posted
Seinfield definately does not work for me. I think it was because it wasn't about people trying to do their best, it was about people trying to make sure things worked out best for them. There is a difference.
I actually loved the Cosby Show. This was a real family who really loved each other. They worked together and did the best they could. The things that were funny were real. Straight out of life. They weren't bizarre situations that someone got into because they were trying to get out of facing up to their responsibilities, or trying to get laid.
posted
Mainly that show gets on my nerves because they just sit there making a big deal out of the slightest little thing while repeating themselves. They do it in every episode! Then they date different people just about every episode and complain about them all day! So annoying!!! In fact 99% of all sitcoms annoy me. I'm just watching them to punish myself for not having a job! Though that episode of friends involving thanksgiving was really funny, and I like old Simpsons episodes and King of the Hill. Shame i don't get cable so I can watch South Park. And Bernie Mac is kind of funny.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, I always loathed the Cosby show, so that may explain something. Good message, yes, positive yes, funny, almost never (to me). I never found anything innovative, and clever, or particularly witty about the show (they did have a nice dance number or too), and that's rather strange because although Cosby was a conventional comedian, he was also exceptionally good at what he did.
Seinfeld supposedly had a rule about his sitcom that went something like, no lessons learned, and no hugs. I absolutely loved that. I cannot stomach comedies that try to teach me something (or in the words of someone else, "Celebrities can't learn me nothing."), I can't stand pompous lessons, and moralizing after 21 previous minutes filled with humiliations, painful action comedy, and ludricous premises strung out like cling wrap that just isn't quite long enough to cover one's casserole plate. It drives me bonkers.
Seinfeld had the simple premise that four friends were selfish, and they were also funny. The stories revolved around particular idiosynchrocies from real life that added color, depth, and complication to all manner of social, and individual interaction and living. The new girlfriends were a product of the "no lessons learned" premise: that changing as adults, is the most difficult thing imaginable. For the most part that is quite true, your life may change, but you as a person and how you handle lifes challenges once you are an adult rarely changes dramatically (this is why individuals that do manage to evolve into better human beings are among the most impressive human beings around, one of the reason I idolized Malcolm X as a kid, noone seemed to change and evolve and self-critical as often and as self-critically as he did).
Seinfeld deals with that ugly reality. It's definitely a love it or hate it show, but I'm deeply surprised at how many who hate it. In my view, without question it's the greatest live action comedy ever. The only thing anywhere near as close was I Love Lucy, which was just as groundbreaking and innovative, but not as brilliantly funny.
Is Seinfeld mean? Yes, in certain ways. But the joke is on them. They are alone, they are unhappy, they are trying to find their way, perhaps hopelessly so. That was the only lesson beyond, 1.) no lessons and 2.) no hugs. In the words of Comic Book Guy, "Best Comedy EVER."
Btw-Synathesia: Then you hate Seinfeld particularly. One of the things comedians laughed about so hysterically in the nineties, was that such a particular, and such a clean comedian (Seinfeld virtually never swore and essentially never worked dirty routines into his act) would have what in many ways was the dirtiest comedy on television ever, at least in terms of running whole episodes around certain concepts (kill sessions, faking etc). As for Seinfeld, he was always a comedian who focused on the particulars of life, the little things, and so that probably rubs you the wrong way. The dark side of the show mostly came from Larry David who had an exceptionally dark and twisted sense of humor, and who the George character was essentially based on. The show was an amalgam of their comedic sensibilities with a perfectly casted ensemble (probably the best ever ensemble, other than maybe Cheers, that while not as funny, still managed to have a huge pile up of characters all of whom (except Shelly Long) worked well together) enveloping their comedic themes.
posted
Urg. I hated cheers. It was just a bunch of people sitting around drinking beer all day long. But I did like Frasier though. And Third Rock from the Sun. Mostly I dislike Seinfeld because I can't really identify with any of the characters. Disliking shows everyone else loves makes me feel uncool.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the only episode of Seinfeld I ever saw all the way through, and I only watched in re-runs because so many people had told me about it. Those people irritate the you-know-what out of me, every single one of them. Funny? When? Where?
Robin Williams is funny. Bobcat Goldthwait is funny. Margaret Cho is funny. Steve Martin is funny. Eddie Izzard is funny. George Carlin is funny. Ellen DeGeneres is funny.
posted
I love Seinfeld. Perhaps the greatest American sitcom I've ever seen. I don't want to compare it with Fawlty Towers, Black Adder or Red Dwarf, so I'll leave it at that. I don't think I could improve on Graywolfe for general appraisal, so I'll say that I just got done watching the episode where the dentist converts to Judaism for the jokes.
"And this offends you as a Jewish person?" "No, it offends me as a comedian."
"You're a raaaaabid anti-dentite. Next you'll be saying they should have their own schools." "They DO!"
It also had Kramer and the dwarf fighting over the two girls. Even though I know all the jokes, I can't stop watching. It's great.
By the way, perhaps it would help those non-fans to understand the show if they were more familiar with the stand-up on which it was based. This made me laugh as hard as anything I've ever seen. I've seen it at least a dozen times, and it still makes me sore from laughing. In fact, he does a bit about pharmacists, and I used a sound clip from it in my final seminar while earning my degree, and it killed. The show is highly recommended.
posted
"I've got a hair on my tongue, jerry,.....you put it there. I know you put the ki-bosh on my deal with NBC, Seinfeld. Now I'm gonna put the ki-bosh on you. I've ki-boshed before. And I'll ki-bosh again."
Absolutely classic.
Robin Williams funny????
When, 15 years ago?
That's just my opinion anyway.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia, take heart. I don't like Seinfeld either...never have, even after repeated watching attempts. I don't know...it just doesn't strike me as funny.
And Robin Williams is still funny...you just have to see him doing standup or an interview. His "Inside the Actor's Studio" episode was two hours long, and I laughed the ENTIRE time.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw that, and I didn't laugh once. It's almost like he has comedic turrets, and it just isn't working anymore. Maybe he doesn't have anymore Steven Pearl jokes to steal (he was a notorious joke thief in the seventies and early eighties, and Steven Pearl's bits were his favorites to steal), I don't know, but he hasn't really made me laugh in more than a decade.
And I actually like him, more or less, I've loved at least three or four of his films, even the much hated What Dreams may come was a favorite of mine.
But his comedy, uggh, the last time he made me laugh doing his stand up was during his Album Gig that he recorded at the Met in '86.
He's really grown wretched now, at least to me anyway. As for Seinfeld, it's the funniest Comedy Ever, but I can see how it isn't for everyone. Sometimes things just aren't met for you. For whatever reason I can't appreciate much of Dickins work, or Thomas Hardy's, and I loathed Murphy Brown, and I can't stand Sting's voice.
Whatever, I'm just glad that it works for me because nothing has made me laugh harder, other than maybe Blackadder and a few classic Family Guy Episodes.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As my mother always says, the world would be a very boring place if everyone liked the same things Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't like it. I don't think its funny, and I don't like anyone on it.
*sigh* And it was a sign that we were fundamentally incompatible when someone I was dating told me he totally saw himself as Jerry Seinfeld. That was NOT an attractive moment.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jerry Seinfeld funny? Robin Williams NOT funny? What planet are you living on? What galaxy are you from that one of the most boring, mean and stupid comedians of all time is funnier than ROBIN WILLIAMS? Robin Williams, possibly the funniest, most gifted comedian around? What is WRONG with you? Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the show is a charming and tightly written comedy. It also helps that the moral universe of the show was moderately in sink with my own. (re: It's okay for single adults to have sex. People tried to think their way out of problems. Everytime alcohol or drugs were introduced, it ended in someone somehow shaming themselves.)
George isn't glorified for his schemes, nor newman or Kramer for the times they act out of pettiness. Everytime they're priorites are completely over run with pettiness, they get it in the end, or they have to find new, safer, more inventive ways to achieve their goals.
How many shows are about George or Jerry or Elaine getting in trouble for lying are doing something wrong. The acts don't go unpunished, it just doesn't fall into a clear manner like the Cosby show. The watcher has to do more work.
As a rule, I don't like comedies. MASH is an exception, but I found Seinfeld to be both inventive and each episode is well-plotted story. That's me. I don't think it's as good as Sportsnight, but I think that's only because I think that the characters in Sportsnight took themselves and their work more seriously.
posted
The guy I was dating lived in my same universe. I don't know what he saw in Jerry that he identified with; it was a short conversation.
I don't like the show because I don't like the people. Why would I spend my time on people I don't like? It may be slightly well-written, but it isn't nearly high-enough quality to be worth the irritation. Kramer and George may get their comeuppance quality, but why would I want to watch that?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because they are so inventive in their solutions, as morally ambiguous as the solutions are, they are neat twists. Keeping up with them is a good exercise, kind of like doing a crossword puzzle.
Seinfeld raises the bar for comedies for the same reason Moonlighting did, people spoke quickly, didn't repeat themselves, except for comic effect, and the watcher is expected to pay attention.
posted
If you are more at home with words than with people. But I think that people are more fascinating.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had the same problem watching Seinfeld that I always had watching The Wonder Years. I just can't bear watching the awful humiliation that seems to occur at the end of each episode. I change the channel when I see it coming. When I'm watching the show with someone else, I have been known to hide behind a pillow until it is over.
Just one of those things I guess.
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My wife and I feel somewhat the same about the whole humiliation bit, layday. It isn't as strong for us as it is for you, but we've been known to turn away from Frazier because we just didn't want to watch Frazier completely humiliate himself. That isn't to say that I don't like Frazier; it's just that sometimes the humiliation can be a little much.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate the humiliation parts of comedy too. That is why I don't like a LOT of comedy, it hinges on the humiliation of people.
Irami,
"The watcher has to do more work."
I recognized that they got it in the end. I'm not stupid.
Even though Seinfield wanted "no lessons, no hugs", it was impossible for him to write something in which people that did something that was Seinfeld thought wrong were rewarded for it or didn't have consequences. Of course he didn't write that. There were lessons. But to make sure the show didn't have a moral, the characters were blind to them. They never learned. They never grew. That is what rang false to me.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it was ultimately a non-enjoyable cartoon, Wyle E. Coyote-style.
*pies Irami* I don't choose the crossword puzzle because I like words more than people. I choose the crossword puzzle because I like words more than unpleasant television.
When you watch TV, your brain is less active than when you are sleeping. It's one step from being in a coma - no matter what you are watching.
posted
Um... Seinfeld was a brilliant show BECAUSE it wasn't ABOUT anything. I can get wholesome family time on the WB if I wanted to. For comedy that isn't all profanity and toilet jokes (60% of the comedy channel), I'd have to turn to Seinfeld. The script was simply excellent.
Anyone who disagrees with this should shampoo my crotch.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On Robin Williams, Human, He's not for me. Indeed, I don't buy that he's anything remotely close to the funniest comedian around. Dave Attel, Robert Schimmel, the mean but exceedingly gifted Bobby Slayton, Dana Gould, the clean working Brian Regan, the late Bill Hicks, and on the woman's side I love Judy Gold and Margaret Smith (and Roseanne back in the mid-eighties) these are the majority of the best comedians I've ever come across, vastly more talented than Robin Williams. Williams attempts to make up for his limitations with manic energy and it just doesn't work at all for me. It comes across like a kids desperate pleas for attention when for one second someone is ignoring him. He attempts to create funny by upping the volume, and the manic energy he uses to deliver his lines and his improvisations, but by simply growing louder, outlandish, and more energetic someone doesn't automatically grow amusing. But hey, maybe he isn't for me, maybe that's it, but I don't think this is the case. I think he used to be funny, but not much anymore.
As for Seinfeld, I'm talking about the show, not his act, I always thought his actual stand up was rather mediocre, I could list 25-30, probably more comedians I actually like more in stand up, but his show was a different story, he and Larry David helped to shape it into a one of a kind classic.
As for the meanspirited, humiliation comedy of Seinfeld I just don't see it. Occasionally things of that sort happened, but it's not on the same level of say, a Meet the Parents, which I thought was almost hateful, and ludricous, which I found surprising since I tend to love/like anything Owen Wilson (at least with Wes Anderson) and/or Ben Stiller are heavily involved in. I don't see that in Seinfeld. Can it be cruel and mean, sure, the episode where Newman and Seinfeld get kicked out of a club because they refuse to give an unconcious man mouth to mouth made me cringe a bit, but by and large I don't really see the humiliations.
Lesson's not learned? Sure. Emotional Growth. Nope. Social Improvement? Nope. But I don't really care about that, as Wilde put it (paraphrasing from memory), "I'm more interested in...[works]...that are good, rather than do good." Adults often don't learn their lessons, they rarely grow all that much emotionally once they're adults, adults are far less likely to change and evolve for the better than they are to stay essentially the same, ingrained in their ways and the show reflected that. When we're kids, we're malleable, as we develop we and our environment are like thousands of architects, with ourselves running the job site, slowly refining ourselves into the adults we'll be, but once we become adults, the majority of the workers at the site, the architects involved, and even ourselves as head of our own respective personal job sites, leave to deal with other concerns. We can change, and evolve, but it's not particularly common, once we're into our mid-or late twenties, our personalities, our personal peccadilos, our weakenesses and strengths in our moral, ethical, and societal personal frameworks of understanding our pretty darn close to static. We can evolve some, but not as much as we'd like to. That's why you and your aunt, or your mother, or that friend we'll always bang your head against the wall on certain issues, that's why you'll keep making certain mistakes in your life over and over, that's why you'll have trouble coping with certain things, and why other things will always be beyond your graph. That's why contrasting viewpoints on Ornery are interesting to read, but actually trying to actually get someone to reevaluate their opinion and potentially change their view on a subject, or admit they're wrong on a given subject is virtually impossible.
People can change, but for the most part, as adult's, people don't do a very good job of it. For the most part adults become hard-wired into patterns that it is extremely difficult, and even more uncomfortable to attempt to change, to any degree. Seinfeld reflected this, whereas nearly all other comedies did not (The Simpsons and The Family Guy are two rare exceptions. Homer and Peter might learn a lesson in an episode, but you can bet your behind next week they'd be the same dumb --- they always have been), it may not have been nice, but Larry David was brutally effective, as was Seinfeld at writing, and creating a realistic environment where common issues and possibilites were mined of all their humor and absurdity. I didn't see it very much as cruel or mean, I saw it more as honest and realistic. The only issue I had was with the new relationships every week, but even that issue was understandable from the perspective that #1 it opened up more avenues for creative comedy and #2 nearly all comedies die an awful death when the lead develops a stable relationship (unless it's a part of the pilot), the John Larroquette show being perhaps the best ever example of this. That show went from a very unusual, and promising comedy, with actual lessons, to a horrible, embarrasing boondoggle the second John brought in a love interest and refocused the show around himself and a relationship instead of the Bus Station.
Anyway, that's my longwinded take, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. As I said before in an earlier post, some things just aren't meant for you, and clearly Seinfeld's unusual, one of a kind comedy could never be for everyone.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, greywolf believes almost exactly the opposite of what he wrote--that post was just a desperate attempt to get out of having to shampoo your crotch.
quote: Lesson's not learned? Sure. Emotional Growth. Nope. Social Improvement? Nope. But I don't really care about that, as Wilde put it (paraphrasing from memory), "I'm more interested in...[works]...that are good, rather than do good."
To me, it isn't really about doing good. I don't watch Seinfield and think: "Wow, this show has no moral compass, I don't think I'm going to watch it."
I watch it thinking "Man, these people are stupid. Can't they think past their noses?" It is okay for a couple of episodes, but after a while, when you realize that they just aren't going to get it, that there is no true suffering involved, it gets boring. I cease to care about the characters.
They are shallow and that won't change.
For me that is about as much fun as watching a show in which everything is always good, and the people always do good things, and nothing bad happens to them.
Neither of those situations are real. And I prefer real.
Somebody mentioned MASH. That was definately one of my favorite comedies. It was brilliant, it was funny, and all too horrible at times. It was real.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was certainly a classic, although it got a bit too preachy towards the end. We won't find any source of disagreement on MASH, though I wish the Trapper character had stuck around longer.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you watch TV, your brain is less active than when you are sleeping. It's one step from being in a coma - no matter what you are watching.
I think that may be with most people and most shows. I think I'm the exception. I don't seek out Seinfeld. I don't haven't had a television for months. I do watch movies, I watch DVD's on my laptop, and I'm going to buy a cheapy TV and VCR to tape the West Wing reruns when they start.
I do know that I think more when I watch a good movie, an episode of Seinfeld, than I do when I do most anything, save read a real book. I think more when I watch the West Wing than I ever do at work, or when I talk to most people.
You can damn the medium. There is such a pervasive amount of crap out there that you would be almost be right in doing so, but I do believe that there are at least a few shows which call for an adequate amount of thinking.
I know people who think that movies are fluff, but then they make a rule to only go to fluffy movies. There is a woman at work who doesn't read anything except magazines I feel are useless, the problem is that she extrapolates that to the idea that there is nothing in the printed word worth knowing.
You can say that Seinfeld is icky, but I don't know if you can say that it's stupid or requires it's audience to stop thinking when they watch it. Then again, people say the Simpsons is outstanding and I don't agree. I think that while that show does have its intriguing and redeeming qualities, the audience doesn't have to think, or stay one step ahead of the characters.
When I get old and successful. I'm going to buy all of the Episodes of Boston Public. I've only seen four "chapters," but in each one, I was almost impressed enough with the storytelling and energy that I wanted to get deeper into the characters.
I'd like to say the same about Glimore Girls. I appreciated the dialogue in the handful of episodes I saw in its premiere season, but the plots didn't seem all that compelling or tight.
posted
*agrees with Amka except for MASH* I dislike MASH. But I am not good to talk to because I hate 95% of shows on television. It just gets on my nerves too much, and I'll expand on that sometime.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to go read through this whole forum, but I don't think anyone said Seinfield was 'icky'. Just stupid and without moral compass.
'Icky' would be that Fox show about bugs they ran last Saturday. Specifically the flies whose maggots burrowed into your skin and created pustules that they then popped out of when you squeezed. That was just so gross and cool.
There is a lot of good TV, but we have a rental pass and I can watch just about any movie I want, any time I want. This has pretty much replaced TV serials for me. I do watch Malcom in the Middle though.
So yeah, it is sad when someone says there isn't a word worth reading, when all they've been picking up is the magazines at the checkout. Maybe we should all keep a copy of our favorite book with us to shove into people's hands when we get the chance.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't watch TV at all. It all sucks, in my opinion, compared to books. I'm just spoiled. I can't bear to have my intelligence insulted the way they do to you on TV all the time.
Once I was the Neilson family, and I filled the whole booklet out with "nope, no, uh uh, none, nothing". <laughs> I wonder if they threw out my data.
Try not watching TV for a month and see how you like it. I would never go back. Every so often, particularly when I'm in a motel room traveling for work, I turn it on just to do a little anthropology. To see what my fellow human beings find so fascinating. And I always just flip and flip and waste tons of time and don't even enjoy it! So then I think to myself, "Wow, I'm really glad I don't watch TV" and I get a book and read it and am happy. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loved that show. It had the best writers on television, and some of the best performers. It was simply hilarious.
Frazier I could harly watch for the humiliation factor which made me cringe nearly every episode. When the hammer was about to fall, I'd always change the channel. I'm glad I'm not alone.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Somebody mentioned MASH. That was definately one of my favorite comedies. It was brilliant, it was funny, and all too horrible at times. It was real.
I love M*A*S*H. Fantastic. The show had me alternately sobbing and laughing hysterically. I think it's the only show I've watched where I've been attached to the characters.
The movie, though, did nothing for me. But the books are good brain-candy reads.
posted
Yes, watching people get humiliated is uncomfortable. To me it seems like television is getting worse by the second. Why do I need to see shows about maggots when maggots make me nauseated? Why is 90% of things on television old useless shows? Back in college I hardly watch TV. Except for X Files on Sunday nights with friends. Other than that, I didn't miss it at all. There was video games and the internet. But lately I have been torturing myself with television to punish myself for not having a job. These shows are awful! Especially Will and Grace and Dharma and Greg.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
You've just condemned all of TV. I think that is a little rash.
I will admit that a lot of my favorite TV is non-fiction. When we had satellite TV my channels were Tech TV (which had a fantastic show that featured independent CGI shorts), History and Biography channels, Discovery channels, home and garden channel, and Food network (Iron Chef is fun.). Now I'm down to PBS, which we luckily have two of in the area.
But there is fiction on TV that can be good. I don't really watch it, but I've heard about it. Like you, I read. Or like I said before, we get movies.
I'm just not going to condemn all of TV and claim that I only watch it for anthropological study.
"Hmmm, lets see what the silly masses are watching."
"Nope, too stupid for me."
Rather than flipping around in the middle of the day, why don't you pick up a TV guide and find something?
Seinfield means something different to other people. I find the characters unbelievable, and I translate that to 'they are stupid', but the show isn't stupidly written nor does it insult people's intelligence. It just isn't about people I can relate to.
So don't knock an entire medium without ever bothering to see what is really in it.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
