First of all, yeah, come at me. “Seinfeld” 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 “hyuk-hyuk, get a load of all my jokes about women drivers” comedians and the post-Lenny Bruce era, where everything just boils down to telling boring “slice of life” 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 that’s 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. You’re simply wrong. If you like his comedy or his show, you just have bad taste. I can’t fix that. I can’t change your mind. You can’t change mine, either. But I’m objectively correct that he and his comedy material both suck.
But the whole “show about nothing” thing is what really boils my ass. You can argue that the show wasn’t “about nothing,” in the first place. And that’s, like, whatever. There are valid arguments, there. In fact, I’d like to accept those arguments, then proceed under the assumption that the “show about nothing” concept really is a “show about nothing, and therefore about everything.”
This is the important point: the thing I disagree with is this wretched and insulting notion that “Seinfeld” was somehow a PIONEERING television show, in this context of being about nothing and/or everything.
That’s my problem. The claim that “Seinfeld” did any of that shit first. The implication is that all prior television, especially all prior comedies, were somehow locked into a “this is a show about a particular topic” mentality. And, like, “nobody 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.”
That’s fucking horseshit. Horseshit of the highest fucking caliber.
I suppose these turd-brained fucksticks believe that “I Love Lucy” was about a Cuban guy who had a job as a bandleader and his wife, who sometimes tried to get into showbusiness. And “The Honeymooners” would be about a guy who has a job as a bus driver. And “Taxi” was a show about cab drivers, driving their cabs.
Of course, that’s not what those shows were ACTUALLY ABOUT. They were basically shows about nothing, just as much as “Seinfeld” 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 “show about nothing” mold BETTER than “Seinfeld” ever did.
I say they did it better, because they weren’t 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 that’s part of the joke…but it wears thin very quickly, and my point is that other shows did a similar “it’s a show about nothing…but really everything” theme, but their casts of characters WEREN’T 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 don’t give a shit. I can keep going. “Green Acres” wasn’t really about farming. “The Bob Newhart Show” wasn’t really about psychiatry, “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” wasn’t really about TV production, and “WKRP in Cincinnati” wasn’t really about radio production.
The shows about nothing and everything are THE MAJORITY of all the shows. Certainly, all the good ones. It’s harder for me to think of reversed examples, where the show is just what it was supposed to be “about.”
Like, yeah, “Flipper” really was about a fucking dolphin, and “The Flying Nun” 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 won’t be reading that shit. Not sorry.
You OK, buddy?
Dude typed a whole essay about how he doesn’t like a TV show from like 20-30 years ago…
I didn’t read any of it, but I’m sure none of it is groundbreaking. Like, some kids think literally everyone loved the stuff we call classics today.
Not liking Seinfeld isn’t anymore original or rare than not liking marvel movies, except for Earnest Goes to Camp there’s no piece of media everyone loves.
I gave it a go, but had to bow out when I got to the My personal taste in entertainment is objectively correct bit lol
Yeah, I think he missed this is unpopular opinions. Not to mention that comedy is inherently subjective.
I’d bet the OP is fairly young. To many younger people Seinfeld seems terrible, largely because everything since copied so many aspects of things it pioneered on general television and refined them. So Seinfeld seems like just a collection of poor imitations rather than the beginning for all of those being made better.
What did it do? I’m not that young but didn’t watch it much as it wasn’t big in the UK.
I think it’s credited as one of, if not the first, show to flip the sitcom formula on it’s head in terms of protagonists. Before, shows were about good people having to deal with conflicts and coming out on top. Seinfeld was about bad people creating conflicts and then failing to resolve them. This is particularly evident in the finale when the show ends with them all in jail instead of each character getting their own happy ending.
That was one of the tenants of the show - “nobody learns”.
I thought about it, but on the other hand, I’ve yet to hear someone under a handful of decades old mention Lenny Bruce
Are you recommending Earnest Goes to Camp?
…
I dont know if that was a joke or not.
But if you ever have to ask “is someone recommending Earnest goes to Camp?”
The answer is always yes.
You will laugh, you will love, you will cry. And afterwards you’ll likely be a better person.
And I know what you’re thinking, why would an Earnest P Worrel movie make me cry?
Will it help me find miak at this time of year?
TvTropes has much longer and better essays on this subject
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny
I feel a little better, after venting about Seinfeld for twelve minutes.
…what else is this subverse supposed to be for? It’s the goddamned “Unpopular Opinion” place. Ranting about your strongly-held opinions is what you’re supposed to do, here.
And if I was overly nice about it, people wouldn’t feel free to disagree. So if I get my aggression and frustration out by taking a verbal shit on Jerry Seinfeld’s body of work, I benefit. And then other people benefit by coming along and verbally assaulting me, for doing that.
It’s like fucking Fight Club, except nobody gets any fucking concussions, and nobody gives a fuck if you talk about it.
Well, it does make us wonder about your username.
I rant 1 percent of the time, so that I can be chill 99 percent of the time.
I could achieve the same effect with bourbon, but it would be much less healthy and DRAMATICALLY more expensive.
At least with bourbon you’d run less risk of being factually incorrect
Pfft. Not with the amount I’d consume.
I fully understand.
I was going to go off on you about pitching about a show you don’t like and telling everyone they’re objectively wrong if they disagree, but then I noticed this is unpopular opinion. So, this is the right place. Carry on.
Oh god, I feel another essay coming on.
I also quickly stopped reading.
I never really watched Seinfeld. If it was on I saw a few minutes of it.
My problem is saying “you like this thing? Well you’re WRONG.”
You sound like a narcissistic child who can’t fathom the idea that some people like things you don’t like. Also this isn’t an unpopular opinion. Like, Seinfeld was a huge show 30 years ago. I would imagine a lot of people disliked it for whatever reasons you’re ranting about.
My problem is saying “you like this thing? Well you’re WRONG.”
That made it funny!
Just as a point of clarification, a critic of the show called it a “show about nothing”. Jerry took that and used it as the plot of the show within a show that he and George wrote the pilot to, Jerry! Then people started referring to Seinfeld that way, but it never was about nothing, in fact it usually had 2-3 storylines per episode that they found a way to converge at the end.
I get that you don’t like the show, but at least get your facts straight.
Exactly, Jerry and Larry David said something like “No learning no feelings” but I don’t believe they ever said it was a show about nothing.
The “show about nothing” was a fictional, in-universe sitcom called “Jerry”. The real show “Seinfeld” was about where a comedian got his material.
Yeah. After that storyline, v everyone started calling the real show that.
Congratulations on the unpopular opinion. What mostly sets Seinfeld apart from other sitcoms that came before and what earned it “show about nothing” is that it didn’t have any “teachable moments”. The characters are shitty people doing shitty things who never grow, they never change or learn a moral lesson, they just stay as crappy people throughout the show’s run.
Of course in today’s environment with IASIP it’s just commonplace (IASIP is a spiritual descendent of Seinfeld), but when Seinfeld came out, no matter what kind of zany/grumpy/snide/mean characters were on a show, everyone came together at the end and learned a lesson about X. Other shows that were out the same year as Seinfeld were Family Matters, Saved by the Bell, and Coach, that’s the environment it existed in. Today it’s expected more than anything, but at the time we were coming out of 80s tv and it’s shitty moralizing attitude about everything. If somebody did something wrong, they were going see the error of their ways and try to be a better person, by golly (awwwww sound effect).
Granted, Married with Children came out in 1987 and was doing something similar, but it was a bit raunchier/low-brow and the storylines weren’t as “clever” or off-the-wall, so probably didn’t have the same sort of appeal. MwC was more in the vein of All in the Family, if anything.
First of all, you’ve 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:
80s tv and it’s shitty moralizing attitude about everything
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 progressed…but it didn’t fully land until later, and therefore it didn’t slam down on those shows, and make me disgusted by them.
I don’t consider shows that have happy endings to be the opposite of high quality. I don’t think formulaic sitcoms where everyone comes together at the end of the episode are automatically bad. And I certainly don’t consider the opposite to be automatically good.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m not some kind of moralizing crusader or bible thumper, or whatever. I don’t think a show needs to be happy or uplifting or moralistic, either. I basically don’t 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 that’s the case, I’ll commend you for going back and watching stuff in 4:3 standard definition. It’s usually like pulling teeth to get the young people to watch anything made before the HD era, even if it’s remastered in perfect HD.
It’s 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.
You have the distinction of being the first person on Lemmy I’m blocking, not because you said something bigoted or objectively cruel, but because based on that essay and your subsequent comments I simply think you and I have such drastically different tastes on things that I just don’t care to hear your opinions on anything else. Genuinely wishing you good luck in your future
Me too! Seinfeld is just… bland and a nothing. Curb, however, is rather good.
While I agree that Seinfeld is generally unfunny and definitely overrated, Op is such a gaping asshole about it, I kinda want to rethink my opinion because of them.
OP’s username must be sarcastic lol
I respect the unpopular opinion, but disrespect the wrong / inconsistent stuff for a lot of it…
For example with the “show about nothing”, its an in universe joke about a TV show George thought up
deleted by creator
I came to read the comments and I’m glad I chose not to read another subjective rant about something someone hates. Who TF cares if I really hate something other people really like. And me getting on a soap box about it only makes me an asshole. Some people put a whole lot of value on their opinion and don’t understand how others can also have strong opinions that may differ and yet have as much value as theirs.
Wasn’t it more that Seinfeld cemented and standardized many concepts, rather than invented them?
Regardless, doing so or even creating an entirely new genre doesn’t make a show good. In fact, often a piece of media that makes an entire new genre or cements/standardizes a lot of concepts for a genre can suck because it’s all new or hasn’t been standardized yet, so there is a lot of floundering around to figure out how it all works
That’s actually a very good argument, in general terms.
However, I’d still argue that at least a dozen shows had already cemented and crafted the “show about nothing and anything and everything at once” concept, long before “Seinfeld” premiered.
I hated Seinfeld and hated it more than I might have otherwise because it felt like everyone else loved it SO MUCH and wouldn’t shut up about it. But damn dude. This is a lot of feelings about a show that sucked decades ago.
You’re just objectively wrong throughout. Not liking it, sure. You do you boo.
It was never a show about nothing. It was a 90s sitcom. It had an A plot and a B plot. Had arching character stories that ran season to season that were directly related to how shows didn’t drop all at once but once a week for a period of time then NOTHING as a cliff hanger for a year. So a drastic change or a big season finale actually meant something because there was most of the year someone would talk about it.
As to you just not liking it, I can see that. Especially if you’re younger. When I was younger I hated it. Absolutely not funny. When you are their age, all that crap that happens to them, happens to you. Obviously they are the worst versions of people possible which is the point. And yes that too is pioneering, because you were always supposed to support the characters. Give it a decade, and rewatch. You may chuckle. Or not. Doesn’t matter.
Seinfeld himself I don’t find funny. And he’s a terrible actor (self described). Jason Alexander is a god. Dreyfus is intolerable. I can’t stand anything she’s in, except Seinfeld where I hate her but watch her. But even with that, it’s a good standard 90s comedic sitcom. Formulaic and somewhat unpredictable the first time. Obscenely quotable today.
deleted by creator
Tons of people, you say? A greater hive mind of people, who all outnumber me, you say?
HMMMMMMMMMMM. IT’S ALMOST AS IF THAT WOULD MAKE MY OPINION…UHHHH…UNPOPULAR.
If that were the case, it would be FUCKING FORTUITOUS that I posted it in the subverse SPECIFICALLY FOR UNPOPULAR OPINIONS.
Honestly, what do you think people are supposed to post, here? I’m really asking you. Please tell me what you think people are supposed to post, in this place.
You okay? I get the unpopular opinion and actually agree with some of it but damn you are angry that people love that show. Also, I don’t think you know what the word objectively means because your whole argument about Seinfeld not being funny is complete dependent on your personal feelings about his type of humor.
I agree that Seinfeld himself isn’t funny. I also agree that the show is clearly not about nothing. It’s a show about a group of friends getting themselves into ridiculous situations. I can however say that while your opinions are valid, Seinfeld factually is the most popular sitcom of the 90s.
Anyway, like you said, your mind isn’t going to be changed and neither are the minds of the millions of people who disagree with you. Thanks for the post.
I can take all of that on the chin, basically with the excuse that I was being somewhat hyperbolic, basically deliberately. I was certainly being deliberately provocative, when I used the word “objectively.”
I don’t consider myself to have been engaging in trolling, per se. It’s more of a conscious choice to be abrasive about my opinion, so that anyone who DEEPLY disagrees will get two general messages:
-
If you want to “have a go at me,” as the Brits say, because you disagree with me, go ahead. I was rude enough that you won’t have to feel badly about it. It’s basically a roundabout sort of courtesy.
-
On the other hand, my position is FULLY FUCKING ENTRENCHED, and you aren’t going to be able to just wiggle me around to your side, with a bit of finesse.
Isn’t it textbook trolling to be intentionally abrasive to provoke conflict?
Not the way I’m doing it. Trolls provoke conflict, in order to destroy any capacity for constructive discussion and stress everyone out.
I am expressing my unpopular opinion (importantly, in a place specifically marked out as a space for unpopular opinions) in a way that gives me emotional satisfaction, but also invites other people to “have a go at me,” if they strongly disagree.
Also, the specific tone that I chose invited a high level of unironic and, again, highly satisfying debate and examination of the issue. I think that’s also, at least in part, a result of that choice of tone. My abrasive tone communicated that this is a strong opinion that I’m holding, and you have to come at me with some really bulletproof, thought-provoking counter arguments, in order for me to really engage with you.
In other words, the boring middle ground is cut out. We’re either getting “HEY, FUCK YOU, I LOVE JERRY” or we’re getting a couple paragraphs of EXCELLENT POINTS, BEING MADE VERY WELL BY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE.
What we’re cutting out is the boring “nuh-uh, i kinda like Seinfeld, the soup nazi episode was cool” portions of the discussion, which are indeed boring.
Trolls want people to be sad and bored. I want people to either have an emotional release or an intellectual discussion.
I think it generated an interesting discussion, but that it was still trolling. You are a troll with self awareness - you should own it!
Maybe I’ve discovered some kind of halfway point, between trolling and productive discussion. Or maybe, like, being a self-aware troll really does fundamentally alter the whole situation, and it isn’t as harmful anymore.
-
So do you think Friends brought more to the table then?
Compared to “Seinfeld,” yes. And it certainly wears the classic American “show about nothing and everything” mantle with more dignity and more overall quality.
I still think it’s overrated, too, which I suspect you suspected, about me. But truly, it’s not as overrated as “Seinfeld.”
“Friends” does have a lot of the same “holy shit, these characters are borderline psychopaths” energy, going on. As does “How I Met Your Mother,” which is another show set in New York, which I think is pretty dramatically overrated.
Lots of weirdly glorified psychopaths on “The Office,” as well. And I think that show is more catastrophically and pitifully overrated than all of these put together. But at least nobody really comes along claiming that it’s some kind of fundamental pioneer, in any important respect. I mean, I’m sure there are people out there who think the producers of “The Office” invented the concept of the mockumentary, but those people are simple and should be left alone.
Good grief. What the hell sitcomy type show did you even like from the 90s?? If you shit on NewsRadio then you need your own lesson in taste.
See, the thing is, I actually liked the more sitcomy type shows. I liked “Full House” and “Family Matters” and “Hangin’ with Mr. Cooper,” and “Dinosaurs” and “Martin” and “Perfect Strangers” and “Night Court” and “3rd Rock from the Sun” and some episodes of “Boy Meets World,” although it wasn’t my favorite. And I’m sure I’m leaving some out.
I disagree with the premise (which someone else brought up) that “Seinfeld” was automatically superior, because it diverged from all the “happy, constructive, happy-ending, everyone comes together and learns something at the end of the episode” type shows, like the ones I mentioned.
I’m not a turbo-cynical Gen-X-er, who is fully allergic to happy endings. I don’t think every character in every show has to be a genuine shithead, or else the show isn’t cool.
I also watched tons of other shit. I was (and am) a huge sci-fi nerd. I would have been happy if the whole 1980s and 1990s TV schedule had just been more and more Star Trek spinoffs, along with “The X-Files” and “American Gladiators,” just for variety. But I didn’t reject sitcoms, on some kind of pretentious “happy endings are lame” basis.
Oh my god, also “Brisco County, Jr.” That show flew under so many people’s radars. And it was basically a perfect combination of sitcom tropes and sci-fi and action/pulp tropes. Bruce Campbell at his fucking finest. Fuck yes.
“Full House” - Bad
“Family Matters” - Bad. Corporate comedy at its worst. ( “did I do that?” )
“Hangin’ with Mr. Cooper,” - Bad
“Dinosaurs” - really bad (with only the final episode to make it memorable)
“Martin” - good
“Perfect Strangers” - really, really bad
“Night Court” - good, but it’s premise was almost cheating because the cases allowed them to have a quick comedic trial premise jokes then back to the a or b storyline. If not for the joke trials, it would have been bad.
“3rd Rock from the Sun” - good
“Boy Meets World,” - bad
Briscoe County Junior - good
Your taste in comedy is on average bad and you should feel bad.
Meh.
I think you said you were born in 1980? Did you even know what sponge worthy meant when you were 15?
I don’t think I actually saw that episode until a few years later, when I did get it. I am indeed pretty sure that would have sailed right over my head, at age 15.
