HTF REVIEW: Seinfeld Season 4 (RECOMMENDED) (1 Viewer)

[Mike Williams]

Colin, I never said you said they were good. My posts were addressing a number of people with similar views as yours, who did claim they were basically good people. Naturally, as fictional characters on a tv show, they are caricatures of real people, although George is really not that far off from Larry David.

Jason Alexander went to Larry one day to tell him that the things that happen to George would never happen to someone in real life, and if they did, no one would ever respond to them the way George does. Larry responded by saying, "What are you talking about? That did happen to me . . . and THAT'S how I responded."

They are actually more characters than caricatures (except from Kramer, no doubt), but in their own fictional world, they ARE real people, and it is as real people that they should be judged.

 

[Mike Williams]

IF WE DON'T THINK OF OURSELVES AS LESS THAN BASICALLY GOOD, WHY SHOULD WE THINK THAT WAY ABOUT GEORGE, WHO IS LIKE US, ONLY EXAGGERATED?

Because we're very quick to justify our own actions and behavior and see ourselves as perhaps better than we truly are. By the same token, we don't often use the same criteria with others. Also, if George is basically like you, speak for yourself. LOL!!! (Take it in the good humor in which it is meant)

 

[Christian Preischl]

I figured I might talk about the DVD set for a change (even though this post probably gets lost in the whole good vs. evil discussion).

Anyway, there's a hilarious easter egg on disc 3, a short featurette called "Much Ado about Nothing" detailing a fight Julia Louis-Dreyfus had with Tom Arnold about his parking space. Absolutely hilarious. I also found 2 other eggs. Here's how to access all of them:

1) On disc 1, go to the Extras menu, highlight "Inside Looks" and press down. A birthday cake appears. Press enter to see a birthday message from the cast.

2) On disc 3, go to the Extras menu, highlight "Episodes " and press up. The handkerchief gets highlighted. Press enter to see above mentioned featurette.

3) On disc 4, go to the "Episodes" Menu, highlight "Extras" and press up. The oil can gets highlighted. Press enter to see an additional outtake.

Chris

 

[Aaron Silverman]

George is upset because his artwork isn't going to be worth much, NOT because the guy didn't die! The point is that the guy living or dying *isn't what's on his mind*, not that he wishes the artist to be dead. There's a big difference. Same with Susan -- he's *not thinking* about her being dead; he's thinking about being single again.

Christian, danke for the easter eggs! I hate digging for those things.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

The joke of the finale is on anyone who after 180 episodes of funny material actually laughed at anything in that last episode. Not only was the finale NOT funny, but the characters (who were always at least funny, if not likeable to some) suddenly started acting alot more mean spirited than they previously had. Outside of the episode where Susan was killed off (another brilliant idea by morbid Larry), the characters never seemed so out of place as in the finale. In fact, the only other time I watched Seinfeld and felt like the characters were behaving out of character was when Susan was killed off. I'm sorry Larry, but if these characters were supposed to be so terrible, then then you and the rest of the writing staff should've emphasized it more often during the run of the show instead of only when Susan died and the finale. I choose to ignore those 2 episodes because outside of them, the characters never seemed intentionally mean spirited for the rest of the series. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I agree that these shows took the characters to inappropriate extremes. I still remember when I first saw the one where Susan dies - it seemed too callous for even Seinfeld. Oh well - even great shows misstep every once in a while...

 

[Mike Williams]

I believe the entire point of all the different witnesses at the trial was to show that these people were terrible throughout the entire series. At least, all the people who testified thought so. Isn't it possible that we've become so attached to these characters that the very idea they aren't as loveable as we've made them in our minds, from the sheer brilliance of clouding their despicable behavior in such hilarity that we forget that the funny things they do just really aren't good things to do, and for some reason, they're funny anyway? Isn't that how Seinfeld pushed the edge of the envelope every week? Isn't that why they were so afraid week to week that they wouldn't be able to get away with what they were doing, and yet somehow showed that unfunny and sometimes tragic events COULD be funny? I don't believe the Finale was a departure for the characters at all, but rather a wake-up call to who they were all along, with plenty of moments throughout the series to back up that claim.

Regardless, it is clear that the majority of this thread will not agree with me (nor apparently with Jerry and Larry either), and that is fine. As long as we're all enjoying Seinfeld in our own way, and can still laugh -- no matter how many times we've watched them -- as though it was the first time, that's all that really matters. The rest is all opinions, interpretation and fodder for discussion.

Aaron, George did not want Roy to get better. He didn't want Jerry calling the hospital and giving them any clues as to why he might be getting worse, stating, "Who are you to play God?!? Everyone's time comes! If this is Roy's, who are you to interfere?" The only reason the art would be worth anything was if he died, and George consciously wanted him to die so that the art he could otherwise care less about, would have some value. But it does entertain me the way everyone in here justifies these characters' actions.

 

[David Galindo]

I agree with you Mike, though it took me quite a long time after I had seen the finale to realize it.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

If the characters were as bad as the Finale claimed they were, then Kramer would've never cared enough to adopt a highway and treat it like his baby, nor would Jerry, George or Elaine have volunteered to help the elderly, and Elaine (Lois Loan) would've never bothered to write her poverty struck boyfriend a charity check. Nice try Larry, but a couple of episodes won't convince most followers of the show that these characters were rotten, mean-spirited people. Intent is what matters, and for the most part, they usually meant well.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The problem here is that people confuse "self-centered" for "bad". As I've said, the main characters do very little to help others - they're more concerned about their own well-being. But they don't usually intentionally harm others - it's their own idiocy and selfishness that causes problems for others.

If we were to rank the characters from good to bad, it'd go like this:

Kramer: easily the "nicest" of the bunch

Elaine: has the highest level of guilt for not being nicer and could probably turn semi-altruistic if she spent more time away from the others

Jerry: not a bad guy, but he simply has little concern for anyone other than himself, and he's damned proud of that

George: definitely the darkest of the group - heck, he's the one who gleefully greeted his fiancee's demise. Despite that episode and the "Junior Mint", I still don't see him as BAD since he's not an active negative, but he's easily the one most likely to cause real misfortune and woe.

 

[Seth--L]

I don't see how anyone could think George is a "good" person. He ran down an old woman, clown and kids when a fire broke out at his girl friend's kid's birthday party, lied about being handicap so that he'd get special perks at his office, slipped lobster into the eggs of a woman keeping kosher, and he and Jerry drugged a woman so that they could play with her dead father's toys. And speaking of Jerry, anyone got marble rye?

While Kramer may not do anything overtly mean like George, he is probably the most self-centered character. He has no impulse control. He does whatever he once. He also has feels no guilt -- he burns down Susan's father's cabin, then asks for more cigars.

Elaine gets worse as the show goes on, such as ruining the Soup Nazi's business just because he wouldn't give her soup.

 

[David Galindo]

That easter egg was great Christian, thanks! I wish they included a clip from the Oscars, ah well.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

My personal opinion is that they aren't necessarily BAD people. They're selfish people who do things that are in their own good interest, or celebrate things that are in their own good interest, even if it harms another person.

They aren't particulary good people. They aren't really bad either.

They're selfish. Helping the guy getting robbed would have required them to do something to help someone else. They're snotty and lazy, and instead it's easier to crack a joke and call the studio.

Just like Elaine choosing to stay with the rock climber after his accident simply because if she breaks up with him, everyone will think she did it cause he lost his looks (which would have been true). She stayed with someone because of how it would affect her.

All of their actions are selfish, and because of the degree of selfishness involved... they do harm to other people once in a while. This makes them out of place in society (although I think the bigger joke is that they fit right in... )

 

[RobLe]

I don't find them to be bad people. Granted they are far from being good decent people also. Just because they are very self-absorbed doesn't mean they are bad. All the examples that I keep reading that try to show that they are bad people are really just examples of them being extrememly self-centered and selfish. And for every episode where a character is extra callous, like George in the Junior Mint and with Susan's death, there are all the episodes where the characters just have misguided but well-intentioned attempts to be good. I certainly understand that examples can be given for them being good or bad, but in my opinion it is easier to come to the conclusion that they atleast mean well.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Right. We don't need to characterize them as "bad" or "good" people -- they sometimes act badly, and sometimes behave nicely.

Just like the rest of us (albeit taken to caricature-like extremes for entertainment value).

Which is probably one reason for the show's popularity.

 

[R. Kay]

Enough already with 'are they bad or not'.

Besides the final episode & the 'Licking Envelope' episode (which werent funny at all), all of their actions (good or bad. nice or mean.) were strictly about getting laughs from the viewing public!

CMON! Let's talk about Season 4 DVD. Who gives a crap whether Jerry/George/Kramer/Elaine should go to heaven or hell.

We watched it to be entertained. Nothing more.

 

[TedT]

About the DVD, they say there's 13 HOURS of extras??!?!?

Based on the times listed above (not including "notes about nothing"; is that really counted in the time for special features? It's just a subtitle track!), there's about 320 minutes of extras (counting different versions of the episodes, features, commentary, etc...).

How do they get 13 hours from that?

 

[TravisR]

They must count the Notes About Nothing (which are ridiculously informative I wish more sets had a feature like it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Because they counted "Notes..." Why shouldn't they count "Notes"? They're the best supplement of the bunch!

 

[Ravi K]

These are probably the best TV DVDs I've seen. The Notes About Nothing are great. So much damn information! The y will tell you about almost anyone or anything mentioned, like Louis Pasteur or Papaya King.

Are the bloopers worth watching? I watched for 5 minutes and turned them off.