Post: #1

The article is called "If People talked About Seinfeld Like They Talk About Girls", and it's actually really funny. Written by a guy, no less.


http://jezebel.com/5988956/if-people-tal...bout-girls

Quote:Sometimes it seems like he's just using this show as an excuse to play out his fantasies, y'know? Every show opens with him performing stand-up to a great crowd that loves every one of his jokes. And he's constantly having sex with these beautiful women. Like, WAY too beautiful for a schlubby guy like Jerry. Even George, who's like short and fat, and Kramer, who's just kind of gross, both also have sex with these beautiful women. It's like, yeah, okay, Jerry. I guess enjoy the dream while you can.

Post: #2

Go grrl! A valiant attempt at exposing society's double standards by applying common criticisms of Girls to Seinfeld! What? Double standards exist?!

Problem is Seinfeld was about guys. So the comments about looks are irrelevant. Seinfeld is about unlikeable characters behaving badly. Girls glorifies bad behaviour and takes itself more seriously than Seinfeld ever did.

At least Seinfeld was truly funny; at best Girls serves up some ho-hum wisecracks, a few clear-sighted insights about the lives of that generation but no belly laughs. Seinfeld was about people in general, not just one solipsistic generation. It's universally applicable; that's the reason for it's longevity and broad appeal.

Post: #3

It was originally authored by a College Humor contributor. Seinfeld was actually funny, Jerry is decent looking, Lena is not. Although I will agree that Jerry's girls were pretty hot. (Maybe it was the NYC Poosy Paradise effect?)

Post: #4

Seinfeld is one of my favorite TV shows and certainly the funniest. Scrubs and similar things just can't match it.

However, I've always thought that the sex lives of all of their characters were totally unrealistic. Even Jerry, who is quite successful, has solid game, and doesn't look bad is cleaning up so much that it requires a suspension of disbelief. For pathetic (if funny) loser like George, though, it's just ridiculous.

Post: #5

I'd smash Elaine.

Post: #6

And the award for missing the point entirely goes to...that guy.

People don't like Seinfeld because it's about men; people like Seinfeld because it featured more laughs than any TV show before or since, holds up well on multiple re-watches, entered several terms into the lexicon ('Shrinkage', 'Hello, Jerry...', 'Serenity now!') and was actually, legitimately funny.

Just like people don't dislike Girls because they hate women; people dislike Girls because it's a platform for Lena Dunham to stand on so we can all bask in the sunlight that shines out of her dumpy ass (don't seem to recall Jerry ever calling himself the voice of a generation), it's really not funny, it's 'First World Problems: The TV Show' (self-important hipsters and rich kids who lead pretty comfortable lives waxing politic and philosophical and thinking that they're deep) and despite no one anywhere wanting to see her naked, every few episodes Her Royal Highness the God Queen has a sex scene.

Every comedy on TV today owes something to Seinfeld. Seinfeld is an institution, Girls is a fad.

Kramer gets laid because he doesn't give a fuck. George gets laid because he shows pretty solid dark triad character traits and works for the Yankees. Jerry gets laid because he's funny as hell, has definite red pill views, is put into contact with a lot of women through his job and makes decent money. Also, it is a TV show. Why is any of this difficult to comprehend for some people?

Quote:If People Talked About Seinfeld Like They Talk About Girls...

People weren't talking about Seinfeld like this because when the show came out in 1989, there was no internet and our institutes of higher learning were not yet giving out degrees for watching television.

(03-07-2013 02:14 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I'd smash Elaine.

Wall survivor; nearly twice my age, still would bang.

Post: #7

I'm not going to give Jezebel the click, but I can respond to the overall thrust of their article with one word: wrong.

To break that down, "Seinfeld" came in for exactly this type of criticism in its day. This writer didn't do the research. Its main critic was Howard Stern. His gripe was that the show was set up to let Jerry look like some sort of little God, while he was surrounded by losers. Shortly after Stern made these comments (and he made a LOT of them) "Seinfeld" changed its tune and started making Jerry look bad in episodes like "The Pick" and "The Chaperone." Stern's gripes were echoed to a lesser degree in some mainstream publications.

Beyond that, the Jezebel writer is missing a big point.

"Seinfeld" was a farcical comedy, deliberately cartoonish and not meant to be realistic. This is evidenced by its peripheral characters like Newman and Jackie Chiles, who were inspired by characters from classic old comedy shows like "Abbot and Costello." Plus, it starred a comedian. "Girls," on the other hand, is a comic-drama steeped in realism. And it does not star a comedian, but a writer who is trying to put across messages. Comparing these shows is apples and oranges.

Post: #8

(03-07-2013 03:21 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I'm not going to give Jezebel the click, but I can respond to the overall thrust of their article with one word: wrong.

To break that down, "Seinfeld" came in for exactly this type of criticism in its day. This writer didn't do the research. Its main critic was Howard Stern. His gripe was that the show was set up to let Jerry look like some sort of little God, while he was surrounded by losers. Shortly after Stern made these comments (and he made a LOT of them) "Seinfeld" changed its tune and started making Jerry look bad in episodes like "The Pick" and "The Chaperone." Stern's gripes were echoed to a lesser degree in some mainstream publications.

Beyond that, the Jezebel writer is missing a big point.

"Seinfeld" was a farcical comedy, deliberately cartoonish and not meant to be realistic. This is evidenced by its peripheral characters like Newman and Jackie Chiles, who were inspired by characters from classic old comedy shows like "Abbot and Costello." Plus, it starred a comedian. "Girls," on the other hand, is a comic-drama steeped in realism. And it does not star a comedian, but a writer who is trying to put across messages. Comparing these shows is apples and oranges.

Nice breakdown. Where can I read a brief overview to become familiar in these tv show categories like farcical comedy and comic-drama steeped in realism?

Post: #9

"Nice breakdown. Where can I read a brief overview to become familiar in these tv show categories like farcical comedy and comic-drama steeped in realism?"

I don't know if you can. I got the "Seinfeld" info from watching the DVD commentaries which had Jerry and co-creator Larry David explaining what the show was about and what influenced it. I got the info about "Girls" from reading article after article, review after review. The exact phrases are mine and are distilled from what I learned, proving that a liberal arts education is good for something.

(03-07-2013 06:01 PM)storm Wrote:  

(03-07-2013 03:21 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I'm not going to give Jezebel the click, but I can respond to the overall thrust of their article with one word: wrong.

To break that down, "Seinfeld" came in for exactly this type of criticism in its day. This writer didn't do the research. Its main critic was Howard Stern. His gripe was that the show was set up to let Jerry look like some sort of little God, while he was surrounded by losers. Shortly after Stern made these comments (and he made a LOT of them) "Seinfeld" changed its tune and started making Jerry look bad in episodes like "The Pick" and "The Chaperone." Stern's gripes were echoed to a lesser degree in some mainstream publications.

Beyond that, the Jezebel writer is missing a big point.

"Seinfeld" was a farcical comedy, deliberately cartoonish and not meant to be realistic. This is evidenced by its peripheral characters like Newman and Jackie Chiles, who were inspired by characters from classic old comedy shows like "Abbot and Costello." Plus, it starred a comedian. "Girls," on the other hand, is a comic-drama steeped in realism. And it does not star a comedian, but a writer who is trying to put across messages. Comparing these shows is apples and oranges.

Nice breakdown. Where can I read a brief overview to become familiar in these tv show categories like farcical comedy and comic-drama steeped in realism?

Post: #10

The main reason Jerry's fictional life on Seinfeld isn't a fraction as ridiculous or worthy of criticism as Lena Dunham's fictional life is because Jerry Seineld was actually living the life of his character on that show. He was a beloved, wildly successful comedian with mad game who plowed through an endless stream of hotties. I've heard some herbs also compare the ridiculousness of Lena Dunham's on-screen hookups to the ridiculousness of woody allen's on-screen hookups....well, the difference is that woody allen actually did bang all of his female co-stars IRL. Donald Glover by contrast probably took 10 showers and drank a bottle a listerine after shooting those scenes with Lena.

But back to Jerry....as proof of his potency when he was his prime...observe his ex-girlfriend and bonafide 10 shoshanna lonstein, 17 years old when they started dating while he was roughly 38-39.





they're real and they're spectacular indeed.

Post: #11

If people criticized Seinfeld the way they criticized Lena Dunham the response would have been "huh yeah maybe you are right". Then they'd go laugh at the next episode, where Newman spots Jerry making out with his girlfriend in the theater during Schindler's List.