Seinfeld Curse Strikes Again

Taken from Melbourne's Herald-Sun;

    Another Seinfeld spin-off has spun out.
    Bob Patterson, which starred Jason Alexander as a motivational speaker,
has been cancelled after just five episodes.
    Even the appearance of Jerry Seinfeld in promotional advertisements
pleading with viewers to tune in to his old friend could not help.
    Alexander, who played loser George Costanza in Seinfeld,
joined Michael Richards, who had his self-titled sitcom about a private
investigator canned earlier this year.
    The failure of both shows does not augur well for Julia Louis-Dreyfus
as she tries to break the Seinfeld curse with her own comedy series,
about a Los Angeles nightclub singer, starting soon.
    It turns out that all the self-help in the world could not save Bob
Patterson,
which seemed doomed before it even screened after being sent back
for rewrites and cast additions.
    Patterson, described as America's No.3 self-help guru,
was America's No.73 TV program.
    The Michael Richards Show was dropped after only eight episodes.
    Louis-Dreyfus, best known for playing Jerry's self-absorbed cohort
Elaine Benes for nine years on Seinfeld, gets her chance next year.
    The new series, created and written by her husband, former
Saturday Night Live member Brad Hall, is tentatively titled
22 Minutes With Eleanor Riggs.
    Louis-Dreyfus will play a single woman living in Los Angeles,
toiling as a nightclub singer and surrounded by a cast of quirky characters.
    Critics who have seen previews of new comedy The Tick, starring
Patrick Warburton, who played Elaine's boyfriend Puddy on Seinfeld,
believe this will be the only spin-off from the hit sit-com to actually
succeed.
    The Tick-a crime-fighting superhero dressed in a blue insect outfit,
airs in the United States next week.

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:37:00 +1100, "Paul S" wrote:

What is the Aussie definition of a "spin-off"?

Certainly none of these shows that have been produced after Seinfeld was a "spin-off"!

Typical ignorant journalism (in any country).

Yes I would agree. A spin-off is something like Frasier from Cheers, the same character in his own series. Bob Patterson was not a spin-off, neither was The Micheal Richards Show. From what it sounds, This new Eleanor Riggs show is nothing like Elaine, so it's not a spin-off either. The curse is not really that a spin-off wouldn't work, but a NEW character by an OLD actor didn't work. If George Costanza got his own show, named "GEORGIE!" (his mother could say it every episode!) then THAT would be a spin-off. Ironically, I bet the spin-off idea WOULD work, it just hasn't been tried yet.

I'd watch a true spin-off, but probably not a show where Jason Alexander played someone other than George.....am I alone on this?

Andy(atuc.com), likes to ramble about the misguidings of television

"The News Guy(Mike)" wrote:

Andrew Hall wrote:

No, I agree. Ironically, I find Jason Alexander to be very annoying when he's not George. He has this pompous air that George totally annihilates.

bjb

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 18:26:21 GMT, [email] wrote:

Did you see him on "Pretty Woman" as the lawyer? I thought he was kind of pompous. Especially in the way he treated Juli Roberts' character.

Brenda "Do not use this product if you intend to be come pregnant." -On my birth control package.

In article , [email] wrote:

when he's not

Didn't he actually unsuccesfully attempt to sexually assault her in one scene?

Trying to remember if Today Sponges sported the same warning.

• Mark

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:12:33 GMT, [email] (Mark Mellin) wrote:

Oh yeah! I believe he tried to cop a feel but she fought him.

Haha it wouldn't surprise me!

Brenda "Do not use this product if you intend to be come pregnant." -On my birth control package.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 18:26:21 GMT, [email] wrote:

I agree too.

But I don't think it's "ironic".

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:02:44 GMT, [email] (The News Guy(Mike)) wrote:

What's ironic?

(Oh, this is getting old.)

Sophie

Yes, but it *must* be done.

Dave (like when someone writes, "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.")

Mike originally responded with the classic:

Sophie wrote:

Dave wrote:

Mike added:

Also, I don't think anyone uses the word correctly. In fact I don't think Elaine uses it correctly in The Subway. It really is not IRONIC that they have come all this way and lost the little things. It may be unfortunate, or lamentable, but there is really no irony there.

In article , [email] says...

But isn't that what irony is? I thought Elaine means, that while the women's movement have tried to accomplish better position for women in society, they have gone so far that women really are treated as equals and men won't give their seats for them. And dictonary says that irony is (among other things) "deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning".

But isn't word meaning determined (in part) by common usage? It seems like you're an "irony purist" who considers only extreme examples to be truly representative of irony. However, I think most people would agree that there's a range of irony (e.g. from "slightly ironic" to "very ironic") rather than a black & white situation; in this case, Elaine's example *is* ironic, although only mildly.

Still, this is an interesting discussion! :-) Do you have any support or documentation for your interpretation of "irony"?

"There are no big coincidences or little coincidences, only coincidences."

On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:28:31 -0500, Bruce Baron wrote:

Just as you can't have *some* grace... you either have grace or you don't!

"[email]" wrote:

That's not what Mr. Pitt thought.

Dave (something about not being able to stand?)

"John Twernbold" writes:

The OED says

   1. A figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that
   expressed by the words used; usually taking the form of sarcasm or ridicule
   in which laudatory expressions are used to imply condemnation or contempt.

I guess thats common usage, as virtually synonymous with sarcasm

or

   2. fig. A condition of affairs or events of a character opposite to what
   was, or might naturally be, expected; a contradictory outcome of events as
   if in mockery of the promise and fitness of things. (In F. ironie du sort.)

Its the mockery thats missing in the Alanis song. (Irony should be poignant, Miriam-Webster says)

Again, that's your interpretation. How poignant does a situation have to be to qualify as "ironic"?

Here, let's use the line quoted in a previous thread: "It's a death row pardon two minutes too late"

To me, that's slightly ironic, whereas the criticism leveled at it suggests that it's merely unfortunate. Let's try some variations to see if there are different degrees of irony. For example, a death row pardon that is given a couple years later (i.e. new evidence cleared the now-deceased convict) would be unfortunate, and probably not very ironic. But a death row pardon that's just two minutes too late *would* be mildy ironic--that the pardon arrived right after the convict's death adds that poignancy you're looking for. And it's certainly a "contradictory outcome" that "mocks the promise and fitness of things" as described by the OED; you're not supposed to execute the innocent, and to find out immediately after an execution that there was a pardon on the way is opposite of what one expects.

But it could certainly be more ironic. How 'bout this: the pardon arrived two minutes too late because the governor's car broke down, and the convict had been the salesmen who had sold the state their fleet vehicles. Ahh, very ironic! Or better yet, the convict *knew* that the cars were lemons and sole 'em anyway because he could make more money. Even more ironic! One could keep adding layers to this fictional story to increase the irony, but I think you see the point: there are degrees of irony, and whether or not a situation is poignant enough to qualify as "ironic" (or even "mildly ironic") depends on one's interpretation. Agree? Disagree?

Note that I'm merely arguing for the sake of the argument because I find this discussion interesting; that you own a copy of the OED suggests that I've come to this debate unprepared. ;-) Please--no wagers, no fistfights...

"John Twernbold" writes:

I agree in every particular. Even with the bits I've snipped. I'd like to see you make a case for the spoon/knife fiasco though...

Ahem, http://dictionary.oed.com (Irony, incidentally, is also an obsolete adjective meaning "made of iron")

On 15 Nov 2001 20:32:11 +0000, Gareth Owen wrote:

Well, I guess it is just another good English word that has lost its meaning because of "misuse" just like the word "unique". Most people now think it means "different". So we get "that is VERY unique." or "the MOST unique..."

Or the word "disinterested" which most people now use as a quasi intellectual replacement for "uninterested".

There are alot of words like that - I GIVE UP! :-)

-with apologies to Dave- Mike (who sheds a tear for our language)

LOL, I'm not going near that one except to say, "All right, all right, you win, heh. I see you've played Knifey-Spooney before?"

Still impressive--that's a $550 annual subscription. I usually rely on Dictionary.com because it's free, and I'm cheap. :-)

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:27:55 GMT, "John Twernbold" wrote:

Not "poignant" IRONIC.

Yep. Very unfortunate, but NOT ironic!

Yes. THAT IS IRONY!

Now, you got it! :-)

"What's ironic"? ;-)

[email] (The News Guy(Mike)) writes:

This reminds me of that movie with winona ryder, reality bites. She tries to geta job at a newspaper, and as a test, she gets asked 'what is ironic ?'. She funbles, says 'well when something is ironic, you know'and loses the job. Then she meets her friends, a loser who has trouble holding on to fast-food jobs and has no ambition in life. She mentions the incident, and he says yeah, ironic, when the literal meaning is the opposite of the realm meaning'.

R

On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:01:24 -0500, Dave wrote:

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Nee!

Sophie

Cardinal Fang? Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!

Dave (and so it goes.)