First of all, yeah, come at me. âSeinfeldâ is only kinda-sorta funny, at best. Seinfeld himself is really not funny at all. His act is perpetually stuck between the oldschool, early 1950s-style, cigar-waving âhyuk-hyuk, get a load of all my jokes about women driversâ comedians and the post-Lenny Bruce era, where everything just boils down to telling boring âslice of lifeâ stories with mildly clever exaggerations.
Seinfeld manages to pick and choose all the worst elements of both those eras and smush them together into a tremendously boring, un-funny standup act.
Annnnd thatâs what gets translated to the show. Boring, egotistical, overly-New-York-focused, pretentious nonsense.
Like I said, come at me about that. I know people disagree. I truly do not care what you want to say to me, about it. Youâre simply wrong. If you like his comedy or his show, you just have bad taste. I canât fix that. I canât change your mind. You canât change mine, either. But Iâm objectively correct that he and his comedy material both suck.
But the whole âshow about nothingâ thing is what really boils my ass. You can argue that the show wasnât âabout nothing,â in the first place. And thatâs, like, whatever. There are valid arguments, there. In fact, Iâd like to accept those arguments, then proceed under the assumption that the âshow about nothingâ concept really is a âshow about nothing, and therefore about everything.â
This is the important point: the thing I disagree with is this wretched and insulting notion that âSeinfeldâ was somehow a PIONEERING television show, in this context of being about nothing and/or everything.
Thatâs my problem. The claim that âSeinfeldâ did any of that shit first. The implication is that all prior television, especially all prior comedies, were somehow locked into a âthis is a show about a particular topicâ mentality. And, like, ânobody had the GENIUS and the GUTS to make a freewheeling show about just, like, whatever topics came to the minds of the genius writers, and their groundbreaking stream-of-consciousness comedy process.â
Thatâs fucking horseshit. Horseshit of the highest fucking caliber.
I suppose these turd-brained fucksticks believe that âI Love Lucyâ was about a Cuban guy who had a job as a bandleader and his wife, who sometimes tried to get into showbusiness. And âThe Honeymoonersâ would be about a guy who has a job as a bus driver. And âTaxiâ was a show about cab drivers, driving their cabs.
Of course, thatâs not what those shows were ACTUALLY ABOUT. They were basically shows about nothing, just as much as âSeinfeldâ was. They were often about relatable problems in domestic life, they were sometimes about people trying zany get-rich-quick schemes, they were sometimes about the fears and perils and hopes that surround pregnancy and childbirth, they were often about the uncertainty and passion and sacrifice that people put themselves through, for their budding careers, or their workaday jobs. And they were about a million other things that all fit the âshow about nothingâ mold BETTER than âSeinfeldâ ever did.
I say they did it better, because they werenât exclusively about sad, angry, borderline-psychopathic reprobates, who seem to have no goals or aspirations, beyond smirking and talking shit about people behind their backs, swilling coffee, and occasionally trying to get laid. They were shitty people, with shitty attitudes. I know thatâs part of the jokeâŠbut it wears thin very quickly, and my point is that other shows did a similar âitâs a show about nothingâŠbut really everythingâ theme, but their casts of characters WERENâT entirely populated by malignant, fundamentally worthless narcissists.
Basically, I implore people to stop worshipping that fucking show, as if it was some kind of groundbreaking, high art. There were way better classic comedy shows than that piece of shit, from its own era and the TV eras before it.
Oh, and before you point out that I accused Seinfeld of being overly New York focused, but also used three other shows set in New York as counterexamples, I realized that just now.
And I donât give a shit. I can keep going. âGreen Acresâ wasnât really about farming. âThe Bob Newhart Showâ wasnât really about psychiatry, âThe Mary Tyler Moore Showâ wasnât really about TV production, and âWKRP in Cincinnatiâ wasnât really about radio production.
The shows about nothing and everything are THE MAJORITY of all the shows. Certainly, all the good ones. Itâs harder for me to think of reversed examples, where the show is just what it was supposed to be âabout.â
Like, yeah, âFlipperâ really was about a fucking dolphin, and âThe Flying Nunâ really was about a flying fucking nun. And those shows fucking sucked.
I think I can consider my point thoroughly made.
Now, all you assholes can start typing abuse at me, for daring to dislike your idol. I wonât be reading that shit. Not sorry.
First of all, youâve made a whole two paragraphs of really excellent points. I respect your point of view, for the most part. However, I draw your attention to this opinion:
Might I assume that you fall somewhere squarely in the Gen-X age bracket? To the perpetually cynical minds of Gen-X-ers, happy endings and morality tales are like salt to a slug. They burn you. I get that.
I was born in 1980, so I fall into either the youngest cohort of the X-ers or the eldest cohort of the Millenials. Therefore, I saw all those shows, but I had a different perspective.
My teenage cynicism had not fully kicked in, when all those classic family sitcoms were on the air. I mean, mainly because I was 9 or 10 when most of these shows were premiering. My sarcastic and cynical phase was coming along, little by little, as that era progressedâŠbut it didnât fully land until later, and therefore it didnât slam down on those shows, and make me disgusted by them.
I donât consider shows that have happy endings to be the opposite of high quality. I donât think formulaic sitcoms where everyone comes together at the end of the episode are automatically bad. And I certainly donât consider the opposite to be automatically good.
I mean, donât get me wrong, Iâm not some kind of moralizing crusader or bible thumper, or whatever. I donât think a show needs to be happy or uplifting or moralistic, either. I basically donât have ANY of those biases, as a general rule. At least, not the way that Gen-X-ers seem to have them.
Also, I could be wrong, and you might be a Gen-Z person who has gone back and watched all this stuff after the fact, and simply disagrees with me. If thatâs the case, Iâll commend you for going back and watching stuff in 4:3 standard definition. Itâs usually like pulling teeth to get the young people to watch anything made before the HD era, even if itâs remastered in perfect HD.
Itâs the aspect ratio that throws them off, which I particularly resent, on the grounds that Gen-Z has happily accepted VERTICAL VIDEO, in the form of Tik-Tok and YouTube Shorts, and that shit is abominable.