11/20: Brilliant!

Well obviously everyone's already voiced their opinions, but I just had to add mine. This show was absolutely wonderful, now that makes two in a row. If the writing can stay this good Seinfeld should just keep going and going.

I can't tell you how much I loved this one! I watched it at a friend's house and when it was over I had to rush back home and watch it again on tape. Laughing like crazy both times, and I can't wait to go back home tonight and watch it again!

So many classic bits:

The look on Newman's face as he's about to blow out the candles

Kramer: Does your girlfriend have to be here? Newman: Does yours? (pan to Jerry)

Elaine getting drunk (twice!), flirting like mad with Jerry and later (earlier) sucking back the Schnapps.

Elaine's ass in Jerry's face...Jerry: "All right, it's time to go!"

George: "REPARATIONS!!"

I could go on, but I already have....Also just the whole concept was brilliant, to have the episode backwards and still have it make sense and be funny, I mean the writing was just amazing...how many shows could you do that with and still make it worth watching the last half, which would just be a lame setup for the rest of the show. I'm astounded

Mike

Michael Rashed wrote:

I agree, It was a great episode. I just finished watching it for the second time and it's even funnier. My favorite bit of dialogue was when Kramer entered Jerry's apartment, and George and Jerry were sitting at the table:

Kramer: Hey, FDR wants me dead!

George: FDR?

Kramer: Franklin Delanor Romanski! I go to his birthday party and just before he blew out his candles he gives me this look.

George: Stinkeye?

Jerry: Crookeye?

Kramer: Evil....Eye!

Fantastic show and I thought Elaine looked especially good!

Grade: A

THE KING wrote in article ...

Elaine looked totally marvelous! The best ever.

Her drunk act was great.

Great bits, all of them. But wait! There's more!

Kramer and FDR yanking out eyelashes. (Franklin Delano Romankowski???)

Elaine: "He Schnapped me!"

"Stuff your sorries in a sack, mister!" Notice how each time George said it, Jerry's reactions became less and less emotional. I LOVED that!

(Side note for those hung up on the religion question: Elaine crossed herself at the Indian wedding.)

The sitar theme music was inspired!

The fact that the first commercial break happened 15 minutes in.

George, refusing to use the bathroom in India.

George: "Something's not sitting right." (1 hour earlier) George: "I'll have the Clams Casino."

Nothing can change the fact that it WASN'T FUNNY AT ALL.

Justin T.

[email] (Michael Rashed) wrote:

Justin T. wrote, quite predictably:

If you can't laugh at "The Betrayal", I'm worried for your sense of humor, which seems to be only satisfied with "old" episodes, even if some "new" ones are just as good. I'm sorry, this episode could've definitely been played during the "old" seasons and still would've been a success.

--MFLuder848

Whoa! You've gotta be kidding! This show was totally hilarious! I don't want to be one of those people who disrespects others' opinions, but hey man, you're seriously lacking one sense of humour. I can't believe anyone, especially someone who's watched Seinfeld for any length of time can't find this one brimming with funniness.

Mike

I think it's more "brilliant" than "funny" i.e. great idea, great writing, but few laughs. And you have to know the characters really well to enjoy it, I would never show that episode to a "Seinfeld-newbie". (I'd use the "soup nazi" or my all-time favorite, "the masturbation contest"-is that the right title?- for that).

Michael Rashed wrote in article ...

I've been watching Seinfeld since day one and didn't think this episode was particularly funny the first time I saw it. After seeing how people were raving about it here and calling it "brilliant", I decided to watch it again to give it another chance. I wanted to turn it off 10 minutes into it, but made myself sit through it the second time hoping it would begin to "brim with funniness". Kramer's sucker was funny, the sneeze comment was funny, and how Newman referred to Jerry as Kramer's "girlfriend" was hilarious, but overall, it just didn't happen for me. I agree that the episodes widely regarded as "classic" are just that, but I don't think this one is anywhere close.

Dave

Justin T. wrote:

So, you're basically saying this was the worst episode ever since all of them have had at least *1* funny moment. "AT ALL" means to me you didn't grin, laugh, chuckle, etc. once. Now, if that is true, I can't understand why you even liked Seinfeld to begin with, since "The Betrayal" contained all of the ingredients of a "classic" episode. Otherwise, I'll be very surprised if you have anything positive to say about the new season.

--MFLuder848, who has watched "The Betrayal" 4 times and it keeps getting better and better

I have to agree with Justin this time. I thought this one was by far the worst of the year. I didn't find it to be very funny at all. I'm really surprised so many people liked it.

And I'm just as surprised that some people didn't. As clever and refreshing as this episode was, there are still some people who didn't care for it.

I'm shocked too. All the jokes seemed stale and forced, like the writers couldn't come up with any real jokes and decided to make them seem novel with the backwards-episode gimmick. Take the lollipop- why is it funny to have Kramer eat it? OK, Kramer does ridiculous things, but they are usually preceded by some insane Kramer-specific logic coupled with a chain of silly events. What led up to the lollipop that was silly? Nothing that comes to mind. (I only watched it once, and this was the first episode I've seen this season so I may be missing something. None of the comments I have read so far pointed to any deeper references though.)

The best Seinfelds culminate in an utterly absurd situation preceded by a chain of events set off by something mundane. Maybe 11/20 would have been better if it opened with a mundane event and then showed the increasingly absurd events that led to it.

On top of all this, I was really hoping for some India-specific humor because most of my co-workers are Indian and I got a kick out of the recent India-centric Simpsons. I thought they fumbled badly on that. "Jagdish"? That's not even a very original joke name; "Animal House" used "Juglesh" to a much better effect. Maybe "Srinivaseinfeldmurthy" or something really long and bizarre.

--- James Hamilton | To email: jhamil___best.com | ( ___ = to@ )

In respnse to all the talk about what's happening to "Seinfeld", I have to say, I bet the fans really watch and understand the show more than these lame writers do. Jerry Seinfeld is deluded if he thinks the show is going fine, and it'll kick in soon. I think like David Letterman's show, it's the same problem. The show has lost it's sense of purpose and direction. There was always a method to the madness, but now it's just random madness each episode.

Some of my own personal gripes: 1) Out of all the characters, Kramer may be the only one who hasn't dropped dramatically. Most of the stories don't even revolve around Jerry anymore, he's just the straight man for the kooky characters. Elaine is the worst. She used to be really ecclectic and interesting, but now she's Oscar the Grouch in a leather jacket. The characters are just acting-by-numbers, and some of their transformations have been for the worse. 2) The show's format isn't changed around as much. They need to get out more, like that episode where they all took the train to Coney Island and George got handcuffed, Kramer almost got mugged, etc. etc.? Or the parking lot episode? Brilliant. 3) The show also made a mistake in bringing back secondary characters over and over again. They were charicatures to begin with, like a joke that hits and boom, it's over. Puddy is a *one* episode guy. 4) A big issue is what happened to Jerry's standup career? I think once the show stopped basing itself on the absurdities of life and Jerry's comic routines, it started to slide a little. Even the cast has expressed that it's not as cutting edge and that's not a good thing to hear from your own stars. He seems to be shying away from stand-up in the show, calling it a boring aspect, which is where he is best. Having his jokes at the beginning were always a way of showing that he is a standup and not having to add that into the overall storyline. Did Jackie Gleason ever say, "okay, it's been a few years in Brooklyn, now let's make Ralph Kramden a successful movie star"?

Overall, "Seinfeld" is becoming more and more like the typical NBC sitcoms. Like it's Monday night line-up, the network clearly likes to push its shows as being the same. With the creative slide of "Seinfeld" and NBC's hook-y marketing, it is starting to resemble another cog in the wheel. The best thing for Jerry to do would be to bring in some new, inspiring writers and to re-evaluate the show's purpose.

my 2 cents

Ben Lauter

[email] wrote:

Yawn.

I just had to say, after reading this, that this is the type of debates we should be having on this newsgroup. I don't agree with much of what the post says...but at least it is making some real arguments. At least he is not saying that only true fans can see that Seinfeld now sucks, and it's the dumb pseudo-fans that think the show is still OK. In other words, the post is stating negative opinion but not declaring it the only truth for """"""""""""""""REAL" Seinfeld fans.

Maria

[email] wrote:

[email] (Maria Rost Rublee) wrote: At least he is

Who has ever said anything like that? Where do you get this fantasy that there are these "trolls" out there trying to start up arguments? Huh?!?! What's wrong with you you JERK!?!?!?

 :-)

Justin T.

I think the show is fine. I'm not just another long time fan. The show needs to bring back characters like the Soup Nazi, Babu, the auto mechanic (what's his name?) etc. Those episodes were lengendary and will bring back the magic that the show used to have. Critics are getting to uptight because Seinfeld is experimenting. The guy has the power to do what he wants. It's early in the season, so give him the chance. I say we wait until further in the season. If this is Seinfeld's last season than, I think the last episodes will be absolutely amazing.

You've been informed by T-BOR!

On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:22:37 -0500, [email] wrote:

(rest snipped)

It's clear that the show is in serious decline this season, with a few episodes as exceptions.

I think that many great enterprises, and "Seinfeld" certainly is one, reach a point where key parts of the equation leave the mix and the final results suffer. In Seinfeld's case, we cannot underestimate the loss of Larry David and Carol Leifer in particular.

What has happened with Seinfeld is that Jerry and the other cast members have become so big and so full of themselves that they no longer see the forest for the trees, i.e., they can no longer distinguish what's funny and what's not. And since they're so rich and famous, no one is around who dares to tell them it ain't working.

2 bad

[email] (Larry Berger) wrote:

That really sums up why J. Seinfeld keeps raving about his show, and why NBC just looks at the Neilsen numbers - they're both full of themselves.

Justin T.

In article , [email] wrote:

You of course are not.

[email] wrote:

Many people complain about the "change" of Elaine, but I just don't see it. I can think of several "older" episodes where Elaine "the grouch" shines through: "The Stranded" and "The Parking Garage", for example. Elaine has ALWAYS been a woman who likes to likes to have sex, is a little selfish, a little crass, and leaps before she looks.

We still see shots outside the standard set (Central Park, the Hudson River, etc). Somehow, though, I don't think that by moving the plot to Yonkers, or Jersey, you'd all of a sudden love it more.

This, I agree with. Though I haven't seen it done TO DEATH, it is close. I really don't want to see Poppy, Lloyd Braun, or Babu again. It is very rare when a character has "staying" power (like Bania). For the rest, leave 'em (and Puddy was good for more than one episode, just not five).

While I liked the stand-up part, it is clear that the show does not need it to be a success. Shows like "The Switch", "The Soup Nazi", "The Bizzaro Jerry" all were without stand-up.

I think the best thing is for fans to stop expecting each show to be a 100% classic. When we think back on older episodes, it is natural for us to recall only the best and forget the worst. Yet, each season has had it's fill of dull or uninspired shows. Unfortunatly, some people have begun to expect each week to provide a glorious show filled with so many good quotes, crazy caracters and hilarious scenes that we can't wait to tell everyone about it. Simple fact is, not every show WILL be a hit. Some will be duds. Others will be funny, and a rare few (even with Seinfeld) will be great. I say that we should all lower our hopes to realistic levels, find the humor in each show, and we'll all enjoy Jerry and Co. for more seasons to come!

Lance

Well I have to agree with you here wholeheartedly. The show has this cetchy, "hooky", "poppy" mood to it...It's not the same format as other NBC sitcoms, but it has that same cheap feel as those other crap-ola NBC sitcoms.

The only sitcom which I find remotely enchanting is NBC's Frasier. Somehow, NBC got smart and stuck with this classic show. The characters are real and human (like Seinfeld once was...), and the show is hilarious.

Justin T.

[email] wrote: