ohmygod - 5/9

That does it... two in a row? Two substandard episodes in the span of two weeks? What's going on?

There was clearly a lot of polish missing from this episode. Even a few unnatural pauses between lines. Kramer's usual crescendo of excitement seemed contrived. Elaine and Jerry rather plastic in their joy. Jerry commiting the faux pas of staring right into the camera. The only two who seemed up to par were George and the "small" guy.

The pants: What the.... I mean it was SO OBVIOUS that Kramer didn't undo his zipper. OF COURSE it's nearly impossible to take someone's pants off without unzipping the zipper. Did they all become morons overnight?

The breakup: All wrong. First, a very happy couple does not separate at the drop of a hat. If they were ENGAGED it would have been much more believable. The way both Jerry and Elaine behaved, I couldn't see either falling for them.

Frankenstein's Monster: Juvenile, possibly funny, but poorly executed. Kramer demonstrates a distinct walk in his tight jeans. It was quite different from the walk we see shadowed in the spirit of Frankenstein.

The "small" guy: When last we saw this man of slight stature, he hated Kramer's guts. Kramer caused him the loss of his dignity by having him wear lifts, and wind up getting caught by his peers later. Like he's going to do anything with him again? Where's the motive? Why did they get back together? Nothing. He just appears in Jerry's apartment with Kramer and a script. Not even a "Well, Kramer was the only person I could find who was available."

All in all, to me it looked like they collected a bunch of unpolished takes, based on rough ideas, and said "Eh, people will laugh anyway. Who cares?"

If this keeps up, Seinfeld will be finished before the end of the year.

-Gary K.

Gary Kline writes:

(Sorry didn't quote your whole critique...)

Actually, I thought it was funny and so did several friends. Nyah nyah I love Kramer's slapstick with the pants, for beter or worse it reminds me yet again of I Love Lucy. And it's also great to watch Lanie scheming with Jerry about the dating... But I can't quite put my finger on the way they plan and especially how JLD responds toward the end to rush Jerry at the end. It reminds me of some movie? Some lame detective show? BTW, I agree that the 5/2 hour long episode was wll below par. Hillel

    The past two episodes looked like they were rushed through
    production to be ready for the ratings sweeps- the scripts sure
    weren't ratcheted down per usual- NBC knows that they can carpet-
    bomb with "All-New Seinfeld" promos and be guaranteed "Must-See"
    level shares. The last two ERs were pretty flimsy also.

In article , [email] says...

I hope that's it. I would hate to think that Jerry et al have gotten so bored with the show that they're not putting the same level of effort into it, or have run dry with fresh ideas. Either of these scenarios would kill the show.

NBC still has some holes in it's Thursday night line-up. Friends, Seinfeld, and ER remain the anchors that gives even mediocre shows a chance to survive. So far, Friends still is holding strong, but ER has already lost its orginal appeal and become too "soap opera" and Seinfeld is reaching for laughs. Let's hope that they don't rush the next new episodes before they are ready.

just relax and enjoy the show. It was funny, but you were obviously to busy looking for holes

Ed Sollbach wrote:

[snip]

Gary pretty much echoes my sentiments about the past couple of episodes. I didn't get a whole lot of chuckles out of them either. While I can't speak for Gary, for me it is not as you suggest, Ed. The holes are there and the laughs aren't.

An hour and 10 minutes after the new episode, the syndicated episode, The Hamptons was on and I laughed my ass off. So it's not my attitude about the show that's changed. It's that the show itself has changed. And I'm not saying the whole season was bad, just the last two weeks. For the most part, episodes this season have been as funny as any other season.

Monty

In article , [email] says...

[..snip..]

Uh, Ed... you quoted the article with no added text of your own. Your point?

-Gary K.

In article , [email] says...

says...

Whoops, correction; I meant J. Huard, not Ed.

In article J. Huard, [email] writes:

If I remember correctly, the whole thing came out in the beginning that Elaine heard the two of them were having troubles--making them neither a happy couple nor the break-up "at the drop of a hat." George's comment was just a happy circumstance for Elaine and Jerry, who were waiting patiently for the inevitable.

Meghan

Wow...in retrospect this was almost prophetic...

"Mr David L. Campbell" wrote:

That's Gary's specialty, Retroprophecy. I can say that now because I know Gary won't have internet access for a while.

Monty

On 24 May 1996 07:39:53 GMT, "Mr David L. Campbell" wrote:

the little guy has been in several episodes, that 1 w/the lifts was he 1st. He was also in the 1 when elaine date the communist and kramer played santa and the little guy played the elf

mike

I can't explain any of the other substandard things in the show but I can explain this one. When Beth and Jerry got together, she explained why they broke up...she said that Geroge's comment made her think that maybe she could do better. Also she said that his quirks were getting on her nerves. So we have to assume that they had some trouble in their marriage anyway.

This happens a lot in Seinfeld. They never explain what happens between charcaters in between fights and their getting back together. I guess we have to assume they made up since last we saw Mickey. The same thing happened with Geroge and Susan when George "cheated" with Marissa Tomei. Susan kicked him out but int he next episdoe they are back together as if nothing happened.

Are you for real?? This was a great episode. I have an idea for you. Why not just watch the show and laugh with it instead of analyzing it.

     I don't see the decline in ER- considering the large cast, they do
     a nice job at moving all the continuing stories forward, even if
     they have to leave a "thread" out for a week or two before resuming.

     Friends, though; I'd rather not even think about it- even if you give
     it a pass on the "alternate universe N.Y.C. economics" ( a cook and a
     waitress in a giant SoHo apt.?), it panders so slavishly to the angst-
     ridden, whiney, Gen-X demographic....Friends just resoundingly blows-

Thank you, Thomas. My younger X'er of sister argues I've become prematurely cynical. Still goes to show that a score of innocent eyed pups can't carry poot writing.

Jim Keefe

     "poot writing"...I like that- cynicism is the overcoat I wear every
     day, but the cynicism of that wacky "Friends" gang is such a transparent
     affectation; it's too entangled with their morbid self-absorption...

	I apologize for even discussing "Friends" in this group, especially
     since the strong ratings of "Seinfeld" gave that pathetic show a
     comfortable womb to entrench itself in.