Move Over Pissed On Jesus, It's Michael Richards' Turn On TMZ

[Hey Man]

For the record, it was funny as hell.

http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/17/kramer-turns-racist-rant-into-a-joke/#comments

Richards made light of the rant on this weekend's episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm." During one of the scenes, Richards -- playing himself -- blows his top at an African-American character, saying, "If only there were a horrible name that I could call you ... that would make you as angry as I am."

A group of spectators who witness the tirade instantly whip out their cell phones and begin to record. Richards, realizing the similarity of events, screams and bolts.

Couple of problems here: First off, the original tirade was shot on a DIGITAL CAMERA -- not a cell phone.

Second: Is Richards mocking himself ... or the digital-recording culture that exposed his greatest mistake? In other words, is Richards and "Curb" trying to make a bad joke out of a serious situation?

[NuclearMisfit]

This is the 2nd thread about an event that happened on that tv show. Wouldnt this be considered a plotline? Maybe hes trying to save face and poke fun of himself. Not that offensive to me.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Hey Man,

What?

Signed,
Bubba

[john_rambo]

Why do I get the feeling this is going to be another 36 page argument with hey man that ends up playing out like an episode of the show that made Michael Richards famous?

[Smiert Spionam]

:rolleyes:

[Mr.HyDe807]

Wow, I guess TMZ thinks we can't think for ourselves, because what is being shown is pretty fucking blatant.:rolleyes:

[Hey Man]

Hey Man,

What?

Signed,
Bubba

What is your question Sir Bubba?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Leon wearing that bowtie thinking he'd come off as Jewish was way funnier than Michael Richards poking fun at himself.

[BubbaStrangelove]

What is your question Sir Bubba?

To understand my question, we must first ensure that I understand what you are trying to convey in your original post.

Am I correct that your original post poses 2 questions, although you touched on them in an incongruous order with the posing of questions?

As such:

Question 1, in 2 parts) Why did they use a cell phone instead of an actual digital camera in order to more authenticate the actual event the episode was spoofing? Was this an attempt to poke fun at the prevalence of camera phone usage and how they capture celebrities in awkward situations?

Question 2) Michael Richards, a few years back, was publicized as having a meltdown on a comedy stage in which he became angry at a heckler, who was of a different race, and in response used defamatory language with racial connotations.

Recently, he appeared in an episode of a farcical sitcom that is often described as being satirical and parodical. In this episode, he portrayed himself being on a comedy stage in which he confronted a heckler, who was of a different race, and said that he wished he had the language to convey how angry he was.

Was this intended to be a joke making fun of Richard's real-life situation?


Is this correct? Was this what you were asking?

[CyclicNightmare]

He was just quoting the article.

[BubbaStrangelove]

After looking into it more, I get it now.

He was just quoting the article.

[NuclearMisfit]

After looking into it more, I get it now.

He was just quoting the article.

After further speculation I concluded.

He was just quoting the article

[Smiert Spionam]

And this is why no one goes to TMZ...

[Hey Man]

To understand my question, we must first ensure that I understand what you are trying to convey in your original post.

Am I correct that your original post poses 2 questions, although you touched on them in an incongruous order with the posing of questions?

As such:

Question 1, in 2 parts) Why did they use a cell phone instead of an actual digital camera in order to more authenticate the actual event the episode was spoofing? Was this an attempt to poke fun at the prevalence of camera phone usage and how they capture celebrities in awkward situations?

Question 2) Michael Richards, a few years back, was publicized as having a meltdown on a comedy stage in which he became angry at a heckler, who was of a different race, and in response used defamatory language with racial connotations.

Recently, he appeared in an episode of a farcical sitcom that is often described as being satirical and parodical. In this episode, he portrayed himself being on a comedy stage in which he confronted a heckler, who was of a different race, and said that he wished he had the language to convey how angry he was.

Was this intended to be a joke making fun of Richard's real-life situation?


Is this correct? Was this what you were asking?

I did not write this - TMZ did as per my link.

[SkyNet]

i watched the episode (as i never miss an episode of Curb) and i found it to be one of the funniest episodes!

When Richards opens the door and Smoove is standing there and he says "Oh come on.. it's been 3 years" i was laughing my ass off!

and then in the end, when he had that rant on Smoove and the phones came out, i was dying... perfect venue for that perfect self mocking thing!

FOr the record i never really blamed RIchards for his rant... when you get pissed off at someone, you will think of the the worst thing you can call them that will get them as pissed as they have made you. Granted a bit more self restraint should have been exhibited, but i understood.

and i thought him mocking himself on Curb was excellent and was glad that Richards agreed do actually do that plot line! Kudos

[ProgWizardry]

I actually thought it was pretty tame. Larry David can write much better material than this(such as "The Ski Lift" episode).

The funniest part of the episode was Jerry's reaction when Larry asks the executive producer how her daughter's "pussy" is.

[BubbaStrangelove]

I hear you Hey Man! Sometimes things are unclear when quoting TMZ.com

http://www.tmz.com/2007/11/05/copperfield-secret-document-how-to-pick-up-chicks/14

It's not against the law to try to get laid.

Still, it's funny shit.