Finale Revisited

S09E23 The Finale (1)liveMay 17, 19983 days later8 posts by 6 posters
🙁 Disliked it🔥 Controversial
8 posts
Iconoclast

After seeing all these people who are convinced this finale was a great episode, I decided to run my tape again. Who knows? Maybe I was laughing and didnt know it.

Nothing doing. I watched and watched and the most I'm aware of was a slight smile. And I became much more aware of the laugh track, too. And it did not synchronize with anything funny in the script. It was almost as if some technician was sitting there, counting seconds: one-two-three, punch the button, one-two-three, punch the button. I challenge anyone to note each laugh track laugh and then stop and look at what was said just at that moment. Actually, they could have programmed those laughs on a computer.

I admit to being puzzled. How could it be that UN-funny by accident?And so now I'm starting to think it was made deliberately unfunny. As if they were saying "Years ago audiences would turn us off unless we put quality on, but the standards have dropped so much we could win our slot with anything at all." That the whole thing is not an attempt at comedy at all but a statement on the FAKE comedy which has replaced the original thing. Newton Minow once called TV the "great wasteland" and a recent article on him said it was not better now. Oddly enough, when he made the original statement, there were things on like Omnibus and Ernie Kovacs. Try to find something on commercial TV at that level now. You can't.

So the laugh is on us. As TV watchers, we no longer have any taste or standards. We sit there grinning, waiting for any garbage to be put on our table which we will gratefully gulp down with a silly grin.

Well.....yes and no. Just the revulsion expressed here shows that maybe this view of society is shallow. It is the world as seen through the lens of marketing types, while meanwhile people with working minds are sitting out here waiting for some kind of quality which is less and less available, with cable and satellite TV perhaps making the situation worse by enlarging the amount of content that must be televised. How can you have high standards AND fill all those hours? You end up with the Springsteen conclusion: 50 channels and nothing on.

Then you have the paradox that the stars of this drivel are being paid surreal sums of money for being in it. Take the whole thing and you have a culture out of whack.

So a hypothesis might be that this episode isnt funny because it never was INTENDED as humor. Instead, they wanted to show us glimpses of yesteryear and then present the final episode as an example of the mindlessness that pervades our culture in ALL areas. Perhaps there is a question there: Why do you even have the TV ON? Not that the marketing department will tell the buyers of the commercial time this.

Did you notice what idiots the network execs were this time. Play a tape of this meeting and then when Russell Dalrymple met with Jerry and George. This group of NBC execs are mindless, giggling idiots. Again, maybe Larry David has pull a major practical joke on NBC with this script.

Zach D.Iconoclast

In article , [email] says...

I very much agree with your statements and can't believe that so many of these Die-hard Seinfeld fans couldn't see the statement being made and instead either A. swallow what took place as 'typical Seinfeld' or B. didn't realize what was being said and instead say the episode was bad because of some lack of talent or effort on Seinfeld and Companies part. It was definately a deliberate statment and not just a 'bad show'.

The show was not the typical Seinfeld episode from days of yore.. the laugh tracks WERE obvious and out of sync.. the way the studio execs kept pushing for the 'water cooler show' that Seinfeld had become.. the lackluster delivery whenever they 'talked about nothing' each time. Especially noticable was their delivery as the guy was being robbed - there was nothing intended to be funny in the writing or their delivery.. the statement was that they had gone to far with it. Then they go to jail and repeat the first lines they ever said on the show as the camera pulls back - to show that all this talk about nothing had gotten them no where and that they didn't deserve to be on the t.v. show at all but in jail. Elaine's phone ettiquette thing was a ridiculous parody of previous blunders. Kramers water in the ear was again merely a goofy, un-funny parody of his more recent antics which became more slapstick and less like the easy going guy but excitable guy he started as.

In a way it might be genius that Jerry and friends slipped this all under the radar and pulled out one of the most watched satires in history. In another way, it seems a big slap in the face to all those who were fans. If Seinfeld was tired of the 'show about nothing' then perhaps he should have turned it all around and given us SOMETHING rather than falling back on an attack on all that people loved about him and the show.

I'd like to think that it was Jerry's way of getting back at some evil studio execs (like the ones who canned Norm McDonald and who may be moving King of the Hill out of Texas for no apparent reason) who were the cause of the last season of shows resorting to stupid slapstick humor and trying to repeat previously funny ideas by changing the basic idea around a bit.. but, I don't know this. Maybe it was the fans who put the show in the predicament it was in - begging for more nothingness that caused it all.

Whatever the case, I think it was a dissapointing thing to do to so many fans of the show. Again, instead of a parody about nothing why couldn't the guys have gotten together, sat down at Tom's diner, AND HAD A SERIOUS CONVERSATION about their friendship and the funny things that happened or B. gotten away with it all just one more time.

I agree with those who have said the finale was a disaster. About the nothing theme:

The so-called show about nothing was really about SOMETHING, tho people I talk to dont seem to get that. I guess it depends on what you define as "nothing" and what you define as "something". I thought it was a profound view of human relationships in today's world. And profoundly funny. That's why we could stand to look at ourselves, the parts of ourselves, played out but these wonderful, flawed characters. cc

F.B.Iconoclast

In

Oh, shut up. You just didn't get it.

Matt P

IconoclastF.B.

On 17 May 1998 03:15:08 GMT, [email](F.B.) wrote:

Au contraire. I got it fine. It was a dud. Pure and simple.

Ever read any Brothers Grimm? Maybe now's the time.

F.B.Iconoclast

In

Ever read Kafka or Sartre? Nah, didn't think so.

Matt P

VengerF.B.

F.B. wrote in message ...

Did you take an intro Community College Course recently? Your posts seem to indicate your appropriate reading level is more like "Green Eggs and Ham", and I would also remind you that there is a difference between reading and understanding, a nuance you perhaps have not yet discovered.

Another interesting note is how you again pull in extraneous material (name dropping) to support your weak case. It fails the test of logic and evidence, so you try to offer proof by association.

1> I liked the last Seinfeld. 2> I have read Kafka. 3> Kafka would have liked Seinfeld.

Note the weak link - you.

Venger

WTPVenger

"Venger" wrote:

Uh, you might want to make YOUR way to a local community college, actually, since you don't know or "understand" where to place the comma correctly--try withIN the quoted section, not withOUT.

Cheers, WT