Grantland so far

This is going to be very polarizing between generalizations. It's inevitable, because those of us who remember the '80s Murphy are going to have a dramatically different opinion of him than those who don't.

He's one of those celebrities who lived out his life the way I'm surprised more celebrities don't. He made it to the mountaintop and realized he didn't have to bust his ass quite so much anymore. It's the old question, "How much money and fame is enough?"

Most significant in the chasm between twentysomethings, thirtysomethings and the previous generation is Murphy's significance to Saturday Night Live. And that's not just because Murphy was the best SNL performer in history. It's because SNL's place in pop history itself is heightened for those of us who remember the show at its best. And Murphy's place in SNL's history assures him of historical significance.

You know we have a thread called "SNL's Continued Downward Spiral Thread." There are people who think the plug should just be pulled on the show. And that's simply blasphemy to people who had their comedy tastes formed by the SNL of the '80s.

There are arguments about the "Nutty Professor"? To my generation, that's just not even a consideration when you have "Trading Places" (which I consider to be a GREAT movie) and "Beverly Hills Cop" and "48 HRS." I mean, really. Chris Farley's resume just doesn't begin to stand up to that.

Eddie Murphy is one of the greatest comedic actors in history. I can understand why someone who's 25, 30 doesn't appreciate his scope and talent. But that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

 

Chris Farley's resume doesn't compare at all to some of the other great comics, but saying he was talentless is ridiculous. Physical comedy is really hard, and if you watch that Chippendales sketch or the Matt Foley sketch or much of Tommy Boy, it's obvious he had an innate sense of timing and presence. He gets dissed for trying to hard to emulate Belushi's career -- right down to the self-destructive end -- but he was definitely talented and fearless in a lot of ways.

 

Eddie Murphy's resume can't stand up to Richard Pryor's.

 

Zeke, it's a difficult argument, mainly because Murphy owed a lot to the trail-blazing Pryor did before him. If there was no "Richard Pryor: Live In Concert," for instance, I don't know if there is "Delirious."

But, I respectfully disagree that Murphy's resume is in any way inferior to that of Pryor. I'd go as far as to suggest that you're remembering Pryor as being even more than he was, which was quite a lot.

Look at the movies. Pryor: "Uptown Saturday Night," "Silver Streak," "Stir Crazy," "Jo Jo Dancer." I'd argue that that part of it is fairly close -- perhaps a lean to Pryor.

"Delirious," again, was the state of the art in stand-up. I loved "Live In Concert," but it did not have the widespread acclaim or wide following as Murphy's best. "Delirious" made Murphy a rock star to an extent that Pryor never knew. To dispute that would be revisionist history.

And again, you simply cannot overestimate Murphy's impact through Saturday Night Live. He saved that show. And he made the black comedian a factor on that show, too. (I'd say apologies to Garrett Morris, but Garrett Morris can't even make it into that conversation.)

Pryor -- even with "dead honky" -- can't make any such claim. If nothing else, that tilts career resume in Murphy's direction.

 

The Tranny or the Klumps?

 

MC, who is "better" or "first" is always a valid debate.

And yes, his low point is lower than some other greats. Lower than "most"? Doug Stanhope and Carrothead are still cashing paychecks.

 

True, but they were never that great either. To steal a math term, the range of Eddie Murphy's quality in movies is just vast. Tons of just absolute dreck that made money (all the Daddy Daycare stuff), to really good stuff (Beverly Hills Cop, Trading Places) to absolute dreck that bombed (Pluto Nash) to being an essential complimentary piece (Dreamgirls, Shrek).

 

Which brings us back to the argument that what Eddie Murphy had accomplished by the age of 25 was enough to make him an icon, pretty much regardless of what he did from age 26 on.

 

Ah. Cool.

 

Eddie Murphy did essentially save SNL. The story in "Live from New York" is that they the network brass were going to cancel it if they couldn't get him to come back after he had become a movie star (on the strength of 48 Hrs.) The legend goes that some HAM radio operator was able to pick up a signal of a phone call that NBC brass was having about this and relay the message back to Murphy's people, who knew they have SNL's balls in a vice and squeezed them for everything they could get.

I have no idea if that story's true, but he was the only cast member to receive massive special concessions to remain on the show. For that last season, they basically pre-taped three or four hours worth of "live" bits that they could insert into shows to keep him "part of the cast" without requiring to be there most weeks. If you watch reruns and see the cast come out at the end, you'll notice he isn't there most of the time even though there was a Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood in the show.

 

"They are a team with one gear — losing — and they were blown away by a team with a second gear — barely competing."

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7810105/the-charlotte-bobcats-lost-detroit-pistons-thursday-night-another-unwatchable-nba-game

Bumping this because I really hope they do this for baseball and football.

 

I don't know why the site would. I'm sure this was the lark of an editor who also wants to push some obscure book he's about to publish.

Edit: Yep.