you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 105 points 1 year ago* (22 children)

Jesus fucking Christ. What a cretin Seinfeld is.

Based Inigo Montoyo, at least.

In a July 2025 New York Times interview with his wife Grody, Patinkin was critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's policies during the Gaza War, arguing that his actions are "endangering the Jewish population all over the world" and that "to watch what is happening, for the Jewish people to allow this to happen to children and civilians of all ages in Gaza, for whatever reason, is unconscionable and unthinkable."[64][65][66]

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Can't express my relief that he's a good guy. Having a complicated relationship with The Princess Bride would break me tbh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You could just enjoy the movie regardless of what one actor might think?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    The personality of the actor always outweighs the role they play in movies for me. I love the original Mission Impossible as a kid, but that was destroyed when the story was appropriated by scientology.

    No matter how "good" a character is in the movies, it's ruined by knowing the person playing that character is a complete douche.

    The problem for me is not what it seems though. I love good movies and part of that experience is complete and total immersion in the quality of the filming, acting, visual effects, sound and storyline. It's almost a hypnotic state and it doesn't take much for me to get distracted. A complete jackass of an actor is a distraction.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Wild that George and Elaine are the best humans of those four when they were arguably the worst in the show. Fuck Jerry, fuck Michael Richards, and even though he’s otherwise been ok fuck Larry for the crytpo shilling

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    I’ve posted this elsewhere, I don’t think Richards is a piece of shit like Seinfeld.

    The Michael Richards incident was a literal one time event, albeit a terrible one. There were zero instances before and zero instances after that suggest Richards is racist. Everything since then Michaels has done suggests he’s exceedingly remorseful over it.

    I am not excusing it in the least, but I don’t think it’s even close to fair to compare him to someone currently supporting the genocide in Palestine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Is it even close to publicly supporting a genocide? Hell no. Is it something a non-racist person would ever even think to say? Also hell no.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    So you excuse Seinfeld here, but still hold Richards 100% accountable?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Also a hell no. In fact what are you talking about? What did I say that you feel implied that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Is it [Seinfeld’s comments] even close to publicly supporting a genocide? Hell no.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    It looks to me like what they're referring to is Michael Richards tirade being uncomparable to Jerry's comments that were supporting the genocide. That's how I read it, anyway.

    But I mean he (Richards) was talking about lynching the guy at the Laugh Factory, so even as far as racism goes, that's pretty fucking up there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    It looks to me like what they're referring to is Michael Richards tirade being uncomparable to Jerry's comments that were supporting the genocide. That's how I read it, anyway.

    That’s what I’m saying too. Seinfeld’s comments were made in a more calm matter, but were way way way worse than Richards’.

    But I mean he (Richards) was talking about lynching the guy at the Laugh Factory, so even as far as racism goes, that's pretty fucking up there.

    I don’t recall the lynching comments, only the several utterances of the n word, but I could be wrong. In either case it was vile and cannot be excused. What’s more telling to me is his behavior since; he was immediately apologetic and he has remained so for 20 years

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The clip I saw started with him saying "50 years ago you would be 'strung up'" which yeah, 1950's referring to a black man would be lynching.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Thank you for that context.

    I stand by my points that his comments were vile and inexcusable, and that he’s spend the better part of twenty years also feeling that they were vile and inexcusable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Okay, I suppose I was too vague.

    Is it [Richard’s comments] even close to [ being as bad as] publicly supporting a genocide? Hell no.

    I'm saying Richards may be a better person than Seinfeld, but I wouldn't excuse his words or actions because they're not something a non-racist would ever even think to do or say.

    Hope that is clear now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    And I’m not trying to excuse the words or his behavior on stage. Only trying to acknowledge his behavior since the day after the incident and for the last 20 years as steadfastly apologetic. His words were wrong, and importantly he thinks so too.

  • source
  • parent