Rochelle, Rochelle

After that episode, I can see how important the interaction between the characters on the show is. The show was good, just not great. Did others find it a bit lacking?

Mike

Yes, I found it a bit lacking. For the exception of the last 5 minutes when they found each other, I would say it was lacking. I guess we shouldn't ask for GREAT shows every week. Just try to picture last week's episode until next week.

Thomas

Well, I liked it fine. It was a tiny bit of a departure in that the plot was actually a factor in some of the humor. And towards the end they began using the sitcom cliche of characters just missing each other repeatedly. But the fake movie titles were good, and George's discomfort with being owed money was good, and the guy bothering Jerry was not bad.

Not the best but up to par, IMO.

I found the character's descriptions of each other to be very amusing - though I never thought of Elaine as having a face like a frying pan...

.                            <<<<Infinite K>>>>

Well, yes and no.  The plot was frustrating and recycled, but there
were some good laughs.   I'd have to disagree with your pointing
out "character interaction" as being important to this episode.  This
was the most I think I've ever seen them *apart*.  I saw it as a
chance to let them each develop their characters individually.   Jerry
was pretty good, esp when being brutally honest with that pesky guy.
But I thought Elaine was best.  She was hysterical in her attempts to
save seats, and then buying refreshments, and then trying to find her
seat again.   Too funny.   Kramer and George were just annoying, for
the most part.  Why does anyone even hang out with George?  What a
pain.  :)

Later,

Tim

Actually, this was a bit of sarcasm (did I forget the :) I was making the point that since there wasn't much conversation and interaction between the characters, it made for the episode not being so great. I still enjoyed it though and all the characters still did a great job of being 'in character'. It's just, I guess, that I missed the one-on-one back-and-forth humor between Jerry and Elaine (or J. and George, or J. and Kramer). This is what was lacking.

Does anybody know the real title of this one?!

Mike

Our TV Guide lists it as "The Movie".

Later,
That Scott Guy
----------------->  rec.sport.hockey Ottawa Senators Contact <------------------
- Scott "Stop Calling Me Bart" Simpson | "Hmmm... [chocolate | barbequeue |    -
- CAD Operation Tools Development      |           donuts | potato(e) chips |  -
- Bell-Northern Research Ltd.          |           crumbled-up cookie things | -
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  [CRK 043]   |           beer | hog fat | boobies]." -
- [email]       (613) 763-9243  |       - Homer, hero to men everywhere -
--->  In case it's not obvious, BNR and I may or may not share these views. <---

I saw it listed in a local TV guide as "The Movie". Sounds right.

Greg

[email] (timothy.j.mizerak) writes:

I think he meant that character interaction is so important that the LACK of it in this episode hurt the episode.

Aye! What's wrong with me? I LOVED this episode! Qestion: Do any of you folks who didn't like it attend movies often? And you didn't think all of the little anoying things about going to the movies were funny? Waiting in the wrong line? Holding seats? Annoying talking woman? People walking into the show after it's already started?

To me, this was the epitome of the movie-going experience, just as the subway show was the epitome of riding the rails. Being the socially adept person that I am (:-), I'm always on the observing end of these experiences. I never go to movies with more than one person, would never wait inside holding seat for another person, never enter a movie after it had already started, never talk during movie. But I get the pleasure of enjoying other peoples idiocy every time I go to the movies! (I know for a fact that this isn't a "New York Thing")

And didn't you love it when the ticket-taker gave George such a hard time about re-entering the theater, but he let Kramer right in? And what about the running joke where they all described each other to strangers?

To quote my favorite Broadway Show Reviewer, "I LOOVVED IT!!!" (Now, that really IS a New York Thing!)

Robert

I go to the movies a lot, so in a way it was sort of funny to see all the little problems dramatized on the show. But my main problem with this episode was just that all the characters were being too stupid. In many episodes, the characters' helplessness in a given situation provides the humor, but in this case, it was way too exaggerated for my tastes. I mean, come on, if adults can't figure out how to see a damn movie, what *can* they do??!?

Just another opinion......

[email] (Robert Cianchette) writes:

I liked all of that (and I rarely go to the movies).

Yup, yup, me too on both. (paraphrases) "Tall guy, face like a horse." "Tall guy, pointed nose, face like a bird." Totally different descriptions for the same person. We know who they mean since it's a choice from the small circle of friends, but to the strangers on the episode, the descriptions were utterly useless (and the images *funny*).

My favorite part was when Jerry had just given up looking for his friends in the (wrong) theatre, and the preview for "Rochelle, Rochelle" starts. Earlier, Elaine had said to the others that "Rochelle, Rochelle" was one of those stupid foreign movies every man feels he has to see. Jerry finds himself turning around to stay for the preview after he hears: "A young woman... on her strange, erotic journey to womanhood."

Also, I believe Elaine was the only woman at "Rochelle, Rochelle". Or was I mistaken?

I remember another woman at 'Rochelle, Rochelle', but she was with her boyfriend.

Actually, when George said "face like a horse" I think he was talking about Jerry. He has those big horse teeth!

No, he was definitely talking about Kramer.

I'll start this off with an abundance of smiles, just so you know that it's not harshing out. I'm just observing!

:-)  :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

It seems to me that most of the people who didn't like (in their postings) last week's "Movie" episode were not from New York.

Many of you a.t.s fans correctly noticed that this episode was different (in some ways) from the usual Seinfeld standard. No one pointed out, however, that the main difference was that the show was set outside of Jerry's apartment!! In terms of plot elements, the setting (NYC in general; cabs, movie houses, Papaya King, the Improv) was a significant contributor.

This is, of course, a reprise of the 'It's a NYC thing' thread, so if this offends you, hit 'k' now!!! Otherwise, I will now list the things I found hilariously accurate in that NYC kind of way...

	1. The cab rides.
		A. Arguing over direction ('take 55th street', 'are you crazy?')
		B. The second cabbie stopping, despite having a fare

	2. Papaya King - unless you've eaten one, you haven't lived.  If you've
	   eaten one, you're lucky if you live.  See also "Gray's Papaya" at
	   Bdwy and 72nd Street (75 cent hot dogs).  By the by, the theater
	   district was probably the one at 86th street and Lexington Ave,
	   cuz there is a Papaya King and two movie houses there (?).

	3. The unabashed crowd in the movie house ('It's only the coming
	   attractions so I can talk!', etc.) and a the seat saving thing
	   are universal (yes), but the flavor of the characters was
	   NYC specific (and accurate)!

• etc, etc, etc

By the by, (and this has nothing to do with NCY humor), I am SO GLAD that someone in TV-land chose to point out that Small, Medium and Large mean nothing anymore!!! And that buttered popcorn is never buttered anymore (except at the Cineplex Odeon theaters, where they charge extra (compared to other movie houses) for their produce). Wendy's now has Medium, Large and Biggie! I would love to take Elain to Wendy's and set her loose!!!

Enjoy,

Jeremy

It kinda reminded me of a typical Three's Company episode. (That's a "yes").

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.

Whatever last night's show was lacking, I did like the way the cast were describing each other's faces and hair-do's to the employee's of the movie theatre's.

#include standard_disclimer.h

Well... It doesn't matter. Does anyone know where Rochelle, Rochelle is playing?

It's a joke, you pezhead.

In [email] (M.D. Shepherd) writes:

Actually, I thought it was pretty good. I think this stems from having had way too many similiar movie scheduling problems in the past. It was so hilarious hearing the characters describe each other! I guess I agree with you, good, just not great.

Scott

I thought this episode was really lacking. They could have done more with George, Kramer and Jerry looking for Elaine in the theater. Also, hated the other comic. It was evident from the beginning of the show that he would stand in for Jerry in both comedy clubs, no surprise, except that he got applause for his act as he wasn't very funny. However, loved Kramer trying to not get a frank from Papaya King and how he is always the winner and George the loser when both try to get into the movies without a ticket.

Anyway, just my opinion. Looking foward, as always, to next week.

Was it just me, or did the woman on the movie poster look like the British girl who Jerry was dating for a while (the virgin) and who ended up with JFK Jr. ?

CAGE

Is it true that Jerry and the actress that played the British virgin seeing one another in real life?

===============================================================================
Matt Brockman                                           [email]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          "Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet."
             "Employee of the Month isn't all hams and plaques."
                       "Nothing is a good insulator."
===============================================================================

In article [email]

The same actress is playing Miles new live-in on "Murphy Brown". She's even still using a British accent.

Does anyone know of any more potential tie-ins? i.e. is she still playing the same character?

She's been appearing on Murphy Brown for several years now as Miles' girlfriend, and the characters are totally distinct. (I've assumed the accent is for real)

Someone also asked whether Jerry and "Audrey" (Miles' girlfriend's name, can't think of her real one) were dating in real life. As far as I know, Grant Shaud (Miles) and Audrey are actually dating in the non-TV world.

M.

I disagree. I thought he was talking about Jerry. Kramer doesn't have big teeth. Besides, there were four descriptions given -- why would two be about Kramer and none about Jerry?

My 2 cents --

Pat

Hey, I thought I posted definitive transcriptions of the descriptions, but there must have been omissions in its reception. Here's a duplication:

Kramer on Seinfeld:

"A guy who's about five foot eleven, he's got uh, a big head and flared nostrils."

George on Kramer:

"Like, a horse face, big teeth, and a pointed nose." (Ticket Lady: "Flared nostrils?" George: "Yeah.")

Ticket Lady on George:

"A short guy with glasses, looked like Humpty Dumpty with a melon head."

George on Elaine:

"A pretty woman, you know, kinda short, big wall of hair, face like a frying pan."

Elaine on Kramer:

"Ah, a tall, lanky dufus with, with a bird face and hair like the bride of Frankenstein."

SUMMARY:

When George said "a horse face", he was talking about Kramer. He also said "big teeth" about Kramer. Two descriptions were indeed given about Kramer; however, one was also given about Jerry. According to Kramer, Jerry has "a big head and flared nostrils", from which one might -infer- "face like a horse", but it wasn't said.

I hope this clears things up.

And now, on to "The Ticket". And now, on to "The Ticket".

Steve