Seinfeld Vs. Lucy

Fans of I Love Lucy, like fans of Seinfeld, have a handful of favorite episodes they consider classics.

One of the "classic" Lucy episodes is "Lucy Meets William Holden." This episode is acclaimed as a classic because of just one funny moment: Lucy lighting a cigarette and accidently setting fire to her false nose.

Also, "Lucy Does the Tango" has a classic reputation because of a single sight gag in which Ricky crushes hundreds of eggs Lucy had hidden under her clothes.

Seinfeld fans would never consider an episode a classic because of just one isolated gag. In order for a Seinfeld episode to be considered a classic, it must be packed with multiple great gags, all the way through.

By Lucy standards, "The Frogger" should be considered a masterpiece. It had just one hilarious and memorable gag: George playing real-life "Frogger" while carrying a "Frogger" machine across the street.

It is, however, the consensus among most Seinfeld fans (at least the ones in this newsgroup) that the show declined considerably in the ninth season. Yet, by Lucy standards, the WORST Seinfeld episodes are comedy classics. All you need is _one_ good laugh, and it doesn't matter if the rest of the episode is nothing much.

Some Seinfeld episodes are better than others, but the worst Seinfeld episodes are about on par with the best Lucy episodes. Lucy fans who won't recognize this have just not come to terms with the fact that their standards are too low. If one great gag means "classic", then the WORST Seinfeld episodes should all be recognized as classics.

I have no idea what Lucy fans you know, but you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who will tell you that there was *ONE* funny moment on any of her shows. Yes, there are some moments that are remembered more than others, but they didn't occur in a sea of medicrity.

The "Tango" episode isn't remembered because of one scene -- it's remembered because that one scene got the longest sustained laugh of the enitre series, running for a couple of minutes.

In contrast, "Frogger" merited maybe a chuckle and appeared in an otherwise forgetful episode.

If you want to talk about classics, fans of Lucy will pick out shows from the entire run, sometimes focusing on a scene or two, sometimes on an entire setup.

What I find funny, however, is that of all the Top 10 and Top 20 lists I seen and heard for favorite Seinfelds, only the words 'yada yada yada' invoke anything for the last couple of seasons. OTherwise, people go way back to the Contest, the Bubble boy, Mulva, the Chinese restaurant.

Seinfeld will never be in a category with Lucy.

CJB

Christopher J. Burke wrote:

Yeah, "Seinfeld" was much more intelligent than "Lucy". I think Lucy was funny sometimes, but she was just so damn stupid. It's kinda like watching Home Improvement: just like you can predict that Tim is going to add more power and blow something up and Jill is going to bitch at him, you know Lucy is going to plot some idiotic scheme to get on Desi's show, meet a star, etc. BOR-ING!

Seinfeld always created a new angle in almost every episode. You didn't know what to expect...and it was always funny...and what about all of the subplots that always came together in the end? Lucy never was that creative.

That's what I think anyways! Rob

[email] wrote:

<
   Let's not go there.<
   Rob, I agree with you. I MUCH prefer Seinfeld to Lucy (Sorry, I never
loved Lucy).<
   But it's just personal taste. I love South Park, but I hate Beavis
and Butthead. I love the Simpsons, but I never could get into King of
the Hill. I love Star Trek, but Voyager leaves me cold. I never liked
Hill Street Blues, NYPD Blue or St. Elsewhere. I liked LA Law and Picket
Pences.<
   So what?<
   The real test of Seinfield's quality will be time ... 10 years from
now, will people find it funny? How about 20 years?<
   But even if the series fades to nostalgia, that doesn't mean it was
poorly done, only that it captured a particular moment in time.<
   For a really interesting look at pop art, rent a copy of Woody
Allen's Radio Days ....

Heinlein wrote:

<yada yada yada>

There is no way we can compare I Love Lucy and Seinfeld in today's climate. They come from two very different times. Forty YEARS apart. More than the age of most posters in this group. So when we watch Seinfeld we are seeing it in and for the times it is created. To appreciate 'Lucy' you have to go back to 1955. Realize the population is watching two 'already famous sex god/goddess type people' now living a real life. Lucille Ball was a gorgeous young movie starlet (Teri Hatcher type?) a few years earlier. Jerry can have a CONTEST and say sodomy in the FINALE. Lucy could not even say the word 'pregnant' when she was pregnant on the show. Elaine can have a dream sequence in a bed with friends: Jerry, George and Kramer. Lucy and her HUSBAND had to have twin beds.

Lucy and Seinfeld are the same in some ways - they broke new ground, there were no half-hour TV sitcoms before Lucy. It was the first! Seinfeld, like Lucy, All in the Family,... tested the envelope of TV comedy with new situations, political humour, and iconoclastic situations. In watching 'Lucy' today it seems pretty tame but in those days the 'independent' housewife was a social extreme. Lucy broke the ground for others who came later, Mary Tyler-Moore etc... (or was it Mary Tyler Moops?)

Similarities:
They both took place in a New York apartment
Ricky - Jerry    - both in show business
Lucy - Kramer - physical comedy
Fred - George  - money conscious nebish
Ethyl - Elaine    - sane sidekick

FWIW.

The News Guy(Mike) wrote in article ...

OK Seinfeld was much more intellegent then Lucy, just saying more intellegent is an insult. Lucy literally sucked. I know it's dated, but still, it sucked! All she did was physical comedy, which is ok in small doses. You want a really got old show, match the Honeymooners, they called him the great on for a reason. Chugman!!!!

Subject:      Re: Seinfeld Vs. Lucy
From:         "chug" 
Date:         1998/05/22
Message-ID:   
Newsgroups:   alt.tv.seinfeld

[More Headers] [Subscribe to alt.tv.seinfeld]

<Picture>

The News Guy(Mike) wrote in article ...

Yeah, with scripts about nose picking, farting and masterbation, Seinfeld is truly a far more intelligent show. LOL!

Well duh! What do you think Jackie Gleason did on The Honeymooners if it wasn't physical comedy? And BTW, I Love Lucy was far more than just physical comedy. Much of what made the show so appealing, and why it remains so popular today -- more popular even than The Honeymooners -- is the sharp dialogue between Lucy and Ricky, Lucy and Ethel, and Ethel and Fred.

Incidentally, I like Seinfeld, I like The Honeymooners, and I love Lucy. They're *all* great shows. If I had to pick a favorite though, I'd have to go with I Love Lucy.

Lucy and Seinfeld are both extreme successes for their times. Seinfeld is a more developed, sophisticated comic as Lucy was greatest at "being Lucy". Audiences, would not have understood the comic staff on Seinfeld if it were presented in the 50's, 60's or 70's. Not only would it not be not understood, but the morality of the time of Lucy would not have even allowed the show to air. And, if Lucy's episodes were presented today, it would be hard to hold an audience, because even the re-runs of Lucy, even though they had some funny bits, it was all too corney.

These two are decades a part and not really comparable.

Larry

L.Murray and M.Murray Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania