Seinoff: So funny I forgot to laugh

S09E23 The Finale (1)liveMay 15, 1998, 6:42 AM ETthe next morning18 posts by 13 posters
🙁 Disliked it🔥 Controversial

Fans criticize the series finale as poorly written and unfunny, finding it fails to effectively mock other show finales despite understanding the intent, with the humor falling flat throughout.

18 posts
NetAbuzer

I have to begin by saying that I've watched Seinfeld faithfully since the beginning. I've enjoyed it immensely, year after year, through good and through bad. Yes, I am a fan.

I have to preface my comments with this because, inevitably, some stupid schmuck will follow-up with a post about how I can't possibly be a fan of the show or how I shouldn't post anything negative about the show because it's a classic . . . or even how I'm so lame that I "just don't get" how the finale was supposed to be some searing insight into what the show was truly all about.

But the fact is, I DO get it . . . and I'm still not at all impressed with the finale. For me, it was an ill-conceived, poorly written, empty attempt at making a mockery of the show about mockery. Hell, I even understood that it was a stoogie poke-in-the-eyes for other television series in the past that had made such self-important spectacles of their own series finales. While that, in itself, isn't a bad thing . . . the Seinfeld finale fell far short of what it hoped to accomplish.

The first hint I had of this came soon after it began, as Kramer's car lurched to a stop beside Jerry and George. Kramer's passenger, Elaine, was thrown headfirst into the floorboard and then catapulted back against the seat. I love slapstick, pratfalls and all manner of physical comedy . . . but something just wasn't right. It just wasn't funny.

I began to get a sinking feeling, and somewhere an evil wind began to blow. Newman's prediction was right on target, in more ways than one.

The resurrection of the NBC pilot fell flat. It's been done before, and much better I might add. It was a painfully long, weak plot device that's only purpose was to explain how the group went from point A to point B. The same effect could have been achieved by one of the characters simply saying, "Hey, let's fly to such-and-such for the weekend.

The plane segment was an exercise in desperation. As with the NBC pilot storyline, it was nothing more than a plot device . . . the only difference being that, at least, the NBC pilot storyline had something of a plot to it, even if it was an uninspired rehash. The plane-is-going-to-crash story has itself been done before, and better. "Wings" comes to mind immediately.

If anything, the plane-is-going-to-crash segment clearly illustrated what was happening to the finale itself. A metaphor, if you will, for what the remainder of the show held in store for us. The cast's performances were listless and cold, and even though it was clear that it was making fun of other shows that had relied on the very same plot device, there was nothing funny about it. As the plane goes down, the group's faces are pained and panicked . . . but I can't help but wonder if that was only because they realized how horribly written this scene was.

Justin TribbleNetAbuzer

[email] (NetAbuzer) wrote:

Good synopsis...I enjoyed reading it.

That was probably the most accurate summary of my own feelings about the finale as well. For me, the uneasy feeling of an oncoming disaster began with George's excessive grouchiness. From there, the relationships between the main characters just never seemed to click as usual.

I will say, however, that I think the most poignant moment came at the very end when Jerry was commenting on George's buttons in the cell. As the camera zoomed out and George remarked "haven't we had this conversation before", it was like watching "Waiting for Godot". Seeing them locked away in a cell hashing over the little mundane "nothing" things that were the heart of each episode, seemed like a metaphor for their very existence. It was almost as if they were sentenced to play out the moments of their lives in a never-ending eternal loop in some forgotten TV universe. (pardon the "spacey" analogy. what can I say -- I work at NASA!)

Of course the clips at the beginning were very memorable and cherished. (If only if it weren't for that damn Green Day song!)

Alan McCoy [email]

NetAbuzer wrote in message ...

The News Guy(Mike)NetAbuzer

NetAbuzer wrote:

You have said it all. Good ideas but poorly presented.

The News Guy (Mike) http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Studio/1955/

NetAbuzer wrote:

Here's a nail... here's a hammer... POW! Right on the head!

I'm so glad someone else typed all that for me!

David

MattIlgauskas

Your first mistake was "wanting" or "expecting" anything from the finale. The show didn't owe you anything, and if you didn't "get" the finale, then just be happy it gave us 9 years of laughter and enjoyment.

-Matt mspauld at mindspring dot com
NetAbuzerMatt

Matt writes:

What a nice justification for it not delivering.

We shouldn't have wanted or expected a well-written, funny as hell episode?

If you pay close attention throughout the show, you'll notice that the studio audience itself barely get above a half-hearted chuckle.

Yes, it did. I was one of those fans that put it where it is today.

Oh, I think we ALL "got it" in the end.

Interpret that however you want.

Well, I can see how you thought the show wasn't up to your standards. You must have one hell of a sense of humor to come up with an original title like that one. "Seinoff: So funny I forgot to laugh" Whew, what a knee-slapper. What you people don't get is that they couldn't ebd the show with some sort of typical hilarious episode. They had to bring an end to it, and they did a great job of that. The people that appreciated this episode were the people who have really followed the show for all 9 seasons. If you didn't find this show funny, then you really don't understand the whole series concept very well.

Wow, did you ever hit the nail right on the head! This is exactly right. What do people want, just another show about the trivialities of life? No, they could not do that. It was a geat episode. A pity that so many do not get it.

I think these final shows must be hard to do. I knowo MASH failed miserably. So did Ellen.

Jerry Weaver

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
SloGaitchessart

On Sat, 23 May 1998 14:15:24 GMT, [email] wrote:

I don't ask that much. A couple of really good laughs. Up till now, it was advertised as a comedy. That usually means laughs.

"Michael J. Koryta" writes:

What a dipshit. You aren't intelligent enough to discuss or debate anything about the actual post itself so you attack the TITLE of the post?

What a pathetic little dink you are.

Yeah, that would have been too much to expect from one of the funniest shows in tv history . . . to actually end its run with a funny episode.

Actually, the more I read about how only this elite group of fans are the ones who "get it", the more convinced I am that the "Seinfeld" finale was really all about showing what ass-kissers some people can be. That's the joke!

Seinfeld and David intentionally gave us dogshit for the finale . . . knowing full well that there would be a small group who would watch it and think it was pure genius. That small group just doesn't realize that the joke is really on them. They spoon fed you dogshit and you just lapped it up, claiming every minute that you loved it.

By the way, when you're through laughing at us, you might want to wipe that little bit of dogshit from the corner of your mouth.

On 24 May 1998 15:48:01 GMT, [email] (NetAbuzer) wrote:

Its a mythical "group" of fans. Actually, they are the people who said "Look at the Emperor's beautiful new clothes" thereby proving their fitness for their jobs (but in the view of the fairy tale, ACTUALLY proving themselves a crowd of gullible fools). They were so led by the hype to THINK that this would be the episode to end all episodes, they can't even see that it wasnt.....well, it WAS because there won't be any more. But it WASN'T because it was one of the lamest of all.....

Considering the cynical undertone of the series, my thought is that Larry David did it just to see how many of these fools there are out there, to DARE people to criticize his writing. Luckily, a few of us remember when it was the best and that this is not up to his own standard. And are "brave" enough to say so, risking the charge of heresy.

DaveSloGait

Wow.

You truly "don't get it" to a point never before attained in this newsgroup. [email] (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
WTPNetAbuzer

[email] (NetAbuzer) wrote:

Listen, we all have known trolls. NetAbuzer has been dirtying the water around here for several weeks now, taking potshots at old-time ATSers, attacking through both posts and e-mails.

He's not particularly different from any dozen of his type I can recall from any number of Usenet newsgroups. They splatter around their abuse and wait for the flames. It provides them validation. Gives them a reason to exist. Gives them something to do between jerking off.

Anyway, we all know what NetAbuzer wants, so let's let him have it and maybe he'll leave us alone.

Netty, you're clever. You're a big, fucking, clever dork. How's that?

Nice meeting you, now go fuck off.

Cheers, WT

NetAbuzerWTP

[email] (WTP) whines:

And trolls wear many different masks. Some even pretend to be protecting us or defending us from those they consider trolls. Yes, we've all known trolls, and from where I sit, you qualify as one yourself.

Okay, we're not talking about the county water supply here. This is an electronic environment. No water. Get it?

"potshots" . . . perhaps you should look the word up. Doesn't apply. Sorry.

What, are they supposed to be special or something?

Sorry, but I've never launched an attack here. Launching an attack would pretty much consist of . . . well, doing what you've done with your post . . . resorting to putting someone's name in the subject of a message that was written only to incite hatred and anger towards the named individual. Not me, sorry. You seem pretty skilled at it though.

If some of my "responses" to other posts somehow offends another, all I can say is, "Hey, sorry about that, but that's the nature of the beast." My actual "attacks" are limited to responses to the arrogance, pomposity or stupidity of another. I generally get along very nicely with the other kids.

As far as attacks by email . . . you're either a liar or just grasping for something. I've responded via email only a very few times to people who emailed me first. Sorry. Try another tactic.

Including yourself . . .

Sorry, dink, but I've contributed far more than abuse and flamebait.

Isn't that a shame?

Aw, c'mon, admit it . . . you're just saying that 'cause you're typing with one hand yourself, aren't you?

Including world domination?

Define me in whatever terms that you can understand, okay? If that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do. I'm not an elitist.

Gosh, I don't think I've even used that word once, yet you've relied on it a couple of times in just one post. And I'm supposed to believe that I'm the abusive one?

Sorry, wrong newsgroup.

Sheesh, what a crybaby.

WTPNetAbuzer

[email] (NetAbuzer) wrote a bunch of pseudo-cleverness:

Yawn.

WT

JonathanNetAbuzer

NetAbuzer wrote:

<snip a lot of good stuff>

I agree 100%

You've summed up a lot of my thoughts.