Fans debate whether the season premiere had too many disconnected plots and lost the show's subtle comedy, with some defending the current writing while others miss Larry David's influence.
Well, this episode had its moments. But generally, they tried to put way too much into a half hour. The best plot was George and his disability. The Banya plot was weak, and the Kramer plot was a bit funny but too unreal...
Seeing great former characters like David Puddy and Banya come back, all I could think was that their original appearances were MUCH funnier. Both were basically wasted as just "HA HA! It's Banya! WHEE!" and didn't really go anywhere.
The show jumped around way too much. You just can't fit 4 or 5 complete plots into a half hour. They should take a step back and try working on only one or two detailed plots. Also, is it just me, or is the show turning into just one Zany escapade after another? Where's the quiet comedy of the Chinese Restaurant?
Finally, did anyone notice that Jerry's acting seemed a little off early in the episode? He was basically so over the top, that it reminded me of his performance in "The Pilot." I kept waiting for him to say, "Cuz he's *MY* butler!"
Why is it whenever someone doesn't like an episode, they blame the absence of Larry David. He's been gone for several years now and somehow many excellent episodes have been cobbled together in his abscence. In case you all haven't noticed the show is called "SEINFELD" not "SEINFELD/DAVID". Get over it for god's sake. Let go. . .
In article , [email] wrote:
snip
WHAT?? This makes me nuclear. "You just can't fit 4 or 5 complete plots into a half hour." ??? What the hell have they been doing for 8 years? One or two detailed plots would put everyone to sleep. And where would all the other detail come from but for the other character's subplots?
I like Jerry being over the top. It's refreshing. The way he answered the comedy club phone call; "what?, no, No!, NO NO NO!! (then quietly) thank you." made me laugh. But to each his own. If you want all the shows to be like the Chinese Restaurant, tape it and watch it every Thursday night and you won't risk being disapointed. . . JPM
Every year it seems like the same thing, 'Seinfeld's going down the tubes!' but like most eps it'll look better to people once they're part of the syndicated reruns.
The show is certainly different, if not 'better'...it's certainly continuing with it's trend of arty surrealism, more on the level of a Monty Python skit which IMO raises it above the average buddies-hanging-around comedies like 'Friends' or 'Drew Carey'.
I think that's exactly the problem, that many episodes have been "cobbled together" and are not as smoothly flowing with interweaving plots, like the best usually are. It seems like they're coming up with numerous subplots for each character, picking one out of a hat for each of them and then pasting them together for an episode. In my opinion (hi Dave!) it's not working.
Part of what makes cobbling funny is it's unexpectedness. For example, add Kramer shooting golf balls at the beach with George pretending to be a Marine Biologist and you get George pulling a ball out of a whale windpipe to impress his girlfriend for one of the funniest Seinfeld endings ever. (Is that a Titleist?) How on earth could those two disparate subjects flow smoothly?
Larry David has been gone for exactly ONE season and now one episode. This stuff isn't that hard to find out, so when you make statements like this, you should know the facts. And those of us who lament at the loss of David point to last season as being sub-par overall along with the weak season premiere to support this. We aren't saying that there aren't some good episodes without him, or that all the episodes with him were great, but many of us feel that the quality of the "average" episode was better when he was around. Also, you shouldn't diminish his importance to the series: he was co-creator with Jerry, and many of the characters were based on people he knew. Supposedly, just about every episode had something in it from his life. He was the executive producer and oversaw the sitcom's every detail. He was a perfectionist who couldn't live with subpar shows. He wrote about sixty episodes and rewrote many others. If he hadn't been around, the series may have never been. Others who have departed and may have contributed to the decline include Tom Chernones(director for the first five seasons) and Larry Charles(former writer).
Ok, for comparison, I'm going to use Entertainment Weekly's letter grades on the episodes. I know not everyone(including me) agrees with them, but they aren't bad and can be useful for comparison.
Comparing last season without David to the previous seven seasons: A's: 14% last season, 25% first seven seasons B's: 50% last season, 48% first seven seasons C's: 32% last season, 22% first seven seasons
So, B's stayed about the same and last season we got two fewer outstanding episodes and two more mediocre ones. Also, last season had the fewest "A's" since the first two seasons, which weren't full seasons. Now lets look at episodes he actually wrote:
A's: 29%
B's: 47%
C's: 20%
D's: 4%
So, even more A's when he wrote and fewer C's and D's(5% D's for 8 season and first seven).
Also, among the episodes most list as their favorites or that get the most attention on this NG, David had writing credit on the following:
The Chinese Restaurant, The Parking Garage, The Pez Dispenser, The Boyfriend(w/ Keith Hernandez), The Bubble Boy, The Contest, The Pick, The Opposite, The Big Salad, The Engagement
Pretty impressive list, huh? In fact, I just got done watching "The Engagement" and I couldn't stop laughing. It has alot of the subtle humor that the new shows are lacking. Like the scene at the end where George and Susan are watching "Mad About You" and George has this dumbfounded look on his face...priceless.
The new writers have shown that they can write some good episodes, just not consistently. Some of the problems I see with the new episodes are:
Too much slapstick.
Not enough subtlety.
No current event references(i.e. O.J., JFK, Tonya Harding...)
No risque topics(masturbation, faking orgasms, threesomes...)
Episodes lack closure.
Too many gimmicks.
They go too far with bad ideas.
Not enough shows about nothing.
It almost seems like they are trying too hard. Many of their most simple episodes have been the best. The current episodes are busy and unfocused. Don't get me wrong, I'll still watch and I'm rooting for them to rediscover the previous level. I'm just sick of being disappointed.
So, there is some evidence to suggest that Larry David is missed. Of course, there is some evidence to suggest alot of things. Don't just dismiss the influence he had on this show. . Just my 2 cents(ok, 25 cents). Comments?
On 30 Sep 1997 02:30:43 GMT, [email] (DLegler) wrote:
<BIG snippage>
<snip again>
Now, see, I'm personally enjoying the evolution the show has taken. The shows about nothing were great, and I do think they need to get some of that back, but at the same time... you can't argue that there are parts of the newer episodes that you love, as well as parts that you hate. I admit it - there were parts of the first episode that I didn't like, and I made a comment in another post that the premier had too much of a "something" feel to it. BUT: Take a look back at the newsgroup... people also pick apart so-called classics, even ones that Larry David was involved in. Personally, I HATE the Understudy. Hate it to death. But there are fans out there who love it. And others who only like parts of it. Same can be said for The Butter Shave, and now The Voice.
That's what this show is about. Parts equalling a whole. You might not like it, but hey... do you like every part of every day that you go through? Not a chance. And since this show is about everyday life ("nothing" as it's classified).... you can take it or leave it.
(***NOTE: "You" does not refer to only the author of the message being replied to. It's addressed to every single person who is "disappointed" with and has picked apart the new season.)
k
-----------------------
*Melt cheese on head
for a good hat.*
I agree with the comments about too much slapstick. The term I use is "goofy". Scenes like these are more appropriate in "Married With Children" (which I also happen to like). Like on the last episode, the whole scene where Elaine repeatedly pays Jerry bet money for continuing to date Putty. How realistic is this? I can think of countless other examples last season.
I still like the new episodes, and after seeing last season's shows in reruns, I thought they were funnier than the first time I saw them. However, it's a less sophisticated intelligent type of humor.