Fans express fatigue with excessive media coverage and hype surrounding Seinfeld, comparing it to Cheers and noting the prevalence of cast on magazine covers and news reports.
In article , [email] says...
I am fed up with it too. Its just getting tiresome. It was a good show but the hype is ridiculous. When the news starts talking about it that just crosses the line.
As much as i loved Cheers that hype which was bad never came close to this.
Although i wonder if Seinfeld's cast will end up appearing on Jay Leno drunk like Cheer's cast did. God in many ways that was better then the episode.
Don't get me wrong, I love the show as much as the next gal..but this is getting out of hand. The media has nothing better to report on. Every magazine cover has either the seinfeld cast or Leonardo DiCaprio.WHO CARES! They go to far, jst like w/ princess Di. next thing ya know they will have a Seinfeld stamp, a collectors plate,dolls etc. Just give us the finale and play the reruns and shut up already.>I was in a bookstore today and was
JVRaad wrote in article ...
magazine
go to
Seinfeld
editions
If you got a problem with Seinfeld get out of the Seinfeld newsgroup! J/K ;) But seriously Do you see what else their reporting about, Bill Clinton bumping every gal in D.C. Maybe a show whose worse subjects are masturbation and oral sex is a little... OK Forget that.
Chugman!!!
here is how our local NBC affiliate opens the 6pm news
India explodes Nuclear Bomb and 3 people die in local accident
but first let's check in on how you can
set your VCR and not miss a moment of that all important last
Seinfeld episode coming up on" Seinfeld Thursday. "
enough already i lost interest in the boredom of
this show more than 2 years ago
Is that really the way the news went?
In article , [email] wrote:
i cant believe seinfeld was the THIRD story!
[email] (Bruce Moore) wrote:
hahahahahahahehehehehehehohohohohoho, that freaking Bruce always cracks me up...rock on funny dude...YOU THA MAN....hahahahahahahahehehehehehehehehohohohohohohohgulphahahahaha.
cheers, wt
[email] wrote in article ...
[email]
with
Don't like the hype? Don't watch the show.
Let us true fans enjoy what will be the final few days of the greates sitcom ever.
Brother J
I don't think so. Seinfeld will exist in syndication for many many years. It's the most popular syndicated show in TV history (as well as the most expensive). Your grandchildren will know who Jerry Seinfeld is. Their grandchildren probably will too.
Dave wrote:
What's your beef with this show? It was shown for years on end in syndication--and still is to this day. The Honeymooners is currently shown on Seattle's KONG-TV (ch. 16) every Sunday night from 9:30 p.m.-10:00 p.m. I try never to miss it.
On Thu, 14 May 1998 12:41:12 -0400, Dave wrote:
nd on and on....
Ouch - that's pretty harsh. The Honeymooners is still one of the pioneering sitcoms on TV, whether you watch it or not. However, I do agree, Seinfeld will be around for a long time.
What's your basis for most popular syndicated show? MASH got better ratings than Seinfeld does when it first came out in syndication and still gets good ratings now for as long as it has been in syndication. Seinfeld is currently the #1 off-net syndicated show, but the last info I saw it was still losing to Jeopardy in total homes.
Brad
a.n.b.a.houndawg wrote in message ...
Seinfeld was NOT a show about nothing! Jerry Seinfeld never said that it was! That whole "nothing" crap was a concept George Castanza came up with in the "Pitch" episode. The "nothing" concept describes the FICTIONAL TV series co-created by George Castanza; NOT the real Seinfeld series.
I'm glad you said that. Seinfeld was never about nothing. It was about everything most people simply don't care about.
There's only one cool thing about Frank Sinatra's death--the news is going to be filled with retrospects of him which will cut into the hype surrounding Seinfeld's demise.
We can only hope.
Though the cynical part of me wonders which May 14, 1998 will be rememberd for more - the end of a legend, or the end of Seinfeld. And the cynical part shudders to think it'll be Seinfeld.
In article , [email] said:
(1) I thought I heard on the news that Sinatra had died in the early morning hours of the 15th. (Of course, I live in Boston and if I heard that report on the local news it might have just been an artifact of the difference in time zones between the East and West coasts.)
(2) A year from now nobody's going to remember May 14th for anything. Pop quiz: on what dates did M*A*S*H and Cheers air their final first-run episodes? Answer: I don't know either.
In article , [email] (William December Starr) wrote:
Sinatra definitely died on the 15th. Late night/early morning. I don't know why these people seem to think that he died on Thursday. More importantly, his death was *reported* on the 15th, so even if he died midday Thursday, he'll be remembered as dying on the 15th.
Cheers, Lulu
In rec.arts.tv on 18 May 1998 02:19:39 GMT, bitchyspice@*.geocities.com (Lulu) wrote:
Duh!
"These people" would rather believe the New York Times, Associated Press, CNN, NBC and the other news agencies who reported the official time and date of Frank Sinatra's death as 10:50 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on May 14, 1998. But, if you want to believe that he died some other time, that's your choice...
<From the N.Y. Times, May 15, 1998:>
LOS ANGELES -- Frank Sinatra, the dashing teen idol who matured into the premier romantic balladeer of American popular music and the "Chairman of the Board" to his millions of fans, died Thursday night of a heart attack. He was 82.
Sinatra, who had not been seen in public since a heart attack in January 1997, was pronounced dead at 10:50 p.m. in the emergency room of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said his publicist, Susan Reynolds. Sinatra's family, including his wife was with him when he died.
<end of news article excerpt>
Frank Sinatra died? When?
That episode was mocking the very show they were in. And "nothing" is really the wrong word, but by "nothing," they mean that no major themes and plots are developed. For a sitcom, it had a deceptively random feel to the plots. Anything could happen at any time: a golfball getting caught in a whale's breathing passage, for instance. This freedom from reality's constraints gave it the appearance that it was about nothing. The concept George pitched was the show Jason Alexander was currently starring in. It added a depth to it that you grasp only as it escapes you.
Not true. You want major themes? Howabout 'defining strict rules for all social situations'? There's a theme that showed up in about a hundred episodes. Howabout, 'no good deed goes unpunished'? There's a theme that's been going on for 9 years. You're getting hung up on those phrases that article writers seem to share amongst themselves because they show up all the time.
No plots developed? Howabout the NBC Pilot plot that only took, what, 20 episodes to run through? Howabout George and Susan's relationship? That plot lasted 2 seasons.
Wait a minute. I agree you have a point, but what CARRIED the stories was the absurd focus on the little details of life. And you neglected to address that I said it had a random feel to the development of events. That gave the show the APPEARANCE of being about nothing. The slogan came from the show itself, originated in the plot of one of it's own classic episodes. It did NOT orginate by article writers. And the storylines you're pointing to were not storylines in a sense as developed by other sitcoms. In other sitcoms, the situations are moved forward by some effort by the characters; sometimes (as in GRACE UNDER FIRE) the plots involve some social issue, or sentimentality. In SEINFELD, the characters become the victims of forces larger than themselves, and they have little influence over the events. And there was never anything sentimental about it which said that the characters have succeeded. In other words, it was an excercise in absurdity week after week, and -- as I said in the last post -- it was not constrained by reality as are other sitcoms.
You've caused me to have to analyze the content of the show and I can't really fine the right words for what I'm trying to say, but the slogan we're debating has a ring of truth in it. It never expects us to do anything but laugh at the absurdities presented. _____________________________________________ Alric Knebel [email] _____________________________________________
Alric Knebel wrote:
Considering the number of posts I have to wallow through, I'm quitting this thread now. I agree with your final statement. There is something to it. Maybe it's like how when you repeat the same word over and over, it's starts to lose it's meaning and it becomes a mere grouping of syllables. Sigh. ------------------------------------------ [email] (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
In article , [email] said:
How about "Unlikable people aren't fun to watch?"
In article , [email] said:
How about "Unlikable people aren't fun to watch?"
On Thu, 14 May 1998 12:41:12 -0400, Dave wrote:
What did they say, $1 billion for syndication rights? I wonder what the value of Lucy was. But I'm not sure Seinfeld is gonna wear as well as some shows did, like Cheers. Could become a cult attraction, which means little ad revenue. Still with no further production costs, it still could run a long time. With so many non-network channels, they will have to rerun EVERYTHING.
In article , [email] said:
"Yeah, he's some boring guy that Grandpa never shuts up about."
"He's this big 'genius' we have to study in school. I tried watching his stuff but it sucked so I got the Cliff Notes instead."
(Look at it this way: Once upon a time Milton Berle was Mister Television. Today, who under the age of fifty gives a damn about him?)
Well it won't be " jerry seinfeld " they remember it will be the show with the most interesting characters ever.
William December Starr wrote in article
I've seen a few Honeymooners episodes (I think only about 38 of them were made) and they just don't seem to 'speak to me'. I think the real issue is that back in the 50's and 60's, the 'sitcom formula' was fine for the time period, but just isn't enough to sustain an audience in the 90's. Times have changed. Granted, every show will have its hardcore fans, but I think Seinfeld is a little different. I lace Seinfeld in a select group with MASH, um, and that's about it.
Dave
That's because you just don't "get it". But that's understandable. It takes a special person to truly grasp the searing wit and social satire, as well as the intelligent writing, of the Honeymooners.
Cute. But I was never one of those "you didn't like it because you didn't get it" people. I'm more of a "you didn't like it because it didn't live up to your expectations, or it didn't fit in with your own personal view of how the show should have ended, or you simply got caught up in all the negative crap in the newsgroup" person.
I don't mind the negative posts, if they're well thought out. It's the "SINFIELD SUX!" posts I find annoying. Ah well, I guess having those people here for a little while just gives the folks in the religious newsgroups a break from the "JESUS SUX!" posts for that same period of time.
Dave wrote: <snip>I don't mind the negative posts, if they're well thought out. It's the
Ya' mean? Seinfeld SAVES???