Does anyone agree with me, although there were some brilliant bits, the last couple of seasons started to get that "formula" feel like all long running shows fall into? That there had to be four stories going on all at the same time? Look at the early episodes. They didn't feel the need to do that!
Steveo
The show definitely changed. It was a good thing I think (that it changed- whether or not what it changed into is good is debatable). One thing I'm glad it never did is formulate any drama.
A lot (Mike- I'm so serious, you've rubbed off on me. I use "alot" a lot because, after all, it is accepted, but lately I've started going back to using two words) of people here have said that Frasier is a good show to stick to now that Seinfeld is gone, but seeing the commercials for the season premiere makes me sick. It's supposed to be the "show we've been waiting for"; there's something about Niles marrying that lady or something. Drama- who needs it? Seinfeld was gold for having next to none in the early seasons and absolutely none in the later. It's the same thing with Friends- who's marrying who? Who really loves who? Please. I watch sitcoms to laugh. I don't care about Jerry, George, Kramer or Elaine. They make me laugh and that's all they're good for.
I think that the show was definitely starting to overstay its welcome. Not with me, but it just seemed that people weren't as interested in it as before. Sure, the ratings were there, but just by some of the voices here, maybe it was time to go. Or maybe they should've tried to change a little more. I don't know, but I'm sure we're all satisfied with the nine seasons that we have (or maybe 7-8 seasons for many of you!).
I just saw "The Glasses" earlier today- that's got to be one of the evilest Georges we've seen, taking advantage of a blind man. But who cares? How funny is it when he runs out of the club saying "Can you pick it up a little?" to the blind guy?
Steve wrote:
By whom? That is the test you should use. Then make your decision. :-)
Dictionaries. It (alot) isn't "preferred," but it's "accepted." Sorry, can't think of a Seinfeld connection to make this relevant to the group...
Steve wrote:
How about. - Accepted by whom? Have you seen those people? It's like a leper colony down there.
[waves arm] Unacceptable!
Steveo McLaughlin wrote:
I definitely agree with you, Steve. During the last two seasons the writers stuck to the structures that made Seinfeld (the series) so great, but they did not have the same substantive content that the earlier writers had, especially under Larry David's influence. The bits become silly and the characters lost consistency. George became a "screamer", Elaine became "bitchier", Jerry lost his sense of "center" and being "in control". Kramer lost his "street wise" persona. They also deviated from Jerry's "personal observational humour". Of course many people feel the humour they did present was acceptable, it was just a different kind from before. There were a few exceptions during the last two years but things, IMHO, were going downhill.
So? Well? Which were the exceptions?
Easily at the top of our lists has to be The Yada, Yada--which comes to my mind as perhaps the best in the post-David era. Great in the "classic" (Davidian?) sense: Several loony subplots meshing together.
Of course, throwing in that cameo of the luscious Jill St. John (my future wife?) didn't hurt either.
I think The Bizarro Jerry and The Little Kicks were a couple of classics from the next to last season (96/97)
Andy MacAskill wrote in message ...
last
running
same
that!
writers
they did
especially
lost
Jerry lost
wise"
humour". Of
was just
last two
Andy MacAskill wrote:
Humour is so personal. To me these are the few that were okay in years 8 and 9. The Abstinence The Yada Yada The Betrayal (but please remove the Kramer and FDR bit) The Maid (only for Angela Featherstone)
Even then, I think they can't stand up to the structure and writing in the majority of episodes in years 4, 5, and 6.