The Gaming Den

I just woke up from a nap where I figured out that Jerry Seinfeld was really a Mi-Go, thus explaining his cold inhumanity and distant way of judging humans.

Kramer & Elaine have a similar callousness towards basic human relationships. Kramer has a lot of free time, doesn't work, yet lives by himself in a spacious NYC apartment, there's a lot of different directions on what his sanity sapping secret is. Elaine is an embodiment of spite and jealousy, I figure if I read more Lovecraft I'd be able to find a good analog.

George though, unlike the other Seinfeld cast members, he actually yearns for human affection, but is rejected for some feeling of abhorrence about him. George has always tried lying to change who he was, fantasizing over alternate identities where he is loved and able to return that love but he cannot ever escape from reality. I figure George is some kind of leviathan-spawn, like from Innsmouth. Remember when that whale was beached? He had empathy towards it, for the first time in his life he could feel another being's heart, and he saved it. George has some power over the ocean, but doesn't quite realize it yet. When George's father talks about being persecuted for their religious beliefs, it could be 'cause their cult activities were sniffed out by some brave luminaries in the past.


Seinfeld is a show about 'nothing', for all of humanity's hopes and accomplishments are less than a figment of a dream of the Old Ones, and will return to nothing with their awakening.

This is kinda like a childhood killing story/comic/joke (except Seindfeld wasn't a children's show), or comedy gold in the making. And for some reason I'm associating this with Diet Pepsi.

Why is this in IMHO?

Why is IMHO?

So... it's a thread about nothing?

Why would anyone read a thread about nothing?

Morzas wrote:Why would anyone read a thread about nothing?

Why did people watch Seinfeld?

I have no idea about that one. It's a shitty American sit-com, so the plot of the entire thing is "bad things happen to bad people". You have a bunch of characters you're not supposed to like (and if you ARE, then they failed amazingly), played by soulless husks, with a laugh track because you're not doing any laughing, they need to provide their own.

Koumei wrote:I have no idea about that one. It's a shitty American sit-com, so the plot of the entire thing is "bad things happen to bad people". You have a bunch of characters you're not supposed to like (and if you ARE, then they failed amazingly), played by soulless husks, with a laugh track because you're not doing any laughing, they need to provide their own.

The soullessness is what brought the idea on, they lack ihumanity.

Yeah, but that might actually be the actors themselves, not the characters.

Koumei raises a good point. Normally, jerk protagonists who have awful things happen to them are usually a comedy goldmine. So why didn't it work for the Seinfeld characters?

First things first, middle America did find the characters amusing and I think that we can all admit to ourselves that our tastes tend to be rather marginal. Regardless, the reason why the characters didn't work for me is because their jerkitude and pettiness were so banal and realistic. Jerk characters like Strong Bad succeed at winning the audience's hearts because the stuff they do is over-the-top or at least creative. Jerry and Kramer and Elaine and George's relentless pettiness remind us of real-life jerks and the trouble they put us through. It's sort of like how everyone says that Umbridge was a 'better' villain than Voldemort.

The punishment they get for their jerkitude tends to be fairly mundane, too. Jerry's or Elaine's pickiness isn't punished by a complicated revenge scheme that humiliates them in front of the city; they just get dumped or forgotten by their love interest of the week. Kramer's attempts at cutting corners and masking his incompetence doesn't result in ridiculous lawsuits and news reports; he just gets fired.

I think that it's telling George tends to be the character non-fans of the show dislike the least.

For all that this is a damn TVTropes link, it may be relevant to discussion of why Seinfeld sucked.

Wouldn't guarantee it as I've never watched Seinfeld.

That's an ollllld TvTropes link, introduced way before the site underwent its 'anti-intellectualism for pedophiles' transformation.

I don't find the excuse of 'you just think it's bad because it was a pioneer and follow-up works did it better' particularly convincing, though. The classic Donald Duck cartoons and first Godzilla movie and Super Mario Bros. and The Producers and Watchmen and Star Wars and Jaws and so-on are still entertaining even to this day. Even if you just restrict things to sitcoms, Malcolm in the Middle and Scrubs and All in the Family and the Bill Cosby Show and Taxi have a timelessness (even though I don't like half of the shows on the list) that shows like Roseanne and Will and Grace and Seinfeld and Friends and Charles in Charge don't have.

Sure, if every old work or sitcom was completely outclassed by what came afterwards then this would be a more convincing excuse. But that's just not the case. This dissonance leads me to believe that Seinfeld had some sort of structural problem that was masked by its then-contemporary popularity. My theory is that it bungled the Lovable Jerk formula. But I'm open to other explanations.

Well, yeah, they bungled the lovable jerk formula in the sense that the characters aren't really intended to be very lovable. Curb Your Enthusiasm is the other big Larry David outfit and that show takes the unlovable factor and cranks it so high that it's a wonder he makes it through most episodes without getting punched in the face.

It was the nineties. TV just sucked back then, and Seinfield was popular because there just wasn't anything else to watch.

There's a reason why the Lost pilot blew people's minds: it was the first not-niche pilot in seriously forever that wasn't utterly predictable, bland shit.

I think Seinfeld holds up reasonably well.

Seinfield is funny. Seinfield is a powerhouse comedy writer who is both incredibly prolific and talented. His material has tremendously broad reach and is basically the purest form of observational comedy.

Seinfield works without the laughtrack, I've watched it without it, it's not Big Bang Theory or other garbage like that. I'm unsure what you are comparing it to. The people in this forum are unusually intelligent and there is a connection between people's intelligence levels and their preference for abstract/absurdist humor. That means if I would guess I'd say that most Denizens would tend to like things like Monty Python or the Simpsons or Archer or maybe Sunny in Philadelphia. But it's a different genre of comedy so it's an apples and oranges situation.

Anyway I mostly posted because I wanted to say that this is the best thread concept ever. Seinfield Fhtagn.