"Real" Costanza suing for $100 million

I went to Queens College. I think I'm Elaine. 100 million? GET OUT!!!!!! See? Where is Jackie?

This guy does sound like a money grubbing idiot. I saw his book the other day and leafed through it. Here is a guy that writes a book to make money off of his character (allegedly) being portayed on TV, and then sues Castle Rock! Sorry man, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

-Adam

Yea, this guy souds kind of crazy. Everybody knows that the "George" character is based on Larry David. Jerry may have borrowed the "Costanza" name from his old aquaintance, but so what. You can't copy right a name. Then everyone named George (or Elaine, etc.) could sue him. Of course, the "real Costanza" sounds like such a loser he might be George. And a hell of a procrastinator, too--didn't he realize Jerry was using his name for a like TEN YEARS ago?!

Maybe, but it's true. Every word of it. Mike Costanza is not some crackpot imposter, rather he's a longtime friend of Jerry's. 25 years they've known each other, went to college together. Mike and the rest of their "gang" used to hang out and watch Jerry perform in clubs before he got his break.

Everybody with a casual interest. Some of us know that while the George character is essentially based on Larry, there are literally hundreds of little quirks and mannerisms imbued in the George Costanza character that come directly from Jerry's earlier experiences with Mike.

That's kinda silly, and you would be right if it was ONLY his name. In a seperate post, I will attempt to list the various ways the George character and Mike Costanza are similar. You'll see it's far more that a coincidence.

Which seems to be, at least in part, the reason for the lawsuit. Mike is complaining that he lives his life in the negative image caused by the connection between him and the ficticious "George". I don't really understand the suit, though. The last I heard, Mike's book was not selling very well, and he may have been experiencing financial issues, but obviously something happened to sour his relationship with Jerry. A friend of 25 years does not just slap a 9-figure lawsuit on a friend.

But the problem didn't exist 10 years ago. It wasn't until Mike wrote his book, and the real story started to come out, that the "wheels started turning" so to speak.

Bottom line:  And don't take this the wrong way, but if you haven't at
least read the book, then your opinion is based on emotion and should be
discounted immediately.  I'd probably have felt the same way, "Who is
this asshole messing with my favorite TV performer?"  But that's just
not the case.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I'll try to read (or at least brouse) the man's book if I can find it, but it would take a lot to convince me that the is owed $100 million because Jerry might have used some aspects of his name and personality for a character. Any kind of art involves taking aspects of real life and putting your unique twist on them. Does a writer of love songs have to pay out money to every former lover who may have shaped his/her ideas about romance? Of course, it would have been better for Jerry and the other producers of the show if they had paid the Costaza guy a token sum for using his name like they did with the real Kramer.

I don't think you could put a dollar figure on it, and if you could it certainly wouldn't be $100 million. But what better way to get your name out there? If he sued for $50,000, nobody would have even heard about it.

Reminds me of a Dennis Leary joke. "Can I sue Dan Fogelbert for turning me into a pussy in the 70's?"

Something tells me that was what Mike wanted. "Just give me a few bucks and I'll leave you alone." My hunch is that they (maybe even Jerry) told Mike to figuratively go play in traffic so the $100 million is more of a "Oh yeah? Well, I'll show you..." kinda thing. Or maybe the whole thing is a put on designed to drum up interest for a book that was not selling very well?

I discovered this newsgroup as a result of the 'Real Costanza' story and I was fascinated by all your comments. I bought the book when it first came out and Mr. Costanza was pretty fond of Jerry throughout the book and was especially in depth when discussing his enjoyment of being on an episode of Seinfeld. To say he was thrilled would be an understatement. As I recall this guy Costanza had a very spotted resume with a lot of failed business opportunities prior to Seinfeld going on the air so I don't believe he really suffered any financial hardship from the George character seemingly based on him. Mike latched on to Seinfeld in college and was very supportive of him in his comedy aspirations and I think Jerry was more paying tribute to his friend by naming this character after him. How was he to know 10 years ago when the character of George was created all the strange idiosyncracies the character would take on. All characters are a work in progress. Knowing the little I know of Larry David he is definitely who George is based on. I feel Mr Costanza is doing himself more harm in filing this lawsuit than a million Seinfeld episodes could possibly do. Furthermore, I think Jerry should file a countersuit demanding every penny in profits from the book his so called friend wrote about him because without Seinfeld there never would have been a book in the first place. Sorry this is so long but i had to get this out of my system.

Gary Tallman wrote:

Welcome to the group - Well said. it seems when their is money involved all the rats come out. My view is why did he wait 10 years to bring a suit.

First off, Gary, let me extend a welcome. Mike's book may have drawn you in, but I hope the show keeps you here. We can ALWAYS use another knowledgeable contributor.

Just wondering what prompted you to buy the book. Were you a Seinfeld fan from before? Was in an "impulse buy"? I mean did you have any preconceived notions? Many people, it seems, have already made up their minds about this issue without having read the book so it's tough to take their opinions seriously.

BTW, I agree with you comment on Mike's fondness for Jerry. Throughout the book, I couldn't find much criticism at all. I was, um, call it "touched" by what I perceived to be absolute sincerity on the author's part. The story about the trip to LA was extremely flattering.

This is a muddy issue. The bottom line right now is that of two childhood friends, one is worth a half a billion dollars and the other is facing potential major financial trouble, in part because his book did not sell very well. I think if he made some big money on the book, then this lawsuit stuff probably would never have happened. The whole "hardship due to negative stigma associated with having a troubled TV show character named for him" sounds like something attorneys like to construct.

Maybe at first, but then the character was only a skeleton. If we can consider the characterization of George as if it were a painting in progress, the huge broad strokes were obviously influenced by Larry David but many of the smaller, finer brush strokes came from Jerry's knowledge of Mike Costanza's character. I noticed in the book the amazing numebr of similarities between Mike's real life and what we learned about George as the show went on. I was toying with the idea of listing the similarities in a seperate post. Maybe if I find the time today I'll do it.

True, but then George wasn't that neurotic caricature from the start. At first Mike loved the recognition and happily admitted that he was the source of (at least) the character's name. Others assumed that more than just the name went into George, as the whole Larry David/how it all started story was not yet widely known. As George grew stranger, People's perceptions of Mike changed as well. Towards the end of the show's run, George was often played the "raving lunatic" role, as during "The Dealership" when he goes off on the car dealership because of the injustice done to him at the hands of a candy vending machine and a dishonest mechanic. Maybe it was a "that's the final straw" mentality that pushed Mike towards the lawsuit? I'm just speculating here.

That seems to be common knowledge now, but to what extend is George truly David? Basically, George's "backstory" is Larry David's life. This gave them a background to work from. Many plotlines came straight from David's life before the TV show, but just as the broad strokes came from David, as I mentioned, many of the finer lines came from Jerry's experience with Mike. It seems that George is a combination of the two.

Unless his ultimate reason for bringing the suit is to get himself into the public eye. If that's the case, then he's already succeeding. The real question is what would make someone sue a friend of over 20 years for a ridiculous sum of money? It's possible that Mike approached Jerry with his financial issues and "begged for a bone" and was flatly denied? It doesn't sound like Jerry, but who's to know? I mean, $100 million isn't just about money, it's a powerful statement. Maybe Larry David is involved, as he was pretty adamant about Mike being a phony who's just trying to "cash in". Some of this must have been vanity on David's part. I mean we're all human. David was comfortable with the version of the story where George was only HIS alter ego/on screen persona/fictional creation, whatever and Mike's book threatened to change people's opinions on just how accurate David's version of the story was.

To be honest, I don't there there was much in the way of profits at all. I don't have numbers, but the book did not sell very well.

Please, no apologies.
I'm just happy to see new faces, er, screen names. :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave wrote:

     This is clearly just an attempt to collect a paycheck from someone
else's fame and creativity. And as a legal case it could well be a loser.
For too long, the common knowledge that "George Costanza" was based on
Larry David's perception of himself has gone unchallenged (and supported
by everyone who knows him, including Jerry). Remember, when the pilot
script was first submitted to NBC, David was originally supposed to PLAY
George, and the character was designed initially as a taller man (as
David is).
    But Larry didn't think he came across well in early tests and took
himself out of the cast. Only later, after considering a number of actors,
was it decided to go to Jason Alexander (a recent Tony winner at the time)
despite the fact that he was shorter and stockier than George was
originally planned to be, and didn't fit the physical type for the part.
So the physical resemblance between Jason Alexander and Mike Costanza is
an accident, and as the character of George was originally conceived, it
was not even supposed to happen. They wrote around the difference between
the original conception of George and the actor who seemed best suited to
play him, when they couldn't find a taller actor who played as well on
camera with Jerry as the very talented Alexander. It's also been well
known that the only thing Mike Costanza ever gave the character was his
last name. He doesn't want this ever to go to a jury...if it does, he's a
loser.

The thing about Kenny Kramer was, a lot more than his last name went into the Cosmo Kramer character, and everyone acknowledged that from the start and did an appropriate deal reflecting that. For his part, Kenny Kramer made good money and had a lot of fun with it, all of which is very much to his credit (and very much in character). Had this Costanza guy contributed as much to his alleged TV namesake, I suspect Seinfeld and David would have made him an offer as well. The record indicates they played fair with everyone they dealt with...

Can't tell you how well the book did, but if I'm not mistaken, it never showed up on the bestseller list. For that matter, has any book about Seinfeld shown up on the list other than Jerry's own book "SeinLanguage?" Maybe if Kenny Kramer ever writes one...having spent time talking with Kenny myself, I think his story would probably sell well, on the basis of his own interesting and unusual life as much as anything tangentially related to Jerry. If Mike Costanza HAD really been more like George, he'd have a more interesting and salable story to tell...

He's so vain, I'll bet he thinks this George is about him.

Dave wrote: <snip>

The other newsgroup I frequent is Law & Order - They would have a field day with this issue as it is full of lawyers and wannabe lawyers.

Isn't there an established concept of estoppel in American tort law whereby acceptance of a condition for a reasonably long period of time (9 years), when you could have objected or taken action, implies acceptance of the condition by the plaintiff thereby barring the bringing of a successful suit. Or something legalistic like that. It is sort of difficult to texplain(c) it.

Personally, I like George.

Therefore the suit is not valid.

On 27 Oct 1998 03:47:33 GMT, [email] (EBravo8572) wrote:

Okay, now this is interesting. Michael Constanza has played a bit part in one of the episodes, as the truck driver in The Parking Space.

This was pointed out in the local paper here in Australia which also had the above story almost word for word.

A check of the actors in the episode does reveal a Michael Costanza in this episode, wonder if it's the same one? More interesting is that Larry David wrote it, so he may have met him?

I'll have to get the ol' tape out to see if he looks like George. Hmmm...I'll have to find it first, okay, one of you guys do it.

Jerome.

---------------------------------------------
Brisbane, Australia
Email: [email]

-- remove NOSPAM in email address to reply --

It occured to me that he might have had the suit in mind when he published the book. The book might be thought of as somehow substantiating his claim (from his viewpoint).

Not at all.  Sure he was looking to profit, but only from the sale of
the book.  I think Larry David's initial defensive response angered
him.  Why he didn't include David in the suit is a mystery to me at this
point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

It was the same guy.  Jerry called up Mike, his old friend from college,
and asked him if he'd like to come out and visit.  Mike spent a few days
there, met the cast and crew, and got to play the truck driver, had a
great time.  It's all in the book.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            [email]  replace EYE with I
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I would love to have had a Seinfeld character based on me, with or without my permission, even if he was a jerk. I see alot of George in myself anyway. I would be bragging about it to everybody I know, and I wouldn't demand a single cent for it.

In article ,

Yea. Just think of the real life "Soup Nazi" guy (I forget his name) who owns Soup Kitchen International. He doesn't even like Jerry or the show, but the parody they did of him has been great for business. I can't imagine that the "real Costanza" has been discriminated against because of a Seinfeld connection.