Why Must we be REAL FANS?

Is anyone else here tired of having our disappointment in the final episode discounted b/c we might not be "real fans?" What does this mean? I read here someone saying that the M*A*S*H finale was stupid b/c BJ left Hawkeye a note in stones spelling out "Goodbye." Well, I guess you have to be a "real fan" of M*A*S*H to realize that this was in part an allusion to BJ leaving a note while Trapper left without leaving a note back in the 3rd season. But since I am a *real fan*, I can get it, and anyone else who isn't is just plain out of luck.

How stupid is that? If a show is bad, a show is bad. Many many ppl don't like the final Seinfeld. I am sure that there are ppl who don't care for M*A*S*H. I agree now that it is hopeless to comapre the two b/c of eras, veiwing audience, etc, but to propose that the show was for "real fans" is naive and narrowminded, b/c it in a sense says that Jerry wrote it for his fans, and hey since so many ppl were expected to watch it, then he must be pretty damn special. Sorry, but I don't buy that. Most ppl I would imagine know about the Soup Nazi, Susan, the Marble Rye lady, etc. After all, these shows have been in syndication for a while now. So even the casual viewer had a chance to catch these episodes and then understand the finale. Do you think Seinfeld/David would make a show that catered only to a particular era and audience so that ppl in the future couldn't enjoy it? Nope, I didn't think so. There wasn't some "secret msg" to the real fans; that would hurt the show in the future, b/c ppl would complain that the finale in syndication was so dependent on the entire series, so why bother trying to re-watch NINE YEARS worth of a show to understand ONE HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES OF IT??

Sure, there are a few things particular to any series in a finale; the above about BJ is one for M*A*S*H. But the way the media hyped Seinfeld at the end almost ensured discussion of "The Contest," "The Marble Rye," etc. Ppl could get the info then.

So to say that the show was meant for and only understood by "real fans" is a pointless comment. If you don't understand this post, then I guess you're not a "real fan." :)

-The REALLY REAL David H.

Right on! I think people like saying they're "real" fans because it gives them a sense of superiority over everyone else. I'm a fan of the show, but you know... being a fan of a TV show does not make you special.

Tim

Timothy Smith writes:

Actually, it's kinda sad and pathetic in the grand scope of things.

The statement that the last episode was for 'real fans' makes me sick. I've watched religiously for several years, new shows and re-runs. I don't seem to tire of seeing a show multiple times, and enjoy the personality traits each character has become known for. I watch almost daily the syndicated re-runs and still laugh. I think that qualifies me as a 'real fan'. But let's face it folks, the last show really sucked. Where was the multi-layered plot that ties in nicely at the last moment that the show has made a trademark? Larry David was brilliant at that. The running gag was also a glaring omission (not that there's anything wrong with that). Granted I agree with some of the positive points so eloquently stated by RatBoy in the NG, but I really expected more than just a parade of characters from the past show that wasn't even complete. It wasn't a toast at all IMHO. The plot was weak, the concept was weak, the execution was weak. This was a tired team that really does deserve jail time for the efforts they put into such a poor finale. Very few loud laughs. It would have been more honest if they just came out and gave us the finger.

I'll admit, it was kinda lame, but for people like me, who laugh even at the syndicated Seinfeld's, would laugh, at just the thought of all the story lines of the people testifying... I enjoyed it. It wasn't the greatest, but, what'd you expect, super bowl level entertainment... I knew, that if people overhyped it, even a little, that it would drain the fun out of it...

It's just taste, some people love the show because they like sitcoms. Other people who don't like comedy shows won't find it appealing no matter how special a show it is.

Can't agree. I love well-executed comedy as well as well-executed drama. The Seinfeld finale was not a well-executed comedy. Seinfeld and Frasier have been the only two comedies I have enjoyed over the past several years. This season, many have said Seinfeld was off. Until the finale, I would say there were maybe 3 episodes I found fair, the rest very good to great. I have a particular love of broad comedy. That being said, I found the finale uncomical and mean-spirited. It was shooting for a Sartyr(ish) approach, but missed the mark completely. What was needed was a Seinfeld(ish) episode with its usual charm and four individual storylines dovetailing with a funny (not sad) ending. It is too late in the game to change the formula, and to expect a loyal audience to believe the foursome deserved jail. The worst offense was that this episode was devoid of humor. That was the real crime. alt showbiz gossip

Can agree; even with your "Seinfeld and Frasier..." comment. I think they should have turned "The Burning" into the final episode. With the subplots of George leaving on a high note and Elaine burning in Hell it would have made an appropriate finale though it could use some refinement to meet the importance of the occasion. Also, Kramer's mocking of a gonorrhea victim was far funnier than anything in the last episode, IMO of course.

I still don't understand why so many people defend that show but the fact that they have to use comparisons to Sartre kinda illustrates the problem.

"Sartre is what closes Saturday night" --Me