this used to be about breaking bad but it's kinda just about tv now so idk yeah

[Bridge]

I find the performances to be ridiculously over the top one-note carictatures of common neuroses (it makes Winnie the Pooh's examination of mental problems look subtle) which only remain consistent throughout because the episodes are as formulaic as humanly possible, almost House M.D. levels of "every episode must follow the same arc syndrome".

It's difficult for me to provide evidence that directly contradicts what you're saying because this is an aesthetic matter that is, of course, entirely subjective.

But really, can you honestly tell me the performances are unsubtle and over the top? The characters absolutely are over the top, but that's part of the overall joke of the series. It's even referenced in the finale, which nobody understands. To me, it is one of the best final episodes ever. I could explain why, but if you absolutely haven't seen every episode then it's pointless. To clarify, the actual jokes that appear in the show are not in any way irrelevant. I find them hilarious (in no small part due to the nuanced performances) and acknowledge if people don't find it funny.

I, however, am not a big fan of comedy that relies solely on dialogue to get laughs. In order to really judge whether something is funny to me I look at what is going on visually (body language, environment, props etc.), sonically (inflections in voice, ambiance etc.), structurally (pacing, dialogue) and most important of all, thematically (story, concepts etc.). And it is all important, and yes, I do pay attention to all of these things whenever I watch anything. I'm not just making shit up either. Read anything about Larry David and you will immediately understand what the is show about (nothing - ironically).

So while the jokes are what makes the show good, everything else is what makes it great. Which I think deserves respect. There are plenty of things I do not specifically love which I acknowledge as significant.

Characters will find themselves in slightly awkward situations and proceed to overthink it so much that they make it much worse.

It's an oversimplification (and slightly inaccurate), but this is the general theme that runs through every episode. It's a way through which the writer (that is Larry David) can comment on little things that society takes for granted. By showing them in an exaggerated light, he really illustrates what the problem with them is. George Carlin derives his humor from exactly the same concept. For example, in this video:





He is essentially saying that we should start executing people on live television for entertainment. If you take it at face value, then I can understand why you would be horrified and would dislike the video intensely. After all, how could showing gruesome deaths (and selling them no less!) on television be funny? Then you realize that he is actually criticizing society for how hypocritical it is by showing it in an exaggerated light. And he is completely right - the crowd is cheering for fuck's sake.

That's why it's funny - it's completely incongruous to what we expect and the humor does not come only from the jokes and their presentation. Again, exactly the same thing with Seinfeld. The reason why George Carlin is enjoyable is because his showmanship is unparalleled and his jokes are expertly crafted. The reason why he's a freaking artist is the subtle humor he draws from distorting familiar themes and exposing the irony in them. This is by no means the only way he "does" humor but it is the one most noticeable on closer inspection.

To each his own, I suppose. I recognize that Seinfeld was a big step forward in sitcoms but that doesn't take away that "lets follow these completely unlikable people around in their lives" is a bad setup, because I hate reality TV.

The characters being unlikable is subjective. Personally, I like them but it's possible you fell into the same trap I described above - taking everything at face value. Yes, the characters themselves with no regard to humor absolutely are unlikeable - but that's the joke. In a way, they represent everything that is wrong with society, and yet we get to know them slowly over the course of the series and start to sympathize with them.

Spoiler below!

Then, the finale slaps you in the face with the greatest irony of all - that there is nothing to like about the characters at all. It's the reason why almost everyone, including so-called fans of the series, dislike the finale because they are being told the characters they came to love are actually basically criminals.

Only by looking at the underlying structure of the show, episode by episode, can you really see what it's about. Essentially, the show itself is one big joke.

If you absolutely hate the characters from the get-go, then I'm sorry, you just will not be able to understand the show. It's not because you're too stupid or anything, you just won't be able to absorb it fully. I consider this long exploration of the show a success even if you watch just one episode with all this in mind.

So that's why I consider Seinfeld great.

[failedALIAS]

So that's why I consider Seinfeld great.

Oh mother-fucker!

[rtjhbfvsrry]

I am well aware of the workings of irony and exaggeration, thank you, and I have also watched enough of Seinfeld to recognize "the joke". You act as if it is a hidden depth which I find midly concerning considering not only was it obvious enough for it to become one of the biggest shows of the 90's in America, but they also go out of their way to repeatedly bludgeon the viewer to death with the joke hamfistedly even before they repeatedly explain it outright with their ridiculous and masturbatory "show within a show" conceit. You do not need to hear writer's commentary to know this show is, in essence, about nothing because the show is the writer's soapbox.

Honestly, I get what they were trying to do with Seinfeld and I recognize how it changed the game concerning sitcoms. I also recognize that the characters are iconic, but the key factor to making inherently unlikable characters sympathetic is depth and the characters in Seinfeld do not possess any - in fact their lack of depth is part of the point. The show was meant to get away from "lesson learned" plots and overdone character growth arcs, but unlikable characters such as these only work when they interact in an interesting way and Seinfeld fails completely on this level because the characters only work as a sounding board for each other to make wrong conclusions about before heading back to their own wacky hijink of the week and there's only so many George Costanza Plots that can blow up in his own face before it becomes stale and formulaic. You linked the Seinfeld is Unfunny effect earlier, ironically I think Seinfeld is NOT an example of that because Seinfeld cannibalized itself to death far before other shows did (excluding, of course, Friends, which ripped entire episodes). If you want to keep your characters bankable by keeping their iconic state, eventually you will run out of new places to take your show and this happened very early on.

I find Seinfeld to be ambitious, but on a whole I think it is a grand failure of an experiment. I appreciate the show for what it brought to the table but as a whole I find it to be completely unwatchable affair. I also think comparing it to George Carlin is an insult to the man because he is right up there with the great Bill Hicks and Richard Pryor and a mainstream laughtrack sitcom most definitely does not and will never compare in my eyes.

But it's obvious we won't agree on this because you obviously really like it and I obviously really dislike it, so I just wasted a bunch of time because I am addicted to arguing on the internet. : /

[Bridge]

So that's why I consider Seinfeld great.

Oh mother-fucker!

I knew you'd appreciate that.

I also think comparing it to George Carlin is an insult to the man because he is right up there with the great Bill Hicks and Richard Pryor and a mainstream laughtrack sitcom most definitely does not and will never compare in my eyes.

It doesn't compare at all, I agree. I am a huge fan of both Carlin and Seinfeld and readily admit the latter doesn't hold a candle to the former. I was just trying to illustrate what "the joke" was which apparently you find incredibly obvious.

Honestly, I'm sorry for being a little condescending but just from talking to people, both fans and people that hate the show, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that nowadays the show really is misunderstood, and that is personal experience. Just because 90s audience's "got it" doesn't mean the point is as immediately obvious to people watching it now. A lot of people that really dislike it just aren't paying attention, which is why I went through so much effort to spell it out since I couldn't really tell from your comment whether you were. It certainly is "hidden" enough that the majority of modern viewers don't notice it. I especially find it ridiculous you say the viewer is "bludgeoned to death by the joke". I'm not just talking about the fact that there is a show about nothing being made on a show about nothing. It's certainly a major event and it's something I appreciate I do agree that is obvious. I'm talking about - well, everything else. It would take way too much time to go into everything, but the show is filled with irony.

As I said, it's an aesthetic thing. If you don't like it, fine, but I think it deserves some credit, which you do give. I still think you should review the performances, I think they are far more subtle than you realize.

I honestly do consider it great though.

[rtjhbfvsrry]

I considered giving it another whirl after your spirited defense - but honestly I won't be able to get past the end of season 7 anyway, so it'd be a fruitless endeavour.

[Bridge]

I considered giving it another whirl after your spirited defense - but honestly I won't be able to get past the end of season 7 anyway, so it'd be a fruitless endeavour.

I do agree the series goes a bit downhill at that point. It's by no means a perfect show, but I really appreciate it. I mean, with comedy being so stale and unimaginative in recent years I find it hard not to be apprehensive of people saying Seinfeld is outdated or overrated. It's the same with movies like Big Lebowksi. It's incredibly popular because of the quotes but most people that dislike it don't understand it and there are far too many people that like it but don't appreciate it. If the average person watching really perceived the underlying joke of everything we've been talking about and appreciated it, the pathetic attempts at comedy that come out every year would not be so well received, and black comedies or especially deadpan comedy would be far better received and respected.

[failedALIAS]

I considered giving it another whirl after your spirited defense - but honestly I won't be able to get past the end of season 7 anyway, so it'd be a fruitless endeavour.

I do agree the series goes a bit downhill at that point. It's by no means a perfect show, but I really appreciate it. I mean, with comedy being so stale and unimaginative in recent years I find it hard not to be apprehensive of people saying Seinfeld is outdated or overrated. It's the same with movies like Big Lebowksi. It's incredibly popular because of the quotes but most people that dislike it don't understand it and there are far too many people that like it but don't appreciate it. If the average person watching really perceived the underlying joke of everything we've been talking about and appreciated it, the pathetic attempts at comedy that come out every year would not be so well received, and black comedies or especially deadpan comedy would be far better received and respected.

Hey well that's just, like. . . your opinion, man.

[rtjhbfvsrry]

Well, that might just be some nostalgia combined with Sturgeon's Law. There was a lot of dreck on TV while Seinfeld was going on as well, in fact it was based on getting away from that. I love me some Blackadder but I'm pretty sure it was just as badly received by mainstream audiences then as it is now. The sad truth is that most people don't pay enough attention enjoy things that take effort to get.

Take Inception or Prometheus, the critics and general moviegoing audiences found that these movies were difficult and intellectual. Whuh?

[Bridge]

Well, that might just be some nostalgia combined with Sturgeon's Law.

Absolutely, but if you look at shows that were really popular in the past and compare them with shows that are really popular now, in my opinion there is a significant drop in quality. I'm well aware that there is no such thing as "a time when movies didn't suck", but I find that with information being so easily accessible (a lot of it incorrect) with the advent of personal computers people are less inclined to think for themselves, or think in general, and this has contributed in a significant way to stupid, emotionally and intellectually undemanding entertainment being emphasized.

EDIT: There's no real way to prove that though and it's not really a discussion I want to have.

[Wooderson]

So annoyed I have to wait till Summer for last half of Season 5.