I was sort of wondering why OSC likes Friends better than Seinfeld. I guess I don't know that much about friends. I think one reason he may not get Seinfeld is that one of the primary things it sneers at is the cultural wasteland of the Baby Boomers. I don't know, it's just a thought. Maybe someone can explain what was so great about friends.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Maybe someone can explain what was so great about Seinfeld. It was mostly funny on the first run-through. But after that, it's tired -- so very tired I can't bear to watch it ever again. (And it ALWAYS seems to be on.) Friends, OTOH, is still funny on the third or fourth viewing.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I can accept that some things are funny to some people and not others. I'm more interested in why Friends is a community more than Seinfeld. I mean, it had more principal characters, and two of them were related. Was there more to it than that?
My sense of Friends was not that if I knew these people in real life that we would get along, whereas I did feel that with the Seinfeld people. I'm not saying they would like me, but it would be mutual, whereas the people on Friends looked like a group I'd forever be on the outside of.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Maybe it's that the characters in Seinfeld seem to be anti-community, in that they make fun of many (maybe most (if not all)) communities or groups but claim affiliation with none. They seem to be poking fun at anyone and everyone around them without joining in with the greater community. That's kinda one of the themes of the show, I guess, or at least the entire point of the series finale.
The Friend's cast seems more interested in bonding and bringing people together. The idea that there is a place for everyone, no matter how kooky, arrogant, rich, poor, fat or whatever is pretty pervasive.
To sum up: to me friends says that no matter what you flaws, you can hang out with us, where Seinfeld says if you've got even the tiniest flaw, we'll point it out and ridicule you for it behind your back.
(disclaimer: I find both shows to be equally funny.)
Posted by grammargoddess (Member # 10828) on :
I guess I'm not much of a sitcom person. I watch a few from time to time, but I don't look forward to watching any of them every week (that i reserve for my hour-long dramas like CSI and House). In fact, most sitcom plots seem to be based on misunderstandings or deceptions, and really just make me feel tense and anxious. For example, I just can't watch shows like King of Queens. That wife is SO mean to her husband. And I don't know how they put up with that horrible father-in-law. So, I guess I just don't get the whole sitcom thing. Morally, though, I think it's a toss-up between Seinfeld and Friends. All of them were sleeping around with each other and everyone else. In real life, I wouldn't touch any of them with a ten-foot pole, for fear of catching something Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Seinfeld's hilarious every time you watch it. Never liked Friends
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
Friends is funny mostly because of how one character reacts to the words or actions to another. Joey's stupidity, for instance, is not really funny without Chandler's sarcasm and vice-versa. Take any of those guys alone and the show would break down. It was still a great show, though.
Seinfeld was a show that benefitted from character complementarity, but each actor (George and Kramer most of all) could hold the humor on their own. I mean, take this part in the episode where Kramer finds Elaine's co-worker's missing toe and races to give it back to her:
Kramer: "The Bus is OUTTA control. So I grab him by the collar, I take him out of the seat, I get behind the wheel, and now I'm driving the bus." George: "You're like Batman.." Kramer: "I am Batman. Then the mugger, he comes to and he starts choking me. So I'm fighting him off with one hand and I kept driving the bus with the other, ya know. Then I managed to open up the door and I kicked him out the door, ya know, with my foot, ya know, at the next stop." Jerry: "You kept making all the stops?" Kramer: "Well, people kept ringing the bell!"
I mean, this scene was the most hilarious thing I've ever seen on a television screen....the script really doesn't recapture the true hilarity.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cashew: Seinfeld's hilarious every time you watch it.
Nope. Apparently it's hilarious each time YOU watch it, though. Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Seinfeld IS funny every time I watch it. Friends is funny, but not ha ha funny.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't like any of those shows. Seinfeld is good for quoting in any situation though, but they both annoy me so much. I'll explain why later.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Is there a recent OSC essay mentioning Seinfeld and Friends that I'm missing?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I like them both. They both have moments of pure hilarity. Friends has more replay value for me, because of the story arc.
Seinfeld is much better to put on a random episode and watch.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Link?
The Seinfeld characters were children that didn't grow up, obsessed with themselves, unable to see beyond petty concerns. I didn't like the show because I didn't like them, but I could sometimes get interested in the weird situations.
But the Friends characters weren't real enough for me to even dislike them. I disliked the writers instead.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I've never watched Friends, but maybe OSC's problem with Seinfeld is that it never has a story you can really care about? It always feels like a stand-up routine with multiple comedians to me.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Seinfeld isn't supposed to have a story you can care about. It's the anti-sitcom. It was literally pitched as a 'show about nothing'.
It's observational humor set around 4 idiosynchratic New Yorkers.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
That always bugs me. I know the show is billed as being 'about nothing' and that's how it was pitched, but it's not true. It's a show about four crazy friends who live in New York and have lots of adventures. Just 'cause something random and different happens every episode doesn't mean it's about nothing.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It wasn't recent, but I'm probably remembering it from OSC's review of Serenity. You would kind of have to follow his column for a couple of years to get the sense of what I'm saying. Or run your own search, in the upper corner, where you have the option to Google Hatrack.com.
To me, the characters on Seinfeld did not hold themselves above the sneering, which is kind of more what I would consider sneering. Remember when George produces the golfball, that expression on Kramer's face? Or when Elaine sent out those Christmas cards? Or Jerry's Pirate shirt? Or George trying to leap out the window after his toupee? They were quite often the victims of their collective crapulence.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
True, but they were spewing crapulence none the less.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe he had a particular issue with Larry David, who wrote a lot of the episodes but not necessarily all of them.
I'm off to wiki Seinfeld. Look what I've been reduced to.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, you know what I just figured out?
"Must see TV".
That's why I never watched friends.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Well, it's just personal opinion, but I always liked Seinfeld. I still watch the reruns on late night TV, and the jokes are still just as funny. Part of the 'funny' is that these people are so horrible and dysfunctional.
Friends, was OK, and funny in a goofy way, but I was never a big Friends fan. I watch it, but only because when it is on in our area, nothing else is on broadcast TV. Likely if I had cable I would never watch Friends, but I would still watch Seinfeld.
Now, 'Friends' was a huge huge hit. I believe, though I don't know for sure, that it was the Number 1 show on TV for many years. So, somebody must have liked it. But again, personally, I had a take it or leave it attitude. It was cute and interesting and goofy, but never laugh out loud funny. I laughed out loud many times, and still do, while watching Seinfeld. That just the way it is.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I get bored and annoyed by Seinfeld. I don't think I've ever actually sat through a whole episode.
I love Friends and will watch it almost any time it's on.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I'd rather watch something else than either, when it comes to comedy.
Like Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu.
Or maybe I Love Lucy.
Or FLCL.
Or Monty Python.
Or Neon Genesis Evangelion.
Wait, that last one wasn't funny. I was just laughing to keep from crying in abject depression. Scratch that.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Just goes to show how broad a range of things "sense of humour" encompasses. It's personal, cultural, regional. But isn't 'funny' WONDERFUL?
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
Friends is a dismal show. Sloppy, lazy writing, the characters are all actually pretty bad people (liars, sluts, and painfully indecisive) and honestly, I realize that suspension of disbelief is a crucial part of any show, but it is physically impossible for out-of-work wastrels to hold onto apartments that large and in that neighborhood. Even putting the actual content of the show aside, add to it the fact that its primary fans, in my experience, are vapid, empty high school and college girls. Yeccch. The only remotely good episodes of Friends are the ones that highlight and exploit the depth of relationships you get with people you've known for literally your whole adult life; the best example I can think of is the "who knows who better" trivia quiz game episode.
Seinfeld is much funnier, I would agree with several posters, upon initial viewing. Seeing several episodes again recently, I am struck by how unlikeable and morally repugnant these people are. The only minimally entertaining episodes are the Kramer-heavy ones, and that is only because he's so off-the-wall. The Kramerica, Inc. episode comes to mind.
I dislike the way both shows became vehicles for big-name actors with sagging careers to get their names back out there with the unwashed peasants. I don't need to see Teri Hatcher's old, wrinkly and heavily made-up ass on Seinfeld. I don't need to see Bruce Willis' old, wrinkly and heavily made-up ass on Friends.
I realize that actual good shows, such as Arrested Development, have the big-name cameo thing going on as well. But understand that those were much more self-deprecating parts than the self-aggrandizing, phone-it-in bit parts on Friends and Seinfeld. Carl Weathers making merciless fun of himself is priceless; Brad Pitt milking his marriage to Jennifer Aniston (something that only empty-inside, celebrity-obsessed housewives care about anyway) is just sad.
The sad fact is that these shows are both prime examples of network execs' unwillingness to expand their horizons. Stick with the same tired, tired formula, seems to be their mantra. And you know, from a monetary, mercenary standpoint, it is sound--there will always be a bedrock quantity of idiots that will buy DVDs of your show no matter how much it sucks. But I'd rather make not as much money and produce a quality product. Maybe it's just me.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
By the way, I didn't mean to offend anybody who loves those shows. They're fine shows, I guess, if not thought through too much. I myself watch probably two or three full episodes of those shows per week, just because there isn't anything else on while I'm eating supper. I just wish that some less cookie-cutter stuff was on, like Firefly or Newsradio or Arrested Development. Honestly, though, somebody who looks for meaning or depth in a 22-minute story is probably grabbing at straws.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
If you watched the last episode of Seinfeld then you know that the show's actors, writers, director, etc... were well aware that the prime characters were horrible self-absorbed uncaring people.
In fact the final episode was a replay of season after season of these characters being the uncaring self-absorbed jerks that they are.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus said she wouldn't let her kids watch the show because, as you say, the characters portrayed were such horrible people.
But it is their flaws, insecurities, and frustrations that make them funny. Who would want to watch any show about boring ordinary people?
To some extent this is true of any TV comedy, all the characters are actually caricatures.
For what it's worth.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: My sense of Friends was not that if I knew these people in real life that we would get along, whereas I did feel that with the Seinfeld people. I'm not saying they would like me, but it would be mutual, whereas the people on Friends looked like a group I'd forever be on the outside of.
I hear you. I'd be right there next to you. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote: I dislike the way both shows became vehicles for big-name actors with sagging careers to get their names back out there with the unwashed peasants. I don't need to see Teri Hatcher's old, wrinkly and heavily made-up ass on Seinfeld. I don't need to see Bruce Willis' old, wrinkly and heavily made-up ass on Friends.
In looking at IMDB, it looks like Terri Hatcher was in her late 20s when she made her first two appearances on Seinfeld, and in her early 30s when she made her appearance (as the same character she'd played in the show's first season) in the show's finale.
I don't care much about Terri Hatcher one way or the other, so I could be missing something, but my impression was that Lois and Clark, which debuted months after Seinfeld, was her big break. Is that not the case? Either way, I don't think that her career in 1993 could have been accurately described as "sagging", could it?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I don't feel like I'd fit in with either group, but I definitely felt like the Friends characters would be more likely to give me a chance than the Seinfeld characters.
I'm another person who never found Seinfeld funny enough to make up for the general nastiness of the characters. Plus, I find Jerry Seinfeld to be astoundingly irritating.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Jerry Seinfeld IS irritating. If the show hadn't had the other 3 leads, it would have tanked hard. His stand up comedy is pretty funny, I guess, but as a character Jerry is just insufferably annoying. Especially the way his character isn't supposed to be as famous/successful as the real-life Jerry (I mean, the real Jerry didn't live in a 600 sq ft apartment after making it big), but dates ONLY model-material women. Barf.
However, I think Seinfeld was the better show. This is probably because I find the characters on Friends to be wholly unrealistic. They never seem to work, or if they do work, it's in a sort of idealized fun setting (not very work-like). Seinfeld, when people went to work, they had annoying bosses and drudgery to accomplish, and it was how they reacted to work that was funny. In Friends, from what I've seen, work isn't part of life, except if you want to have a plot where there's some kind of sex- or relationship-related tension at work.
BOTH shows are worse for having portrayed sex as something to be casually enjoyed without commitment. I know you can do this, but it does something to your ability to have deeper, meaningful relationships. (OK, thinking about it Seinfeld might have been honest on this point.) Friends just slept around as much as possible until they were ready to get married, and were no worse for the wear. I think.
I should stop now because I probably haven't watched enough Friends to know what I'm talking about. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote: I don't need to see Teri Hatcher's old, wrinkly and heavily made-up ass on Seinfeld.
In looking at IMDB, it looks like Terri Hatcher was in her late 20s when she made her first two appearances on Seinfeld, and in her early 30s when she made her appearance (as the same character she'd played in the show's first season) in the show's finale.
I don't care much about Teri Hatcher one way or the other, so I could be missing something, but my impression was that Lois and Clark, which debuted months after Seinfeld, was her big break.
You're right about everything except the dates Seinfeld was on relative to L&C:TNAS. The former was on 1989-1998; the latter 1993-1997. Oh, and Teri Hatcher certainly was on Seinfeld a few months before L&C premiered. But it was Seinfeld's fourth season, not the first.
Also, while L&C certainly took Hatcher's career up a notch or two, she worked pretty steadily from 1987/1988 on. Between a recurring role on MacGyver and small parts on ST:TNG, QL, Night Court, and other shows, she was definitely on the way up before L&C.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Interesting, rivka; I'm not sure why I thought that the two shows debuted in the same year. Thanks for the correction!
You know, I'd completely forgotten that Terri Hatcher was on ST:TNG. What did she play? I'm getting this vauge image of her in a maroon militaryish uniform, maybe being a Vulcan or something, but that could easily just be me making stuff up.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I know Ashely Judd was on ST:TNG. She played Wesley's girlfriend. She was hot.
msquared
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Interesting, rivka; I'm not sure why I thought that the two shows debuted in the same year.
Well, IMDB reminded me that the episode of Seinfeld she first appeared in was the one titled "Pilot," which certainly doesn't help things.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: You know, I'd completely forgotten that Terri Hatcher was on ST:TNG. What did she play? I'm getting this vauge image of her in a maroon militaryish uniform, maybe being a Vulcan or something, but that could easily just be me making stuff up.
No maroon and not Vulcan -- not obviously so, anyway. Her ear tips weren't terribly visible. (But look at those cheekbones. Wouldn't she have made an awesome Vulcan? But I digress.) She was only in a single episode, and it was a very small part. There are rumors that there was some consideration of making the part recurring. I have my doubts at to their veracity; but what is certainly true is the actor who replaced her in the equivalent role (transporter chief) certainly DID become a recurring and then a regular.
Lt. Bronwyn Gail makes for some fun ST/L&C crossover fanfic. *whistles innocently*
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Both shows annoy me because they are about the mundane every day junk I hate. But Seinfeld more so. They take things that are supposed to be cool, intense and powerful like sex and relationship and distill it into something dull and boring. Also Seinfeld is always randing about something boring and stupid and every day. I only really like one episode of Seinfeld, and a thanksgiving episode of Friends. I wouldn't really fit in on either shows as I'm too weird for both of them. The folks on Seinfeld are a bit too mean and vapid, the people on Friends are nicer, but they still tend to turn interesting things into boring mush. Most television shows tend to do that. There's just not enough depth and spirit, which is somethign I crave. It's why I hate about 90% of the shows on television.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: It's why I hate about 90% of the shows on television.
All the other people I know who feel that way about TV (and I know quite a few) have gotten rid of their TVs. If you don't like it, why watch?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm stupid and I keep hoping something good will be on. There is House to consider and So You Think You Can Dance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Friends is dumber and follows a structure designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It is the mcdonalds hamburger of the television world. That is why it will always have more viewers than a show not essentially designed to appeal to as many people as possible in a route and fully pattern sitcom format.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: It's why I hate about 90% of the shows on television.
All the other people I know who feel that way about TV (and I know quite a few) have gotten rid of their TVs. If you don't like it, why watch?
Because the Daily Show exists.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And can be viewed online. So?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
You can't view it all in one clip online though. I have FiOS so I can just record the full show and skip though the ads.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: You can't view it all in one clip online though.
Of course it can be. You just need to have a good source. (Note: I don't have one, because I don't watch it. But I certainly know people who watch it in its entirety online.)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
It was mostly funny on the first run-through. But after that, it's tired -- so very tired I can't bear to watch it ever again. (And it ALWAYS seems to be on.) Friends, OTOH, is still funny on the third or fourth viewing.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)