PmUmdGsdK9g

From beloved goofball to…the same guy he always was but without a way to hide it. What exactly destroyed this man’s career? It may not be what you think it is.

On a positive note the content creator attempted to offer a reasoned position, and did make note of a most amazing career blunder, but overall there are too many things wrong with this production to give it a passing grade.

The video creator mentioned he had been sitting on it for about a year before releasing it so in all that time you would have thought he might have caught a glaring error involving Ed O'Neill, who he discusses at length. He referred to O'Neill as Ed Harris twice, how could a mistake like that not be caught. He further asserted that O'Neill was pulled from a "drama movie" because the test audience yelled Al Bundy. OK, I didn't know this, what was the name of that picture.

He also makes the absurd statement that the film UHF brought Orion pictures. The film didn't do as well as expected but Orion had some very big failures the year UHF came out, this statement is a complete misstatement of facts.

With a run time of over 18 minutes the video takes too long to make its point, instead of just sticking with the Seinfeld years and beyond, the creator goes off on tangents about the film UHF and Richards unhappiness with his part, compares Richards career to Ed O'Neill (who he calls Ed Harris) there were just too many detours.

One aspect of Richards career that he did not discuss and I think was a big factor in Richards post-Seinfeld career was Richards age. Michael was just a month shy of his 49th birthday when the series finished, hardly a kid and roles start becoming a little harder to come by. Julia and Jason were still in their 30's so comparing him to his costars is a little unfair.

The biggest factor of course was his failure to take the role of Monk. I don't know who was managing his career, but that was beyond stupid. I actually thought they should have replaced Peter Falk with Michael for the final two Columbo movies made in 2000 and 2003. Falk was much too old to play the part by that time and it killed the franchise.

I was on the road constantly while The Michael Richards show made its brief 8 episode appearance. Now after catching the pilot and others on YouTube, I can't help wondering what the Larry David magic touch. would have done. I know the laugh track would be replaced by the kind used on Seinfeld. Michael should have played more like Michael, and less like Cosmo.

On a positive note the content creator attempted to offer a reasoned position, and did make note of a most amazing career blunder, but overall there are too many things wrong with this production to give it a passing grade.

The video creator mentioned he had been sitting on it for about a year before releasing it so in all that time you would have thought he might have caught a glaring error involving Ed O'Neill, who he discusses at length. He referred to O'Neill as Ed Harris twice, how could a mistake like that not be caught. He further asserted that O'Neill was pulled from a "drama movie" because the test audience yelled Al Bundy. OK, I didn't know this, what was the name of that picture.

He also makes the absurd statement that the film UHF brought Orion pictures. The film didn't do as well as expected but Orion had some very big failures the year UHF came out, this statement is a complete misstatement of facts.

With a run time of over 18 minutes the video takes too long to make its point, instead of just sticking with the Seinfeld years and beyond, the creator goes off on tangents about the film UHF and Richards unhappiness with his part, compares Richards career to Ed
O'Neill (who he calls Ed Harris) there were just too many detours.

One aspect of Richards career that he did not discuss and I think was a big factor in Richards post-Seinfeld career was Richards age. Michael was just a month shy of his 49th birthday when the series finished, hardly a kid and roles start becoming a little harder to come by. Julia and Jason were till in their 30's so comparing him to his costars is a little unfair.

The biggest factor of course was his failure to take the role of Monk. I don't know who was managing his career, but that was beyond stupid. I actually thought they should have replaced Peter Falk with Michael for the final two Columbo movies made in 2000 and 2003. Falk was much too old to play the part by that time and it killed the franchise.Peter Falk is the one and only Columbo. I am glad no one has attempted to remake it starring someone else. Was Michael Richards really offered the role of Monk?

Peter Falk is the one and only Columbo. I am glad no one has attempted to remake it starring someone else. Was Michael Richards really offered the role of Monk?

There was a bonus feature on the DVD release titled the "Origins of Monk" that supplied this fact.