Ummmm, the whole point of the show was that the people were horrible.
The show ended with them jailed after they made fun of a guy who was getting mugged.
The gang on It’s Always Sunny is worse but they are obviously not people we’re supposed to empathise with. It’s quite a bit less obvious on Seinfeld.
I feel like the distinction is that on Sunny the gang is “punished” for their shitty behavior, and on Seinfeld they basically never were. (I don’t include the season finale because that was just a cop-out to give the show an ending.)
I might be overthinking it but feel like Seinfeld was more a show about normal people who sometimes do shitty things - just like real life. I can’t think of anything truly horrible any of them did on the show, just a bunch of “social” wrongdoing. Telling a secret, sleeping at work, the perfect comeback, etc. It’s famously a show about “nothing”
Then IASIP is about a bunch of assholes riling each other up to be horrible for their own benefit.
I think Seinfeld is the more “important” in the grand scheme of television for it’s groundbreaking approach but in a vacuum, IAS is the better show.
Jerry purposely drugging his girlfriend so he could play with her toys was pretty shitty AND horrible.
Yes, but that’s season 9, which is after Larry David left as writer. While Larry David was there thru season 7 the characters were quirky regular people who sometimes made bad choices like all humans do sometimes. After Larry David left and Jerry Seinfeld was writing the show by himself from season 8 forward, the characters became much more fucked up, and the show was also way less funny
The show is still a very 90s show with 90s sensibilities. There is a lot of media from that time that hasn’t aged well.
If 90s shows make you clutch your pearls god help you if you catch something from the 80s or 70s.
I think that 90s media may be a bit more problematic because it was more willing to have the kinds of discussions that 80s media would never had.
Millennial here. I tried to watch Seinfeld back in the day, and I thought it was kind of meh. But there was one character I really hated on the show. He had a whiny pathetic voice, was always complaining about something or another, and was just an awful actor, unlike the rest of the cast. I thought, if they just removed that one guy, the show would be great and I’d enjoy it so much more.
I found out later, that guy was Seinfeld. So… I never really got into the show.
THANK YOU! I can’t stand that guy. His voice kills me and I never found him funny. Nothing against him personally, he might be a great person, but I can’t understand how people can stand the content he makes.
Good news! Seinfeld is a pedophile and supposedly kind of a sociopath. He’s also tried to hop on the anti-woke train a couple of times in the past few years.
The man made a major contribution to western cultus as a whole, but man is he a bastard.
I’ve seen a few episodes of his show where he takes comedians to get a coffee in his fancy cars. He often comes across like an asshole. Sometimes I wonder if he’s in charge of the show why he would want to be portrayed that way? Presumably he could edit some stuff out?
He was definitely the weakest actor of the 4, and had the poorest story lines.
He was supposed to be the outside observer making the jokes about his crazy friends. That’s why early episodes had him literally doing stand up in the intro and outro.
I thought all the episodes had that. I never really watched the show much though.
Yeah also a millennial and it’s just… not that funny? I get that plenty of shows haven’t aged perfectly, so it’s not that. Friends has plenty of moments that haven’t aged well (lots of gay jokes about Chandler come to mind), but the comedy still holds up really well. Seinfeld… Not so much.
Millennials are like 40 years old now. Does this article writer think Millennial just means “kid”?
Millennials are like 40 years old now.
PS. I’m not actually 40 but I’m getting there before I even realise it.
It’s weird that “this group of people don’t like that show that you like” is supposed to create some sort of negative reaction. My enjoyment of a thing does not depend on a certain number of other people liking it.
I must be numb to “outrage is the best way to engage people” that everyone uses these days.
To be fair, Outrage Marketing does work, but it usually isn’t this obvious.
Like when Disney announced that the Snow White remake would have Seven Multicolored Normal Sized Human People? And later it turned out the final movie will indeed have dwarves?
That was just done to get bigots talking about the flick. Wouldn’t be surprised to learn Aerial being black in the newer Mermaid movie was the same thing. I mean it worked, people were too busy defending Disney from criticism for this move that they didn’t notice the movie is, like most Live Action Remakes of Non-Live Action media, shit.
Hey Disney, bring back your 2D Animation, have them do another Lion King, then dub it over with the audio for the Mufasa film. I guarantee I’ll actually consider watching the damn thing if you do that. (These Live Action remakes have got to be a Money Laundering scheme or something)
Hey Disney, bring back your 2D Animation
Disney used to churn out plenty of entertaining live action shows without issue.
The problem isn’t with the medium, it’s with the company. They’ve fired too many writers, put too much stock in CGI, and devolved too much of the editing process to the marketing department.
But the idea that the folks who brought you Tron, The Mighty Ducks, and Pirates of the Caribbean can’t make good live action cinema is crazy.
Before The Little Mermaid Disney made live-action remakes of Pinnochio and Peter Pan. Neither of them had a substantial outrage associated with them and I didn’t hear about either of them until they’d already released and flopped.
We were the ones watching it when it was first airing. I don’t think there was anyone in my highschool that wasn’t watching it.