There is no comparison between M*A*S*H and Seinfeld. M*A*S*H was definitely a very VERY popular show.
The difference is that not only is Seinfeld an exceptional show, it has become the subject of office, school, home, leisure conversations. Wherever you go, something in your life can relate to an episode of Seinfeld. This rarely, if ever, happened in M*A*S*H.
While M*A*S*H is missed, it will hardly have the impact that Seinfeld has had. Case in point, a couple stations are even canceling programming during the last episode of Seinfeld. The rationale: Why bother showing anything??!!
Well, during M*A*S*H's time, there weren't a hundred stations to choose from. I don't see any major stations (Fox, ABC, CBS) cancelling their programming, only Nick at Night and I think Comedy Central also. Also you gotta remember that M*A*S*H has that "unbeatable" 60.8 rating and 77% share, a record that I don't think that Seinfeld's finale can beat (I do think that Seinfeld's last episode will beat out 2nd place Cheers)
Comparing the two shows is idiotic. First, M*A*S*H came on the air 25 years ago. If it had been on the air the same years as Seinfeld, then maybe you could compare them. Second, M*A*S*H was a comedy-drama. Seinfeld is strictly comedy. There <is> a difference between the two. Third, M*A*S*H was a show about <something>; the insanity of war. Seinfeld is about <nothing>. Fourth, the ensemble on M*A*S*H was much larger than that on Seinfeld. Seinfeld has the 4 core characters plus peripheral characters (Newman, Uncle Leo, etc) while M*A*S*H had a core of at least 6 to 8 people. Anyway, M*A*S*H has held up remarkably well after 25 years. Let's see if Seinfeld does as well. Remember, it's only been in reruns for what? 3 years?
TyrantJR45 wrote in article ...
during
Well, during M*A*S*H's time, there weren't a hundred stations to choose from. I don't see any major stations (Fox, ABC, CBS) cancelling their programming, only Nick at Night and I think Comedy Central also. Also you gotta remember that M*A*S*H has that "unbeatable" 60.8 rating and 77% share, a record that I don't think that Seinfeld's finale can beat (I do think that Seinfeld's last episode will beat out 2nd place Cheers)
The whole thing about Seinfeld being a show about nothing, sound kinda cute, makes it kinda special but what other shows had anymore subtance, without quoting the obvious.
People just watched M*A*S*H. People have incorporated Seinfeld into their daily lives ("yada yada" , "ya ever notice..." , etc.). While Hawkeye and the gang dominated the ratings in an era when there was not much else to choose from (3 networks and NO cable), Seinfeld holds its own against 100+ channels, the internet, satellite TV, etc. People who have never even seen Seinfeld can identify the oil painting of Kramer, or know that the series is cancelled. The only other series that ever came close to bonding with an audience because of its real-life situations was Cheers.
In terms of popularity, Seinfeld beats out MASH hands down. But popularity doesn't always equal good television; Seinfeld is funnier than MASH ever was, but the drama, acting, and "makes-you-think" factor in MASH is clearly superior to Seinfeld's. No other comedy has made people cry and laugh so hard in a 30-minute span as MASH. So Seinfeld is a better sitcom, while MASH is a better television show. Cheers would be a mix of the two.
As for the question of Seinfeld standing the test of time, I seriously doubt it will be as successful 20 years from now as MASH is today. Why? Most of the Seinfeld jokes are contemporary. The spoofs (Johnny Cochran = Jackie Charles, Time-slot hit episode, Hot coffee spill episode, JFK-movie parody episode, George Steinbrenner spoof, Kramer and Al Cowlings helping OJ, etc) won't work as well 20 years from now because a lot of people won't know what the hell they're talking about. Older viewers will smile at the references, but the younger generation will look perplexed.
I seriously doubt that most viewers today understand all the references but it doesn't stop them enjoying the show. Seinfeld is about people. People have always been selfish arseholes and that won't change in 20 years time.
The "makes you think factor" is stuffed right in your face with M*A*S*H*; with Seinfeld things are a little more subtle.
I personally find M*A*S*H* a little hokey at times. Not on the grandiose scale of "The Waltons" but it can get close.
I like M*A*S*H* (hate the early episodes though, it only became good when about 3 of the main actors left and they got some new fellas in who were much better) but I don't think it's fair to compare it with Seinfeld- apples and oranges.
I think you are correct about which is the superior show, but I cannot help but think that M*A*S*H will always be more memorable because it is set in surroundings unfamiliar to most of us.
While we can all now sit around and discuss last nights episode and how funny it was and how we can relate to it, it is exactly that everyday feel that will prevent us from having distinct memories in the years to come.
I am a highly devoted fan to both shows and would say that of the two,
Seinfeld is my favorite. I would, however, say that MASH (and maybe even
Cheers) will remain popular longer than Seinfeld. Seinfeld's strength is (among
other things) is its topicalness. It injects items of the current culture
(mainstream and pop) into its story lines with amazing rapidity and aptness.
This, at the same time, may be its weakness vis a vis having ongoing, perennial
appeal. MASH dealt with well known facts (the war) and timeless topics (love,
death, temptation, the waste of war, etc). Any human from the 1960's on (and
earlier, I guess) will be able to relate to those issues.
Seinfeld's wonderful ability to skewer current trends and tendencies in
culture may be lost on later generations perhaps even on those who view the
show a mere five to ten years after their initial showing. I would rebut
potential critics that say 'I've seen episodes from the second season and still
think they're funny' by saying that an *initial* exposure to these episodes
some 5-10 years after their premier may lose some viewers. MASH, of course,
dealt with an era from our collective pasts and had the luxury of using 20/20
hindsight and was able to latch on to those elements of the Korean War that
left an impression on our culture. Seinfeld has a more daunting task of
catching lightning in a bottle on a weekly basis while the ink is still drying
in current cultural lexicon
Love to hear other's input and I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
I can't fairly appraise MASH because it never interested me enough to watch regularly. I loved Cheers during its early Diane days and Cheers was as much about nothing as Seinfeld. But I grew tired of the one-dimensional characters in Cheers after its fourth year. I have never grown tired of the wonderfully eccentric characters of Seinfelds. I think the amazing strength of the Seinfeld characters and the hysterical situations they encountered, rather than the "topicality" potential, will give Seinfeld an afterlife on the level of I Love Lucy. alt showbiz gossip
I enjoyed MASH more than any other sitcom of that era, but the last 2 seasons were tough to watch. MASH is a textbook example of a superior show sticking around a bit too long for its own good and leaving an overall impression somewhat lower than it should have been, as a result.
Also, I can't consider the 2 shows in the same light. Seinfeld rarely deals with serious issues and when it does, it's usually as silly or humorous as possible. MASH spent many episodes dealing with dark issues. Who can ever forget the episode where Hawkeye and Houlihan got stuck in the cave after their Jeep got shelled? They spent a half hour delving into their hidden fears. There's no way anything like this could ever happen in a Seinfeld episode, and yet it happened very frequently in MASH. Remember when Potter had to talk down the private who wanted to kill himself? Howbout when Radar announced to the OR that Col. Blake's plane was shot down? (I cried.) I could go on, there's dozens in my head alone. I guess my point is it's sort of a disservice to both shows to attempt to compare them. They are/were both outstanding sitcoms, both extremely highly praised and both won many many awards, but that's as far as the comparison should go.