I'm curious about something. The Simpsons and Seinfeld are, now that Cheers is gone, my two favorite shows on TV. How many people are fans of both? How would you compare the two? (For those that are fans of only one, I'd suggest you check the other one out.) And how would you rate Cheers in conjunction with them?
I could try to offer my own explanations, but the fact is, I'm not so sure what makes the shows funny. Cheers is (was) definitely the most conventional of the three, while the Simpsons is the most wacked out, mostly due to the fact that it's animated, and doesn't have to worry about messy things like internal coherence. As for Seinfeld, the best description I ever heard of it was, "The normal, everyday lives of the funniest people you know."
Excerpts from netnews.alt.tv.seinfeld: 27-Jul-93 Simpsons and Seinfeld Greg [email] (786)
I was just talking to someone about this very thing. The three shows I will not miss when the new season starts are the three S's: Seinfeld, Simpsons and Sanders (as in Larry Sanders).
Cheers used to be one of my favorite shows, but in the last four years or so (while I was in college) it really fell from my favor.
Ditto here. The Simpsons and Seinfeld are the ONLY shows I catch regularly (or as regularly as can be expected with a 1 month old son).
However, I would resist comparing the two. Simpsons is multilayered satire with a pace difficult to achieve without animation. Seinfeld succeeds with excellent chemistry amongst the cast, and an ability to extract humor from the mundane.
Cheers had the chemistry as well, but relied heavily on exaggeration for comedic effect. While I enjoyed Cheers, I did not savour it as I do Seinfeld and Simpsons.
I find this sort of funny because the only reason I became a fan of the show "Seinfeld" was because it followed "Cheers" this year. If it wasn't for that I still wouldn't be a fan today.
I think this is true for a lot of Seinfeld fans. There is a lot of people who are Cheers fans as well as Seinfeld fans.
ooops...you posted before me! i had the same opinion about both the Simpsons and Seinfeld - totally wacky and funny - a welcome change to all the other slapsticks.
No, I'm afraid you've missed the boat with Home Improvement. What ties the other four shows together is that to enjoy them, one must appreciate satire and subtlety--two qualities missing from virtually every other network TV show. Home Improvement, IMHO, is not subtle. But I've only seen it twice.
I would replace Home Improvement with Mad About You. Comments?
You would be right in what say about subtlety, and Mad ABout You would be a good replacement, but I still love Home Improvement. I like all the above and Home Improvement too.
Did you catch the episode in which Tim, despite his wife's warning, does something really macho and makes a big mess out of it, and has to apologize to her in a clever way at the end? Hint: it was the same episode in which he sought advice from his mysterious neighbor, and in which the older boys picked on the younger one but got their come-uppance.
What's that you say? That's the plot of EVERY episode??
I agree 100%. Tim Allen is o.k., but he's clearly no Jerry. It baffles me how that show manages to get higher ratings than Seinfeld. Then again, there are many things which baffle me about t.v. (ex. why the hell is " Family Matters" still on the air, and "Get a Life" isn't?)
Speaking of GET A LIFE, Chris Elliott has a movie coming out soon. I think it's called CABIN BOY. His character believes he is going on a cruise to Hawaii and ends up on a tramp steamer going to Hell's Basin. He bonds with the crew in a manner similar to the construction worker episode of GAL.
MST3K = (something starting with a m) space theater 3000
It is on the comedy channel or nickelodeon. The concept is that a comedian and some robots(?) sit a theater and make funny comments while watching bad movies.
Barney Luttbeg Center for Population Biology UC Davis
Home of the losers: Boston Red Sox, Florida State Seminoles,
I would agree. MAY is a superior show to Home Imp, IMHO... I had read all the Sein/HomeImp stuff and so I watched Home Imp a few times to see why it was "ruining" Seinfeld's ratings. I thought the show was run- of-the-mill trash. Sure, there was some funny lines, but the rest of the show was just your typical sitcom pie-in-the-face humor. Not very funny.
The only thing that was remotely original was the neighbor. I liked the fact that you never see his face directly.
Simpsons, Seinfeld, Letterman, MST3000 --- I love them all
Unfortunately, I don't get the Comedy Channel (damn TCI of Wisconsin) and to further ignite my anger, the CBS affiliate here in Madison is considering not carrying The Late Show with David Letterman because they get really high ratings with Cheers, Murphy Brown, and Designing Women reruns and Star Trek:The Next Generation.
They all have that one silly thing in common -- they make fun of the ordinary -- they all say things that we all imagine, but keep to ourselves.
Anyone know of a MST3000 newsgroup and/or a place to get copies of some of those *great* movies they show.
Excerpts from netnews.alt.tv.seinfeld: 27-Jul-93 Re: Simpsons and Seinfeld Paul Roger [email] (690)
Damn! Everyone I've talked to who gets their cable from TCI doesn't get Comedy Central and many don't get the Sci-Fi Channel either (like me). My friends and I have come to the conclusion that TCI sucks rocks.
Well, I am a fan of both (and of Mad About You, which I previously stated) but not a real fan of Cheers. I enjoyed Cheers whwnever I watched it, but I never went out of my way to watch it... not like I do with Seinfeld, Simpsons or MAY...
I think it's a shame that a lot of people write off the Simpsons just because it's a cartoon. The humor on the show is not directed at little kids. In fact I'd like to meet any little kid who actually understnads every joke on the show. (Hell, sometimes I don't even get all the jokes on the show.. ie. references to movies/celebs that I haven't heard of) But I love the way they sneak in those quick comic jabs oh so subtly... And I love Matt Groening's sense of satire. It's right up my alley.
As for Seinfeld... well, I think the show is just great. Here's one qualm I have though... I think people put too much emphasis on Kramer. Sure, he's hilarious, but I think the characters of George/Jerry/ Elaine and the other reoccuring/non-reoccuring characters get a bit snubbed in the process.
To paraphrase Kramer - "I understand the other characters... they LOVE the snub!!!"
Well, I am a fan of Cheers, Seinfeld *and* the Simpsons, but for different reasons. Each appeals to me, but on a different level.
When THE SIMPSONS first came out, I hated Bart and all he stood for. Now I tape it religiously. It is pop-culture under the microscope. The appeal is a kind of cultural road accident. Let's see how bad it will get. The cultural satire is usually right on the money. It doesn't have to conform to the exact same rules as the shows featuring actors so direct comparison is not always valid. Some people think that it's geared towards children, but I don't think that's true. The pervasive references really add another level like you see in the best of Python. I think it strays from many of the normal sitcom cliches (for which I applaud it). It does lean quite heavily on parody of existing works (whence derive many of the references), as can be proved by a glance at the titles (Cape Feare, Last Temptation of Homer (5th season) come to mind).
SEINFELD presents an everyday situation and wrings a half hour of hilarity out of it. That's not to say that "the show about nothing" is not funny. Nothing, is in fact, quite fresh for the first time, IMHO, considering the volume of it on the airwaves. Jerry based his stand-up career out of his ability to find the amusing among the mundane. The characters compliment B each other well, Kramer, mostly on the superb strength of Michael Richards' acting (more so than the writing, I mean). I don't know how well Jerry would do if he had to play someone besides himself. I guess the best actor awards are justified because I know of no one who could do a more impressive job of playing Jerry Seinfeld than the guy they've got not.
CHEERS stands out first and foremost on the strength of the writing. The characters are very well conceived and well-acted. I don't know of many (maybe any) shows that can stand out on the basis of their writing with only mediocre acting, at least not in this country. (The hitchhiker's video series comes to mind). The Charles/Burrows/Charles combination did quite a solid job over the ten years. That in itself is very impressive. Also, the fact that the show did as well as it did critically (both reviews and awards) amazes me. I guess it's a question of most people finding some character that they identify with and a few more that they recognize. This is facilitated by the fact that Cheers has a larger core of well-developed characters. The simpsons actually probably has more recurring characters, but they aren't as well developed, IMO.
I think they are all very different and very well done. I think that it's amazing that they are doing as well as they are, given the standards. I don't think it can be said that they are one of thecookie-cutter (so-called) comedies that pollute the networks.
I'd really like to see Seinfeld and the Simpsons last ten years as well, but I don't think they have the emotional/dramatic flash that cheers had that made it more endearing rather than just funny. In that sense, it's more like M*A*S*H.
Sorry if I droned on, but I have put lots of serious study into these programs. As an amateur stand-up comic, I try to bring some elements from each of these shows into my own writing.