. Not a bad batting average. But his flops have been expensive and spectacular, Meet Dave, Imagine That, I Spy, Showtime, and of course, Pluto Nash, all coming in under $50M, with 3 under 20M. Ouch!
At the start of his career his first bomb was Best Defense at 19M, followed by his biggest non shrek hit, Beverly Hills Cop 1 at 234M. The guy had some serious juice when you can get your live concert to $50m.
Now his hits barely make it past the 100M mark, and Dreamgirls was as much off of a hot Jamie Foxx as it was Eddie Murphy. He’s receiving such criticism from some, at least me, because I truly like the guy, and he can do much better than Norbit. 48hours, BHC 1&2, Raw, Coming to America. The guy used to make some of the best R Rated films in the industry. Where did he go? Even his early kiddie stuff like Nutty Professor and Dr.Dolittle showed flashes that that foul mouthed comic was just simmering under the surface.
I want the old Eddie back.
I just remembered, I was 19 years old when Raw came out, and was working at a retail electronics store. We use to tun the Raw VHS over and over and over again. Ironically, one of the best lines was when he said that you may think Micheal Jackson is weak but he “maybe a bad mother fucker behind closed doors.”
Classic lines like:
“suck my dick eddie..you black mother fucker”,
“you jello pudding eating mother fucker”,
“african bush bitch with a bone in her nose, and a big fucked up afro”
ahhh good times, good times.
Funny, I just had a convo with a friend this morning about how Eddie Murphy is still a star since 48 HOURS. That’s pretty incredible. Only Hanks, Cruise and Eastwood can lay that claim. I think Murphy is a genius and I wish he could get his stand-up groove back.
I agree with bulldog68. The negative sentiment is not due to his overall track record, but the number of conspicuous flops.
I think the definition of a “star” is one who gets a large fee, say over $10 million, and can consistently make that fee back on opening weekend. I don’t think Eddie has been doing that consistently, so I’d agree with the NYT writer that his star is not shining particularly bright now. I do think that in the right project, with the right marketing, Eddie could still lead a hit movie. But a current “star” can grab that solid opening even if the marketing is kind of a miss.
The problem with modern American/Western Journalism:
Perception is more important than fact. Articles are written based off polls and kneejerk reactions to something still clearly in their line of sight forgetting everything in the peripheral and ignoring what’s behind them.
It’s annoying.
The above posters are correct. The issue is not so much Eddie’s bankability, as his apparent indifferent attitude to his career and his audience. Simply put, he is no longer hungry. Robin Williams, Jim Carrey, and even Adam Sandler have all shown an eagerness to work outside their comfort zone. But can you ever picture Eddie Murphy working with P.T. Anderson or Peter Weir?
Wally, that is absolutely part of it. It’s like the press punishes Eddie because he does movies like Daddy Day Care.
He is perceivedas more of a ‘failure’ that Brad Pitt or George Clooney because they take risks and work outside the creative box.
Why hasn’t Spike Lee hit up Murphy?
A sobering thought: If you concede that Humphrey Bogart didn’t become a star until, at the earliest, The Petrified Forest (1936), then Eddie Murphy has been a movie star longer than Humphrey Bogart was a movie star. And he’s closing in on Clark Gable. Seriously.
Of course, to be fair, Bogart was barely 57 when passed on. (The same age I’ll be in August, another reason to make me feel like a failure.) But Eddie Murphy is now 48. And I’d be willing to bet that, ten years from now, he’ll still be top-lining movies.
“Only Hanks, Cruise and Eastwood can lay that claim.”
Christian, Jack Nicholson’s on line 1.
Oh shit.
Uh, Jack, baby! I didn’t leave you out…I just thought, we all know Jack is movie gorilla…
Jack? Put down the bat.
He may be damaged goods but Mad Max crashed onto screens 30 years ago. Mel will be back, no doubt about it. Could you imagine Mel in a Bay film. A frenetic director and a frenetic actor. Man, the camera will never stop moving.
Spike Lee working with Eddie Murphy would be great, but at this point I’d settle for a Murphy trying a real dramatic acting gig from Tyler Perry.
Norbit vs. Madea. In 3-D IMAX.
Little late to the party and kind of a side issue, but since Murphy’s standup has been name-checked:
I persist in thinking “Norbit” was both pretty funny and the closest Murphy’s come in ages to mining some of the childhood/familial material from the Delirious and Raw concert movies.
And about those: I’ve been rewatching Delirious a bit lately, and while his swagger, confidence and timing are IMPECCABLE and it’s full of classic bits and a prime example of a comic in *total* command of his audience…
Anyone else ever think Murphy’s socio-historic importance *as a standup* is just mildly overstated? Again, I was and am a big fan of Murphy in general and his standup in particular. But even Eddie himself on the special features always makes a point to credit Pryor and admits Pryor’s first concert movie is the gold standard.
Just Eddie ALWAYS ranks in the top two or three whenever they talk about the greatest comics ever, but when you watch it, it’s (hilarious but fairly innocuous) stuff about eating ice cream cones or Ralph and Norton fucking or his uncle taking over the BBQ. I know he was a young guy and hadn’t lived the life Pryor had, but Pryor’s material would be some of the saddest, bleakest, most painful stuff in the world if it hadn’t been so funny… just really self-exposing and dark stuff, fraught with anger and politics and soul-baring honesty.
Not taking anything away from Murphy, but when people consistently talk up Delirious or Raw, they’re great but not even in the same ballpark as Live in Concert, as Murphy himself freely admits. Chris Rock, Cedric, Martin Lawrence and Katt Williams are all on the new Delirious disc spinning that it’s THE best standup show ever and was the biggest influence on them. While I understand and don’t doubt the latter, as Murphy was a galvanizing figure to just about everybody in his heyday, I have to disagree with the former.
As far as “THE best standup show ever and was the biggest influence on them.”
I’d certainly say that there have been better since then, but in large part because the filming of such shows has helped others step up their game.
Just personal preference, but I think Rock’s ’96 special (the one about OJ, and with “I don’t need to know THAT shit!” and The Tossed Salad Man among other things – Bring the Pain?) surpasses Murphy and veers closer to the charged, incendiary Pryor vibe. Chappelle, too.
And of course Dice’s THE DICEMAN COMETH and DANE COOK VICIOUS CIRCLE.
DELIRIOUS is brilliant and RAW is Murphy in MJ mode. Wearing an outfit he woulda laughed at in BEVERLY HILLS COP.
I loved the social commentary Pryor made and love his material but even w/out that Eddie made me wet my pants. Who else could do that w/subjets less profound?
I think Pryor channeled the rage of the 60’s/70’s while Murphy reflected the pop cultural tenor of the 80’s. And he remains one of the top Jerry Lewis mimics.