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.
Always Sunny was taking the idea of Seinfeld and dialing it up to 11.
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.)
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.
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.
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)
Are we talking about "Seinfeld", the slightly overrated comedy TV series, or "Seinfeld", the horrible human being?
Yes
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.
For the first time? We grew up with this show.
Ya know how growing up, our parents called every system a "Nintendo", even if it was clearly a Playstation or a Sega Genesis?
Yeah that's what boomers do with age groups. Anyone younger than them is a "Millenial Zoomer on Youtube's TikTok app"
It’s not offensive, it’s just not that funny.
Meh, Jerry Seinfeld has been pushing the "I'm too offensive for young people" and "I've been cancelled" nonsense for a while now. He's just old and not funny anymore. Turns out telling the same jokes for 30 years doesn't get a lot of laughs. What is the deal with millennials anyway!
he unequivocally walked that back recently. said he was wrong to think that and it isn't a thing. he probably had a talk with his kid or something.
He probably had a long talk with his PR counselor and was advised that he stood to loose more then he would gain if he stuck to that.
I'm an Xer and I didn't like Seinfeld, but that's mostly because I don't like embarrassment comedy. It's the same reason I don't like Will Ferrel and Ben Stiller, but to each their own. I don't begrudge anyone else finding it funny, it's just not my vibe.
I'm not saying you have to like Seinfeld or anything, but I wouldn't consider it embarrassment comedy. It's more about the gang being a bunch of sociopaths, like an early version of IASIP.
What‽ I grew up on it and I'm as young as we get. No it's his current stand up that's in poor taste and one night of Kramer's stand-up that's actually offensive
That right there is some clickbait. I'm millennial and I was watching the show when it was on and loved it.
Would you leave us the fuck alone, we're old now!
most of my millennial peers were all in on Friends and thought Seinfeld was pretty much only for old people. it had its cultural moment but it was popular because pretty much everyone older than 30 in the 90s loved the show.
Basically people who are around 50/60 now were the ones who truly enjoyed Seinfeld.
I grew up watching Cheers with my dad and had no problem transitioning to Seinfeld when I got older.
It's got a certain East Coast dry sense of humor. Friends is more generically goofy.
Almost every time an article like this is posted, the contents are the result of one or two comments out of thousands, or a Reddit post that didn't gain much traction outside of "eh, sure, I guess?"
Tangentially related, IMO there should be an "author review" site, where if someone posts a stupid article like this, it is referenced in a database against their name and their frame of reference for the content is called out. Rank "journalists" against this, and eventually the people starting out in the industry posting AI-generated shite that doesn't hold up will start to err on the side of caution.
You've just re-invented journalistic standards and peer review.
It is how the news cycle is supposed to work. One journalist says something, others verify or disprove it publicly.
The problem is that there is now no difference between journalism and content or between news channels and platforms.
They said "not that there's anything wrong with that" about gay people in the 90s. WAY better than most of the shit at the time.
Must be the youngest millennials then, this was airing live when I was a kid and apparently I’m a millennial.
I watched the first episode and found it dull and boring. Is it representative for the whole show?
The past decade of tv has spoiled people with quality TV shows.
Back in the old days of tv, we didn't have story arcs. First seasons of shows were still rough. Networks often gave shows a lot longer of a lifeline to prove themselves. For example: Parks and Rec didn't hit their stride into mid-Season 2.
For 90s shows, I recommend finding a Top 10 episodes list and seeing if you enjoy it.
Not saying it's not funny, but there is definitely stuff in the show that wouldn't fly today. For example there is an episode where George didn't know black people ate salad.
I don't like Seinfeld, but isn't George supposed to be an utter dunce?
Like, as a Zoomer, people not being able to tell the difference between portraying bigotry and endorsing it IS an actual problem I see.
I mean, it is offensive. Everyone knows it (I hope).
The actor of Kramer was even caught throwing racist insults in public so you know.
An actor saying the N word and the show being offensive are not anyhow related.
The show is certainly reflective of its time. If someone is offended by it, I won’t tell them that they’re wrong, but I don’t see it as offensive.
I feel like a lot of you assume I'm younger. I'm closer to 50 then I like to admit. I'm just not from the US, maybe that is part of why it didn't click with me.
Millenial here, I always just thought it was shit!
Even when it aired, it was walking the line of generally offensive. That line didn't have to move far to tip the show out of favour on average. Seinfeld himself addressed it, initially being upset that his brand of comedy was falling out of favour, but eventually coming to terms with the fact that he himself was out of touch and would benefit from adapting.
Has he? Last I heard he was still complaining that "yOu CoUlDnT dO sEiNfElD tOdAy BeCaUsE wOkE" with Rob McElhenney begging to differ.
Hopefully that link isn't broken or bad. But yeah, he basically said he was wrong and out of touch. And that he could stand to make an effort to get with the times.
His style of comedy has always been about finding where the current edge is and seeing how far you can cross it and still be funny. But the drawback is that the edge moves. So you have to keep seeing where it is, and what you said 10 years ago probably isn't funny anymore. It's normal to get frustrated when something you put effort and work into is no longer seen as a good thing even though it was liked well enough at the time. But he really should have expected that result. And I think he knew that when he made it, but had since got caught up in the false validation that can come from being out of touch.
This whole "young people find everything offensive" narrative is ridiculous, and always has been. It's very beneficial to those who want to shift the Overton window, though.
If they(we) think Seinfeld is offensive, what do they think of IASIP?
I didn't realize people didn't like Seinfeld. It's a great show.
The show is OK. Parts of it didn't age that well (i.e. I got older and recognized there's a handful of racist narratives and depictions baked into it). But Jerry Seinfeld himself, holy cow is he a piece of shit in real life.
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
