I think what makes the Seinfeld characters so relatable is that they DONT learn lessons, going through my life I rarely see people learning lessons from their mistakes, people constantly repeat the same mistakes time and time again, no insight gained, no responsibility admitted, and a whole lot of blaming others as a way of rationalizing the consequences of poor judgement.
I relate to this comment. I think that’s why I always enjoyed seinfield so much. They were fucking narcissistic assholes who never learned anything and they remind me of so many adults I know and sometimes even myself. I feel like maybe that is a big part of why people were offended by the ending back they related to the characters and seeing them be punished for being shitbags made them offended
@Cat Egorical I still don't understand why you care, you're expending far more energy on this than we are, you seem to care more about this than we do. Don't you think your efforts would be better put into doing something constructive? I feel sorry for you that this is the hill you've chosen to fight over. I have much better things to do than debate on subjective opinions. ...Like watching Seinfeld again. ;)
George being happy when Susan died was hilarious and right in line with his character. Anyone who complained to NBC about that is AN IDIOT and shouldn't watch this show if they take things that seriously. I applaud Larry David for that one.
Susan represents the audience in some respect....The harsh response to Susan's death forced fans to realize they too could be mocked and dismissed.... The idea that we aren't Jerry, Kramer, Elaine and George...that we could just be a Susan 🤷♂️
It's weird. When I was a kid watching Seinfeld, I hated the ending. When I got older, I loved it. But strangely enough, I have never had a problem with the Susan's Death episode or the Frank Grimes episode. In the case of Grimes, I guess I just never identified with Homer Simpson much. In the case of Susan, I always kind of viewed her as a redshirt. I mean, it would have been weird for George to be married, and it would screw with the formula of the show in horrible ways. Susan had to go.
I didn't like the ending... not necessarily because I didn't want to see them get their comeuppance, I just couldn't believe that even in this fictional version of earth that they could be sent to prison for not intervening in an armed robbery.
To be honest, I think the finale’s biggest problem was that it just wasn’t that funny. The response I had at the time, and from what I recall others did too, was that it was mediocre. I remember the review in the local paper said that it felt contrived and bloated by an endless string of call backs. In its defense, I think any sort of finale for a show like Seinfeld was doomed. Since it was such a breaker of conventions, obeying the idea of a finale is, in and of itself, self defeating. They probably should have just had an episode that was like any other and just left it at that; doing so certainly would have been subverting the convention. Jerry himself said they should have had an ending like the subway episode. The video references Sunny a few times and I think the point about audiences knowing what to expect by the time that show aired is accurate. However, audience expectations do not change the ending issue faced by these postmodern shows. Sunny and Seinfeld have arcs but they are not about advancing a story or character development, they simply are vehicles for related comedy bits. So when they end, the only change is a change in the available jokes. Take George working for the Yankees, there’s a lot of comedy milage had regarding the antics he gets up to while working there, many involving Mr Steinbrenner. But once the jokes have run their course, George is fired. How does this affect George long term, does he learn from his mistakes or gain a new desire to achieve something better, no he’s the same, but now the show cannot use him as a vehicle for Mr Steinbrenner jokes. And this lack of narrative completeness leads to no actual need for series completeness. Seinfeld could have ended after season 8 and no one would have felt that there was an incomplete story or characters that never were fully developed, because there was none of that to begin with. The same is true for Sunny, I feel the only reason they keep making more seasons is because there is demand and they can come up with funny ideas, not because the creators or fans want to see some story or characters reach their final end states. Which leads me back to my point, these shows should just end, with as minimal a finale as possible. Trying to do a big finale for a show like Seinfeld was a bad idea, and making it not that funny was what made it get some much hate.
In a weird way, growing up with Seinfeld and watching it over and over again, I'd say for me the two episodes (Susan's death and the Finale) were very uncomfortable because they brought reality into the show in a way. It's like someone mentioned, these characters are horrible but in an almost caricature way. For me the appeal of the show is its kind of paradoxical innocence. All four of them are like children, living in an immature dreamworld of no (serious) consequences and over the top situations. Superhero magazines, cereal and living without working (Kramer), if you will. Therefore, watching it is an escape from reality. Not because I want to be the characters or have their lives, but because the show isn't asking too much of me.The characters do deal with some relatable problems, but the mental way they are presented and solved makes for a comedic escapism rather than a discussion of real life. That is why I put on Seinfeld when I'm struggling in life, and a well written emotional drama when I want to enjoy quality storytelling. The show make me laugh, not feel, if that's any explanation. I'm not disagreeing on the sentiment of this video at all, but rather wanted to add a slightly different angle as to why many people didn't like the Finale, myself included. Or maybe I just further proved your point. In that case, you're welcome and I'll have to think about what that says about me, haha.
I feel like there's some serious value in that take. There is something to be said about reaching levels of being so incredibly awful and mean-spirited it's comical, like its so over the top it actually endearing in an Looney Tunes sort of way. From that respective though, I think the Finale is still strong as its almost like ultimate punchline, and the joke is thinking they would more or less get away with everything they did and said consequence free. A real 'Chicken crossing the road at the end of a pun filled joke book' type send off.
Maybe I didn't see the right episodes, but most I saw there's nothing that strikes me as "awful people," and in the few where someone did something like that I felt it didn't land unless it was so over the top that it felt like a fantasy of the character -- like when Jerry called the old lady an "old bag" and stole her bread. It's like something someone might fantasize about in the situation but not actually do. Even still I felt that scene disrupted my image of Jerry. But really, TV characters are often supposed to be larger-than-life caricatures. It's weird to hear this interpreted so literally as "horrible people," though admittedly I've only watched 3/4 of the episodes.
Having now completed the video, I’ve got some anecdotal evidence that parallels your own theory on the audience’s split reaction. My late grandfather considered the finale to be the best episode specifically because they brought back all the old characters and how the main four finally get their (literal) justice; they even brought back Babu to shake his finger at that “very bad man!” My grandfather was also the type of person who’s greatest display of anger would be to, once in a blue moon, mutter “Aw, shit” at the television when watching sports. Anyways, I wonder if his pure wholesomeness has something to do with his almost instinctive grasp on the point of the Seinfeld ending? Then again, the old bastard once stacked the deck against me when playing poker in the kitchen. Yeah, he was probably worse than George.
As a huge fan since the beginning of the show (i watched it every week on network starting in 1990 at the age of 14), i can easily tell you why the final episode was a disappointment: It was a glorified "clips show." And the new scenes weren't particularly funny. That's it. I loved the storyline. Living the dream, only to have it dashed away and getting their comeuppance for their indifference. Perfect story. But recycled clips + mediocre comedy tanked it. That simple.
I've been thinking about this a lot today, and I've developed a theory as to why the finale feels off. Larry David hadn't written for the show since "The Invitations". It's almost like he was writing from an outsider's perspective, trying to capture the cynicism that plagued the final two seasons.
They clearly knew what people expected from a sitcom series finale, and were actively trying to subvert it. Like when the plane is crashing, and Elaine says, “I love you!” but when Jerry asks her about it later, she says she was saying “I love U...nited Airlines.” Top tier trolling.
@@thepinkestpigglet7529 Game of Thrones was not a comedy. When a comedy does it, the meta perspective is that it's another layer of jokes outside of the narrative, where the man behind the curtain is obvious and appreciated. When a drama subverts expectations, it hurts the payoff / climax that the plot has been building towards, which also rips the audience out of immersion, and the meta perspective of the man behind the curtain is wholly negative.
@@thepinkestpigglet7529 Because just because it's a subversion of expectations doesn't mean it doesn't work as a climactic payoff. You still need to provide fitting conclusions for aspects of character or story beats, and throwing all of that stuff that's essential out the window in service of "subverting expectations" can never work as a substitute for truly effective and noteworthy storytelling.
maybe someone else has already brought it up, but I think it's worth pointing out that the SEINFELD finale was preceded by a super sentimental retrospective special that basically celebrated the characters (via the actors) and had the GreenDay song montage and then following THAT up with the finale is some primo trolling
god yeah, all that stuff really annoys me, and it tells you that at least the networks didnt even understand what they had been watching up to that point
It’s not trolling They worked together for 9 seasons. Theirs Sentimentality with the people working on the show together, No Hugging No learning Is for the actual characters and episodes. What do you think after 10 years The actors and crew are just like The characters on the show??
@@kingfadal4711 maybe the sarcasm didn’t come through, but I didn’t mean to suggest that the trolling was intentional the point was simply that the gap between the tone or the finale and the retrospective special was funny
Personally I thought the ending couldn't have been more perfect, the characters were objectively terrible people no matter how much viewers came to sympathize with them, myself at times included, and it was nice to see them get their comeuppance. The same could have been said of the characters in Friends had the writers had them get what they also deserved. But then that series didn't have the balls Seinfeld had.
I laughed when George has the first selfish thoughts expressed about his fiancée's death. My reason for finding it hilarious was for the writers going there about death. Nothing's sacred (I felt proud for the writers being able to push that joke for airing. I don't really know the c process) and it felt like a breath of fresh air to allow death in the sphere. When I saw Larry David dressed as a nun in the 3 Stooges movie I felt it was in line with the part comedy, rebel, and pushing the envelope I've seen in Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm. The best part for me was not even mentioned positively. The court room with everyone there part of the same thing and some of them reacting and interacting with each other. Jokes continued from the episodes they originated from. Jokes being resolved just by facial expressions and the way they glance at each other. It was nice to see a developed idea be the vehicle for the 2 part finale. I thought it was something to reminisce with everyone all that has been aired. Nice there was an opportunity for the cast and crew to say bye.
Personally I don’t think it’s that complicated and I’ll use a Seinfeld reference to illustrate my feelings. The episode where Jerry is annoyed with the Bryan Cranston dentist character converting to Judaism so he could tell jokes. Someone asks Jerry, does this offend you as a Jew? Jerry redid no it offends me as a comedian. I think a lot of fans would have enjoyed karma catching up to the cast if the finale were actually funny - it largely wasn’t. It felt like a glorified clip show episode, with a set up that felt a bit insulting (yes mocking someone getting mugged is in poor taste but does anyone think bystanders should be arrested for not inserting themselves into possibly dangerous situations?). They could have gotten help but going to jail as a response? And let’s not say all the people they interacted with were good themselves, it was mostly just a compilation of little evils over the course of the show. Going back to the not giving mouth to mouth on the pool boy - people also noticed the pool boy was intentionally messing with Jerry. He stuck that pool thing trying to annoy Jerry, this was just one of many torments he inflicted on Jerry over the episode in response to Jerry not wanting him as a friend, he didn’t deserve to die but he’s not some innocent guy either. And the Susan death... we have to remember she had many opportunities to get out of that situation, George made it clear he wasn’t interested in being married. So it wasn’t out of the blue. And George did get some karma payback the following season in one of my favorite episodes The Summer of George. The rest of the cast gave him the same indifference they gave to everyone else. Long story short, if the finale were funnier I think it wouldn’t have gotten any backlash. And maybe they should have ended it like Jerry commented on the episode where they take the subway to different events - just all four walking off with barely a goodbye.
My biggest issues with the finale (which strangely I don't see mentioned very often) are: 1. Several of the incidents brought up in the trial are either completely untrue, misunderstandings, or cases where both parties shared at least some blame. If the intent was for the audience to rejoice in seeing them get comeuppance, allowing multiple false accusations to resurface in an unfair kangaroo court setting makes it harder to do so. There were also a few that were just the characters being shamed for things that weren't actually hurting anyone (ie. bringing up the contest, shaming Elaine for buying too many sponges as if that were anyone else's business.) 2. Most of the side characters are just as self-centered and unlikable as the main quartet themselves, yet some of them get to testify against them and it's unclear whether we're supposed to see their celebration of the result as the hypocritical pettiness that it really is. 3. Seinfeld always seemed to take place in some version of reality, albeit an exaggerated one. The premise is very fantastical by the show's standards and it comes across as very jarring. There's a reason why the theory that it actually takes place in purgatory or hell is so popular, because it's actually very difficult to imagine this actually taking place in the Seinfeld world.
Very good points! I also dislike the clipshow aspect of it, but that's probably because I have rewatched the show so many times and always skip the clip show episodes.
The show starting taking itself too literally, like that the crew were actually "horrible people" rather than feckless but likeable people living out comedy fantasies of what people think about doing in real life but (most) would never do. When they started to actually do something horrible, that felt like the show taking its own over-the-top and fantastical presentation as if it were some ground truth.
@@naturesown4489I'm pretty sure Seinfeld had reruns airing before the show finished. Some people had already seen several of the episodes several times over by the time the finale aired. People never like clip shows, having on demand streaming makes them worse but they were always seen as cheap and lazy.
3 amazing dark comedy films I would recommend to Seinfeld fans are The King of Comedy (1982), The Heartbreak Kid (1972), and In The Company of Men (1997). I made this comment over a year ago, and I just found out today that The Heartbreak Kid is actually one of Jerry Seinfeld's top 5 favorite films of all time.
The horrendous nature of the Seinfeld characters is more of an exaggerated caricature that shouldn't exist in real life, I mean there are assholes everywhere, but not at the level that the Seinfeld characters would get away with, they would be shunned from society everywhere!
I think there are a little bit of each of those characters within all of us. We've all done stupid regretable things that in some light is prob pretty funny
I think you're off. The reason people hated the susan incident was because she had already left george once and he begged and pleaded to get her back, only to be jubilated by her passing. THAT is why. the "why didn't you just let her go before if you didn't want her?".
I think that describes Curb Your Enthusiasm, as well. We as viewers live in Larry's reality, which is populated by pricks who are arguably more prickish than the bald prick himself.
My guess before watching the video of why: because the audience was expecting something else because they saw the characters differently than the ones who played them and/or those writing and producing the show
One thing I also think could have played a factor in the show finale being hated was the fact the Seinfeld is, by design, a show that deals with the mundane. Taking small parts of life and the in between parts of society, So for a show that focused on small things to pull off a big ending would have been difficult to do. For the season 9 dvd, one of the extras includes the main cast and Larry David getting together and talking about the show including the finale and Jerry Seinfeld makes this point. It is available on RUclips under the name Seinfeld: Roundtable if you haven't seen it. I think with what they came up with was actually rather good in terms of fitting the theme and feel of the show. Great video, Really well done.
I honestly never knew that everyone hated the ending. I thought it was good and a fitting end. And btw, I never had an issue with Susan’s death. It seemed perfectly in line with George’s behavior and the rest of the cast as well. The Sopranos ending bothered me only because I just didn’t know what to think happened to him. Years later it occurred to me that it didn’t matter. Tony’s life was over either way. Either he was going to prison (because whatshisname flipped) or he was shot right then and there.
Having literally just watched the entire series and finishing it with the finale today, I think what ultimately made it not work for me is that the punishment always fit the crime in seinfeld stories. Either the consequences they suffer were the result of their own actions coming to bite them, or a comedic convergence of the A and B plot of the episode. In the finale though, most of the things brought up against them were things they already ended up suffering for one way or the other. Almost nothing (that they actually did, anyway) felt like it was worth jail time, even if it was bad. I was expecting some weird coincidence to lead to them getting acquited, then NBC deciding to cancel the show due to bad association or something. That'd have been a lot more fitting of them being terrible people.
There is a startling lack of Seinfeld-related content on RUclips outside of clips and memes which is a damn shame. You did a great job with this deep dive! I especially like the connection between the finale and Homer's Enemy, really spot-on there. But while I agreed with a lot of your points, I disagreed with quite a few others. For example, one thing I felt that you left out when asking why critics and fans disliked the finale, is the simple fact that a lot of people just didn't find it to be very funny. You can go back to reviews from the time and see critics pointing out that they felt the extended trial sequence basically made the finale feel like a glorified clip show. That's my opinion of the finale as well - you can definitely see the moments where Larry David is saying screw the audience, which were fun (such as the fakeout with Jerry and Elaine on the plane), but the trial goes on for way too long and just isn't funny to me - which is a pretty big drawback to the finale of a comedy show. But anyway, I also disagree with your thoughts on Susan's death. You do have a point - George IS a selfish prick, and it makes sense for his character to be secretly happy with Susan's death. However after rewatching season 7 in its entirety recently (as well as season 4, the Susan Seasons) I just can't stand the rest of the gang's response to her death. Jerry and Susan got along, as did Elaine, even if they had a disagreement in one episode (the one where Susan gets annoyed at them talking during a movie). And Kramer...well Kramer's reaction was fairly in-character actually (poor Lilly...). So I do completely buy George's reaction. But the fact that nobody pushes back against his joy is what makes that moment feel so sour to me. I really respect the writers for doubling down on George's reaction during season 8, however, using her death to hit on women and whatnot. Last thing - the gang's selfishness, at least pre-Susan death, simply played differently compared to their selfishness in the finale. You brought up the example of Jerry and Newman not wanting to give a man CPR - in that moment, they're not taunting the man as he dies. They're not laughing at him. They're both being incredibly selfish and lacking any empathy in that moment, sure, but the joke is more about them being uncomfortable rather than being complete monsters. That is not the same as them recording a man being robbed and making fat jokes. They're both examples of bad behavior but they're not the same types of bad behavior, the way I see it. The finale could have gotten them arrested without making them so actively gleeful at a random stranger's misfortune. Another example you mentioned is the situation with Baboo's Visa - the fact that Elaine made a mistake, and didn't go through Jerry's mail, is not an example of either of them being selfish people. It just isn't. The Visa application was delivered to Jerry by mistake, he wasn't expecting it, he had no reason to be looking out for it. Elaine was collecting his mail and gave it to Jerry late, but that isn't an example of selfishness when she also had no idea that such a serious letter would be delivered to him by mistake. In addition, despite what you said, Jerry DID show remorse for the whole situation, and even tried to fix it - he spoke to George's lawyer girlfriend in order to try and have her defend them in court (which didn't work out because she and George broke up on bad terms, which again, isn't an example of Jerry being selfish or not showing remorse). I actually really dislike Baboo's appearance in the finale for that reason - Jerry IS a selfish prick, and there were many better examples to prove that (him stealing the marble rye), but the show using an example like Baboo just muddies the whole point of the finale. The fact that Larry David was willing to condemn Jerry for such a genuinely innocent mistake shows that he wanted the gang to go to prison, and was willing to reinterpret moments from the show in order to paint them as more villainous than they really were. But yeah, overall great video, I enjoyed it a lot, but I just had to push back on those points. I apologize for this very long comment. I do think there's a world where them going to jail would have made for a great finale, but the one we got simply isn't funny enough, runs too long, and doesn't really prove the point that Larry David was intending to make, even if there were plenty of examples of the gang being cruel, unlikeable people. In order for the finale to work, he had to exaggerate their cruelty (laughing at the man being robbed and making a show out of his suffering instead of just casually choosing to ignore him, recontextualizing classic moments of the show) which is, in my opinion, the finale's biggest flaw and why it just doesn't work.
Seinfeld is pretty much a very toned down version of Its Always Sunny. The characters, unknowingly, are awful people out for personal gain. The Seinfeld characters finally have some sort of consequence in the end... I wonder if IASIP will end the same?
This video made me appreciate Bojack Horseman on a whole new level. Thinking about it now, Bojack Horseman, as a show, slapped your hand away and flipped you off when you thought you would be going for the 'invisible handshake'. The episode with Penny was a really good example of what we would usually accept under that 4th wall barrier as "horrible thing the protag does to teach us a lesson" and then, over the coarse of the show, get extremely real about what kind of damage something that disgusting can cause. Real life is filled with haunted memories that affect us. Bojack was one of the few shows that showed you the 'guy shoots someone in the head but it's ok because 4th wall' moment and then excruciatingly drag you through what would be a lot of real world implications of doing such a thing. Thinking back on it now, The View from Halfway Down would not have had such a massive impact on me and my suicidal tendencies if the show was not that brutal about being real about consequences.
I honestly liked the finale! It felt like a love letter to the show, but with a final little twist that made it interesting on it's own. I generally prefer unhappy endings, though.
I watched Seinfeld all in one go a few years ago and I couldn't figure out why people disliked the ending. It caps the show off perfectly. The whole "several conversations going on at once because no one is listening to each other" gag made it clear from early on that they are supposed to be self absorbed. It goes into full narcissism as the show progresses, and that's part of what gives it such charm. The idea that the show ends by showing them getting jail time for not caring about others but then sitting in a cell totally unrepentant is the most genius ending I could imagine.
I COULD get behind the finale IF the characters in seinfeld NEVER got their comeuppance throughout the show, akin to the It's Always Sunny gang. But for every selfish action by a main character in seinfeld, there is an almost equal number of times that they've been screwed over by the universe. I always saw the point of seinfeld that they didn't care about the world, and the world didnt care about them. They were always getting the short end of the stick and lashing out in response. To end the show with them getting a big finger-wag at the end of it all makes it seem like we've just watched them litterally float through life for 9 years when that's sorely not the case.
I remember watching that Simpsons episode as a kid. I still see the scene when Grimes absolutely loses and essentially screams "...BECAUSE I'M HOMER SIMPSON." over and over like it was just the other day. I wasn't sure if I was suppose to laugh or not at this and I definitely wasn't laughing when he died. I was too young to understand Grimes was playing a straight or what the writers were even trying to say with this, but I did think the humor came from the idea a "normal" person would go mad if they had to work with Homer everyday. Guess I was way off on that. lol
A favourite moment from the finale was Jerry’s comment to George when they are in the holding cell after being found guilty. Jerry comments on the button placement on George’s shirt. A callback to the very first joke in the first episode, great bookending from a great series.
I will give Big Bang Theory credit for somehow making my dad cry, it ended around the fallout of my sister moving out, and me being due up next. I have no idea exactly why he did this for awhile, until I realized he related to Sheldon. The thing is that through the spinoff young sheldon, we see that sheldon had lots of support throughout his early education years, while it may not be understood why they should support him, and he believes if he was supported when he was younger he couldve been like Sheldon. I don't know why you'd want to be like Sheldon Cooper, socially awkward, irritating, and unpleasant, until I eventually realized that's becausr eho my dad is. I do still live with him, dude is essentially alive through his prescriptions and oxygen machine, and is also getting a wheelchair soon. I'm fine mentally, he's had the littlest bit of charm(like Sheldon I guess) where he told me not to be regretful or to blame myself for his eventual death, as that was once what bothered me. What bothers me is having to take care of him while he doesnt take care of himself, but I have to do this if I have kids anyways so I have accepted it on top of the knowledge that once I move out I'm not legally obligated to assist him. So, I'm doing good.
and the bridge between the old formula and the postmodern was Married with Children, that wanted to stick it to the wholesomeness but still had a very big heart.
I think the main appeal of How I Met Your Mother is their clever narrative structuring. I finally ended up watching it last year, and almost every single episode plays with the mechanics of the plot in cool ways. Flashbacks, flashforwards, unreliable perspectives, parallel point of views…it really is wild how creative they get with it, and it ends up adding A LOT to the show.
Same. In fact, most of the opinions I've heard lined up more with this than feeling the ending 'wasn't justified'. I think Macabre Storytelling just wanted to talk on the topic and needed a show to attach it to, because that ending was a total slog.
In how i met your mother it really seemed as though the story was leading to a tragic conclusion for Ted. In the final two seasons there are many moments that seem to foreshadow Ted ending up alone. The story was heading in a direction that showed all of the other main characters growing up and moving on with their lives, while Ted refused to, and in some ways even regressed as a character. I thought the show was building to the message that if you want to find true love, dont be like Ted. But instead Ted got everything he wanted. The ending went against everything the show was building to. It was so bad i honestly think it would have been better if his kids were revealed to be a fantasy in his head.
That's why I love Seinfeld. The characters represent who people really are without society's (sometimes arbitrary) moral filters. It becomes even more hilarious when they somehow fit into society seamlessly. It's cathartic. And it allows me to analyze which societal morals I choose to adhere to, and which I want to disregard. It makes it realer that other sitcoms that operate within societal morality.
I think the main reason the finale didn’t land for everyone was because 1. It was a clip show that wasn’t too funny, and 2. the crimes that they were being held accountable for were… strange. For instance, The Contest and Elaine’s use of sponges are ridiculous to use in a way to paint their characters. I get it was used more as a highlight reel of all the show’s best moments, but a good amount of the characters used to give them their “comeuppance” were equally as bad or even worse, which is why I think audiences were blind-sighted. The Soup Nazi was a horrible person who deserved to go out of business, so it was strange to have him come in and condemn the gang. Babu was a person who blamed all of his issues on Jerry (like his restaurant failing), but praised him whenever he benefited - he could never take accountability. In the episode of the Pool Boy, Jerry didn’t give CPR because that guy was harassing and not respecting the boundaries Jerry set. But the show also acknowledges the mindset of Jerry when Elaine calls him a child due to that action. I disagree when some say the show didn’t have a heart. It absolutely did between the core four and that’s why it was successful. They cared about each other at the end of the day. Many (not all) of the scenarios they got themselves into were caused in their attempts to not hurt the other party’s feelings and follow the unwritten rule of society, which would then spiral to insane levels - making the show feel relatable. For the car jacking scene, yeah they were absolutely rude and they should’ve gotten help, but having them punished for not getting involved in a potentially dangerous scenario doesn’t entirely land (at least for me) even in a comedic POV. I get it’s part of the cynical nature of the show, but it doesn’t really leave much for entertainment to see the people we watched and related to for years be punished. Jerry even mentioned that he pitched this finale due to listening to the critics constantly calling the characters “horrible people” when actually, while they were super selfish at times for the sake of comedy, they were just flawed people.
I think people excused the characters because "they are new yorkers" like shows have perpetuated that is ok to do whatever to survive in the "concrete jungle". I think is a similar reason why people see Pam from The Office with those rose specs, without acknowledging that she is an awful person just because "the workplace made her tuff"
I was in college when I first saw the finale, I recently watched it again when I binged on the entire series as something to watch during the lockdown... my opinion has not changed, it still stinks. I will say I did appreciate the callback to the first episode with the shirt button. As an aside, I absolutely hate the two gay side characters who were in the Soup Nazi and Puerto Rican Parade episodes. They appear to never experience consequences, I always wanted them to get some karma.
Sounds to me like: Larry David caught flak for the Susan's death episode, he wanted his own show (started a year or two after the finale of Seinfeld), but needed to get back in good graces with critics and fans...so he pens that shit of an ending. I LOVED that episode when Susan dies. He should've doubled down and let the Seinfeld and gang beat the case and ride off into the sunset. They're exaggerated caricatures who've gotten away with everything before (because it's not real life), why couldn't they get away with it one last time?
@@wchan39 They went to jail for breaking the law - being bystanders of a car theft and laughing about it. I think it was pretty good and they used that as a way to bring back all the major characters throughout the 8-9 seasons which was great.
I love your explanation of the 4th wall barrier in part 1 and how we can watch morally repugnant characters and still like them because we know it’s not real. It’s weird to me when people start arguing over the morality of characters and seem to suggest that a character has to be morally righteous in order for you to like them and if you still like them despite their flaws then there must be something wrong with you
Why is it wrong for a character to "feel uncomfortable" about seeing his father as a drag queen? You say that it happened in the 90s and also imply that such a feeling would be far less common now, but... would it? Do you really think so? Obviously you can't take a survey on something like that. Many people will just say 'no' simply because they know that's what they're supposed to say. But also, the overwhelming majority of people have no clue how comfortable they would feel when seeing their father wearing a dress, wig and makeup. It's really kind of stunning that anyone would say a character/person is automatically, unequivocally wrong to feel uncomfortable in a moment like that, and this may be part of the reason why most people just don't relate to "modern" characters. We're not robots operating on the binary code being fed to us in "modern" television and movies... so you may want to consider nuance every once in a while.
Dude... you make multi-hour videos talking about stuff like this. Is that OK, bro? You brought up the very thing I was commenting on. And this is your response to someone engaging with your own points in your video? I wasn't even being rude or negative toward you or your opinion... FFS. If you were a Seinfeld character, you'd be the bubble boy. How's that for topical? 😏
As a small sidenote, I also really never saw the appeal of How I Met Your Mother either. Although I also distinctly remember telling my ex, that if they didn't deliver on the conclusion to the series like the set-up promised, the fans were going to saw their balls off.
Your interpretation of Breaking Bads finale is a lot sweeter than most lol. Walter didn’t redeem himself at all. He threatened Gretchen and Elliot and got his motivation in Granite State because his ego was hurt (selfish reason). He also did want Jessie to die. He bought himself time bringing him out but changed his mind once he saw his battered shape. All he did was get revenge and take out the Blue meth because that’s his legacy, not anybody else’s. He did one or two good acts but not because he wanted to redeem himself but because it was for him. The ending shows that Walt’s action left him dead and alone in a Meth lab. Content because that’s the selfish person he was and his reasons were not noble in the slightest.
I think it's simpler than that. The thing is that after years of someone making you laugh you grow to care about a person, even if it's fictional. And it was years not seasons back then. So you don't want them to go to jail over an idiotic law.
@@MacabreStorytelling Yeah, but we weren't condition to it by years of watching sitcoms. It was a honest, natural emotional attachment that grew over time. Seinfeld could of been the first sitcom in the history of the time and people would still hated that the characters they love got hurt so badly at the end.
@@dnightwalker Eh I don't know if I agree with that. I think especially given their reaction to the finale, them wanting to see certain things happen, was definitely driven by conditioning to some extent by other sitcoms. Perhaps not entirely but definitely added to it.
@@MacabreStorytelling The reaction can be explained as them not wanting the gang to go to jail and when trying to come up with alternatives their brains went to what was familiar. Do another ending where the punishment is not that severe but they still get punished and I bet that the audience would have left happy. Or at the very least not hated it.
@@dnightwalker Oh no I mean specifically due to things such as the characters not having a "touching" final moment or Jerry and Elaine getting together. These in particular seemed to indicate the way OTHER sitcoms ended played a part.
Fantastic work here! I'm so glad the almighty algorithm decided to bless me with a recommendation for your channel. I totally agree with your assessment. Everything I know about Larry David leads me to the same conclusion.
As for Sunny, I felt they ratcheted up the characters unlikability to ridiculous level after season 2 explicitly for this very reason. So that even the biggest idiot knows that THE GANG are the butt of the joke.
“His character is wrong because he’s weirded out at his dad being a drag queen”. Noooooo, he is not *wrong* because of this. That’s doesn’t make him wrong. He’s confronted with a complete challenge to the role of the person that is an absolute pillar to his life. That’s not something anyone is just able to accept. Much like there might be good reasons for a couple to get a divorce but the divorce will still be devastating to the kids because it pulls the rug from under the ‘safe base’ of their life
Holy cow dude, you literally spelled out something I never could explain to anyone! I NEVER liked sitcoms. Any of them. The Office was particularly painful, but many light hearted comedies just dont vibe with me. Then you said it "people have a handshake with the writers, agreeing that this isn't real and therefore theres a leeway to not analyse it as realistic" I guess I never got that handshake, these characters INFURIATED me Everytime I tried watching them, bc my first thought is "welp that looks like something I definitely would never want to engage with"
8:00 Chandler's estranged relationship with his dad wasn't about him being a drag queen, it's that he blamed him for the broken home he grew up in after his dad left his mom to be with his swim coach. It's why he broke it off with Janice. He didn't want HER kids thinking he was a homewrecker because he knew that feeling.
@@scifinerd17 One time they had a cute relationship, it was right after she discovered her husband cheated on her (I am not sure if that was the reason though). But after Joey discovered both of them kissing and Chandler find out, he told Janice to give her marriage a try because of her kid.
@@ulisesarmenta8155 Janice divorced her husband and wanted Chandler back though and Chandler rejected her because he thought she was more annoying than ever
@@scifinerd17 OK, I remember that episode, at THAT time, she indeed went back to be annoying, and he lied to her about going to Yemen, but several episodes before that, he fell in love with her, seeing a side of her he hasnt see before, and her irritating qualities were either absent or down played.
I was a teen when I saw the finale. I loved it immediately, I knew what they were going for. How genius that it ends with them facing the consequences of being bad people, something that was never even touched on before the show, despite it being the entire subtext
It's funny you mentioned it's always sunny in philly when talking of worthless terrible humans. That's actually the whole point. It weaponizes the status quo. A great video essay by quinton reviews called weaponizing the status quo is a great watch Thanks for the video!
For me, the problem with the finale wasn't the ending, it was that the whole episode was just a huge fan service fiasco filled with forced refrences, you don't have to bring EVERYTHING back for the ending. a good example of how to do a finale of an anti-sitcom is the show peep show, the finale of peep show doesn't have forced refrences to past episodes and has barely any cameos of characters, it simply closes the season arc and leaves us with the status quo
Why does the finale blow? Because clip shows blow. They blow mightily. They blow long, they blow hard. If the finale had no other sins, it would still remain, not entirely, but, largely enough to blow, a clip show, with a majority of the comedy in second hand form, either in clips or oddly mannequin like call backs that for me are only a notch above catch phrase comedy. Also, good video.
Tbh I think the biggest reason people hate it isn't some deep psychological connection with the characters, it's probably because the show ended with a clip show
Well ironically that is what was so brilliant about it. It took the cliché of the clip show finale and instead of having it be an instance of making you remember all the good times, it was meant to make you reflect on how awful these people truly were.
I think it was a perfect finale. Not only brought back a bunch of characters but also is fitting given that the characters are literal psychopaths lmao
I wouldn't say the finale was my favorite, or even that I liked it much, but I do respect it. It took some balls on Larry David's part to end a beloved sitcom with the beloved characters in jail. They didn't get sentimental for a second.
Great video as always, lots of good points but I can't help but feel the answer can be a bit more simple: you grow attached to these characters because of the laughs they give you, you can understand they are not good people but a story, especially comedy stories, can be good without the "bad" people getting their comeuppance and while the ending was very tone compliant, I don't think there is anything wrong with being disappointed in not having just a really good final episodes with lots of jokes and good times. I think the ending fine and even pretty good but it wouldn't be anywhere close to my favorite episode and doesn't have many jokes that I found terribly funny, so you could argue that episode that just focused on just being a great episode rather then a finale for the show could have been better, but thats just a thought.
Yeah the psychology of how we as people grow attached to these characters could be a video in and of itself. When you think about it, we don’t just spend say the length of the actual show with them, but if we are watching the show as it airs, we basically sit with these characters and remain invested in them for up to a decade.
I felt the finale kinda made sense. As much as people find flaw in it, I wanna think it did make sense. Usually in TV and movies, it’s natural for people to face consequences for their actions. All the things the Seinfeld quad had done to offend or cause harm to others, were never turned back on them for a lesson in how to be less selfish people so these people finally having to face all these people who had a laundry list of grievances about them and finally put them in a position where they have no choice but to face their past behavior
Why did people hated the finale? Simple: 1)You might sing its praises of how thematically fitting it is, but in the end it's just not funny 2)The execution was awful, it just felt like a really cheap recap episode. 3)The whole trial thing felt really unfair. If writers wanted the characters to pay for their sins, they should be on trial for something more than just filming and laughing at a guy getting mugged. If I was in charge of doing the finale, I would do a normal Seinfeld episode ending it with Jerry and George going to the same laundry place they started in the pilot. Cursing the characters to be forever trapped in this infinite loop of pettiness, just like they are in syndication.
Yeah, the reason for the trial was pretty milk toast, just a reason to bring all the characters that had something to do with the Seinfeld gang, and some of them didn't even suffer, or I would say they treated the Seinfeld gang badly, I guess being an asshole was in all the side character's nature in this show too!
I haven’t watched Seinfeld but a recap episode is not a good series finale. They’re lazy and not recieved well by critics or audiences. Also the characters going to jail severely breaks immersion
No time to watch the full video but I can already tell right now based on the title screen about most of our favorite sitcom characters being narcissists if not sociopath that you're getting to the point that people just simply failed to see the vileness of these characters... Exactly! Worse yet, I think people got off on vicariously identifying with their selfish, narcissistic behavior... Whereas The Sopranos seduced us into identifying with its characters, then rubbed the moral culpability we thus took on in our faces in later Seasons... ...people just didn't have that realization with Seinfeld. It was a tremendously clever and witty show but these characters became more and more abhorrent as it progressed. (Similar but less extreme trajectory on Will and Grace.) If fans didn't understand the finale, which I do think was tonally rather different--but so what--it's pretty much their own fault for thinking that being narcissistic assholes is just, like, great fun and games...🤦🏼♀️
Your central point in this video makes me think of Vladimir Nabokov’s critique that ‘good readers’ (yes, he actually uses this term) do _not_ try to personify themselves with the characters in a book.
I gotta say that vicarious wish fulfillment stuff can really enhance a movie even if you have little to nothing in common with the character or their actions. I cant clap in sync with a metronome nor do i have any desire to perform to an audience but Whiplash was still one hell of a ride from just a pure "giving it your all" kind of angle
I love Seinfeld. And I love the ending. Precisely for the reasons you stated. I will say, Season 7 ending was The Invitation. Season 9 was the Finale. Season 8 had The Summer of George, in which George lost his job. So, George lost his fiance, his job and eventually his freedom all over the course of...2 years? Not entirely sure how time works in Sitcoms.
Seinfeld drugging his gf to play with a toy collection happened towards the end of the series when the writing wasn't as strong. I really don't think that was truly representative of his character. Elaine putting the soup Nazi out of business for piety reasons, that's a little bit of a stretch as her being a complete narcissist, you are really under playing the conflict. I would call Georges actions more cowardly, perhaps there can be an argument made that cowardliness is a symptom of narcissism. He passionately defended his actions, all the while knowing he was in the wrong. He acknowledges it second after. Kramer didn't quite abandon the dog, he left it on the doorstep of someones house, hoping they would take it in. And he was doing it to help Elaine sleep, which is a non-selfish reasons. I really don't think you have a grasp on these characters.
"Seinfeld drugging his gf to play with a toy collection happened towards the end of the series when the writing wasn't as strong. I really don't think that was truly representative of his character." Not really sure how to respond to this. You don't seem to feel as though Jerry doing so is representative of his character... except he did it. Idk what the writing not being as strong has to do with anything as it is still something his character does in the show and is thus indicative of his character. You cannot pick and choose what a character does in the show to suit how you perceive that character; you must define them based on everything they do. In any case, this was not the only selfish act Jerry has done throughout the series. "Elaine putting the soup Nazi out of business for piety reasons, that's a little bit of a stretch as her being a complete narcissist, you are really under playing the conflict." In any sense of the word, I don't see how Elaine responding to being banned from his shop by destroying the man's entire livelihood is not indicative of her being incredibly narcissistic/conceded/egotistical/selfish. Do you feel as though her reaction to the situation was warranted? "I would call Georges actions more cowardly, perhaps there can be an argument made that cowardliness is a symptom of narcissism. He passionately defended his actions, all the while knowing he was in the wrong. He acknowledges it second after." Would you consider George being extremely rude to the family whom allowed him to watch Breakfast at Tiffany's with them, faking being handicapped to reap the benefits, and showing little remorse for the death of his fiancé who he only got back together with due to a "pact" and then immediately regretted it just him being cowardly or rather him not really taking into account the feelings of others? "Kramer didn't quite abandon the dog, he left it on the doorstep of someone's house, hoping they would take it in. And he was doing it to help Elaine sleep, which is a non-selfish reasons." Let me reframe this: "My friend is having trouble sleeping due to a barking dog. I will aid in kidnapping that dog, regardless of the heartbreak it may cause the owner, and hopefully these people whose doorstep I leave it on take good care of it... instead of taking it to the pound." "I really don't think you have a grasp on these characters." Not only do I find your retorts pretty off base in general, I actually find that you demonstrate exactly what I discuss in the video; you trying to explain away these character's actions and defend them to some extent perhaps due to your perception of them. In any case, whether or not you feel as though the characters are as "bad" as I framed them in the video, I think you seem to, ironically, not be able to see how they are perceived by people who do not have as much insight into the actual circumstances of their actions as we do. Sure there are many cases where the characters may not have MEANT to do certain things that led to bad outcomes... but as I state in the video, this is indicative of them not really considering how their actions affect those around them and the consequences their actions may bring. Maybe give the vid another watch 👍
@@MacabreStorytelling In regards to Jerry's character you said : “You cannot pick and choose what a character does in the show to suit how you perceive that character; you must define them based on everything they do.” The irony here is hilarious. What you said I cannot do is precisely what you are doing! Lol. You picked a terrible episode of the show, when the writing was going down hill, and applied it to Jerry's character as if it was how he behaved through the whole series. The writing not being as strong as it used to be is relevant to this. I'm surprised that someone like you would not see that as obvious. Bad writing doesn't respect the established characters, and just writes things that they think are funny. Why in the hell would George want to go play with toys with Jerry at his gf's house. The episode is terrible. It turns the characters into idiots. “In any sense of the word, I don't see how Elaine responding to being banned from his shop by destroying the man's entire livelihood is not indicative of her being incredibly narcissistic/conceded/egotistical/selfish.” First off, in any sense of what word? That is not clear. Please explain what word you are referring. Elaine was unjustly banned from his shop and gave away his recipes. You act like she burned down his shop or something lol. I guess revenge is always narcissistic/conceded/egotistical/selfish in your eyes. That is an interesting thing to consider. I definitely wouldn't say it flippantly as if it was a given. But yes, it is an interesting idea, which brings up a lot of questions about stoicism. Soooo, you retorted my response to George by bringing up an example that you didn't bring up in the video. Maybe you should have brought up the Breakfast at Tiffany's example, because it has a better case for narcissism than this running from a fire example. George is a coward, he's pathetic, and yes, I agree he is a narcissist, in that neurotic Woody Allen kind of way. Just saying the example that was brought up in the video was pretty weak. "My friend is having trouble sleeping due to a barking dog. I will aid in kidnapping that dog, regardless of the heartbreak it may cause the owner, and hopefully these people whose doorstep I leave it on take good care of it... instead of taking it to the pound." Yes, this sounds like something a stupid person would do, not a narcissist. Since when does bringing a dog to a random strangers house rather than a pound indicate narcissism? I think you are way off on Kramer. “I actually find that you demonstrate exactly what I discuss in the video; you trying to explain away these character's actions and defend them to some extent perhaps due to your perception of them.” lolol. Dude, we are all explaining these character's actions based on our perceptions of them. If you think you're any different, you are being naive. “I think you seem to, ironically, not be able to see how they are perceived by people who do not have as much insight into the actual circumstances of their actions as we do.” So, that point of your video is not about how the characters actual were, its just about how people unfamiliar with the show perceived them? I guess I missed that part.
"The irony here is hilarious. What you said I cannot do is precisely what you are doing! Lol. You picked a terrible episode of the show, when the writing was going down hill, and applied it to Jerry's character as if it was how he behaved through the whole series. The writing not being as strong as it used to be is relevant to this. I'm surprised that someone like you would not see that as obvious. Bad writing doesn't respect the established characters, and just writes things that they think are funny. Why in the hell would George want to go play with toys with Jerry at his gf's house. The episode is terrible. It turns the characters into idiots." Again, it seems as though you are simply upset as you do not like how the episode handled the characters because it conflicts with how you perceived them. I'd argue the episode itself is simply an extrapolation of who the characters already proved themselves to be. Does Jerry drugging his gf in this episode to play with her toys strike you as all that much of a stretch from Jerry not wanting to give an unconscious man mouth to mouth, while fully knowing he may have died? The show continually pushed the envelope in showing who these characters were and the depth of their selfishness, among the other countless times Jerry was shown to be a selfish, self-absorbed individual. Again, it seems odd how you just want to forget about this one episode because it seems to conflict with your perception of Jerry. Many people said the exact same thing about George being so flippant about Susan's death. At first it seems jarring, but upon thinking back it really isn't all that surprising given his other behavior over the course of the series. "Elaine was unjustly banned from his shop and gave away his recipes. You act like she burned down his shop or something lol. I guess revenge is always narcissistic/conceded/egotistical/selfish in your eyes. That is an interesting thing to consider. I definitely wouldn't say it flippantly as if it was a given. But yes, it is an interesting idea, which brings up a lot of questions about stoicism." She was banned from his shop for a year and in response she gives away his recipes, his life's work, which leads to him closing down his shop in disgrace. I can't see how you can possibly be arguing in good faith if you cannot see the massive false equivalency here. "Soooo, you retorted my response to George by bringing up an example that you didn't bring up in the video. Maybe you should have brought up the Breakfast at Tiffany's example, because it has a better case for narcissism than this running from a fire example. George is a coward, he's pathetic, and yes, I agree he is a narcissist, in that neurotic Woody Allen kind of way. Just saying the example that was brought up in the video was pretty weak." So are you backtracking on your original statement? I make it pretty clear in the video that I am discussing the characters as a whole and all their actions throughout the show, simply using certain ones to demonstrate, yet I did extensively discuss George's uncaring attitude towards Susan's death. Perhaps I could have used that one, but you seem to be backing off from your original point of me "not really having a firm grasp on the characters" considering you just admitted in this comment that you are now agreeing that he is a narcissist. "Yes, this sounds like something a stupid person would do, not a narcissist. Since when does bringing a dog to a random strangers house rather than a pound indicate narcissism? I think you are way off on Kramer." You can think that all you want but, again, it seems you are clearly seeing these characters through rose colored glasses. You can say Kramer is just "stupid" but, once again, what would you call doing actions regardless of the consequences and pain they may result in for others? "Dude, we are all explaining these character's actions based on our perceptions of them. If you think you're any different, you are being naïve." I am taking their actions and behaviors and deriving conclusions based on said actions and behaviors. In the Jerry example you seemed to just negate something Jerry does because it conflicts with your perception. You seem to be I'd say quite off when it comes to Elaine and the Soup Nazi thinking that her response was measured in response to his actions. You now seem to be backing off your original claim of me saying I don't have a grasp on George as you also consider him a narcissist. Again, the difference is I'd say it is quite clear you are unable to let go of your own ego to see how these characters actually come off and instead, due to your rose-colored glasses perception of them, try to frame them in the most gracious light possible, going so far as to simply ignoring an entire action of Jerry's because it conflicts with who you perceived him to be. "So, that point of your video is not about how the characters actual were, its just about how people unfamiliar with the show perceived them? I guess I missed that part." When I say "we" I am talking about the viewer as opposed to the other characters in the show. One of the most common complaints of the finale was that viewers felt as though it was unfair for the characters' actions to be put in the most ungracious light possible since the characters didn't have as much context to the situations as we the viewer did... which is ignoring the fact that as individuals they are perceived by others based on their actions, not necessarily what their intentions were... even though there are numerous cases of the character's actions just being driven by straight up narcissism.
@@MacabreStorytelling Let me assure you I am not upset. I just think what you are doing is lazy. It’s like when people say the show is about nothing. These four characters are not four full blown psychopaths. You argue that Jerry’s behaviour in the toy episode is an extrapolation of what his character already was. I disagree. I think the final two seasons, the show went down hill without Larry David. George changed from a neurotic character to one with rage issues. I think Jerry changed too, not to the same degree. At this point, I really can’t see us coming to an agreement on this. You have seemed to dug your heels in pretty deep that the characters didn’t change. When Jerry didn’t want to give the guy mouth to mouth, the joke behind it was both about Jerry being a germophobe and male insecurity about being perceived as gay for putting your mouth on another mans mouth to save their life. But yes, you are making progress, in this conversation, you are giving better examples than you did in the video, so good on you. “Again, it seems odd how you just want to forget about this one episode because it seems to conflict with your perception of Jerry.” Nah, I haven’t seen the last two seasons in a while, but I’m sure there are plenty of examples where the character aren’t behaving like they used to. Jason Alexander even talked about that in regards to his own character George in interviews. But hey, leave it to you to exaggerate something to make a point. “The show continually pushed the envelope in showing who these characters were and the depth of their selfishness”. Without anything to back it up its meaningless statement. But I guess “pushing the envelope” is a nice phrase though. “She was banned from his shop for a year and in response she gives away his recipes, his life's work, which leads to him closing down his shop in disgrace. I can't see how you can possibly be arguing in good faith if you cannot see the massive false equivalency here.” This would mean that if her revenge was as measured as being banned from a store for a year for saying you didn’t like lima bean soup then if wouldn’t narcissist. I think this example of the Soup Nazi brings up some interesting questions about revenge, and if or when it’s justified. Still wouldn’t call it a slam dunk case about narcissism. If you are accusing me of arguing in bad faith; just because I said it wasn’t like Elaine burned down his shop, does not mean I am suggesting the two actual actions were equivalent, I am merely saying it wasn’t some extreme narcissist reaction. If you think I am arguing in bad faith, then you think I am basically a troll. And if you think I am trolling you, you shouldn’t be responding to me. I think you are saying I am arguing in bad faith because you don’t want to refute what I’m saying. “So are you backtracking on your original statement?” Pretty sure that I said Georges actions with the fire were cowardly. I’m not sure what I backtracked on. Did I give the impression that George was not narcissist in other situations? Must of been a typo, because before this conversation, my attitude towards George was he was the most narcissist of the characters. But yeah, the fire example was a bad example of George’s narcissism. You might as well have used the time George was concerned the security guard had to stand all day so he got him a chair as an example of narcissism. “but you seem to be backing off from your original point of me "not really having a firm grasp on the characters" considering you just admitted in this comment that you are now agreeing that he is a narcissist.” Again, I never disputed George was a narcissist, I simple disputed the fire example was not an example of narcissism outright. I said it was cowardly, and then wondered if cowardly behaviour is rooted in narcissism. I never backed off any original point. You really didn’t read what I said. "You can think that all you want but, again, it seems you are clearly seeing these characters through rose colored glasses. You can say Kramer is just "stupid" but, once again, what would you call doing actions regardless of the consequences and pain they may result in for others?” Ummm, stupid. (Based on the fact that he had nothing to gain in this situation, his actions were not motivated by narcissism but stupidity). “I am taking their actions and behaviors and deriving conclusions based on said actions and behaviors.” Again, I will use your own quote against you. We are all explaining these character's actions based on our perceptions of them. If you think you're any different, you are being naïve. I like how when I do it, it's wrong. But when you do, you have some sort of perfect system that is infallible. “You now seem to be backing off your original claim of me saying I don't have a grasp on George as you also consider him a narcissist.” How many times are you going to bring this up? You did not understand anything I said about George, and have now brought up this misunderstanding three times like its some sort of victory. I did not back down from any claim about George. And in the future, if you have a point, just saying it once. Its annoying to have to refute it three times. “Again, the difference is I'd say it is quite clear you are unable to let go of your own ego to see how these characters actually come off and instead,” Hahaha, holy moly, I’m not able to let go of my own ego to see how the characters come off? Okay, that is a hilarious proposition. As if my ego is intertwined with four fictional characters on a tv show from the 90s. And dude, who’s really arguing in bad faith here. My “rose-colored glasses perception of (the characters)”. Lolol. I find when someone is loosing an argument, they often claim the other side is arguing something they really aren’t so they can easily dispute it. In this case, you are claiming I have rose-coloured glasses for these characters. Haha. Oh Lord. Just because you make of stuff about me, doesn’t mean I have to conform to your fabrications. “When I say "we" I am talking about the viewer as opposed to the other characters in the show. One of the most common complaints of the finale was that viewers felt as though it was unfair for the characters' actions to be put in the most ungracious light possible since the characters didn't have as much context to the situations as we the viewer did... which is ignoring the fact that as individuals they are perceived by others based on their actions, not necessarily what their intentions were... even though there are numerous cases of the character's actions just being driven by straight up narcissism.” This whole part of the conversation has become convoluted, like it's strayed away from anything I thought we were talking about. But yes, intentions matter. Some behaviour can be perceived as narcissist, when in fact the actor had non-narcissist intent. That intent matters.
"When Jerry didn’t want to give the guy mouth to mouth, the joke behind it was both about Jerry being a germophobe and male insecurity about being perceived as gay for putting your mouth on another mans mouth to save their life. But yes, you are making progress, in this conversation, you are giving better examples than you did in the video, so good on you." Both of which he put over the life of another human being. Again, it seems as though you may have realized your original point wasn't well thought out and are now backtracking, stating it is about the examples I used as opposed to me not grasping the characters. "Nah, I haven’t seen the last two seasons in a while, but I’m sure there are plenty of examples where the character aren’t behaving like they used to. Jason Alexander even talked about that in regards to his own character George in interviews. But hey, leave it to you to exaggerate something to make a point." Unfortunately now it seems as though you have completely realized your original argument was off base but instead of just admitting it you double down and pivot. "Without anything to back it up its meaningless statement. But I guess “pushing the envelope” is a nice phrase though." And again. Again, it seems as though you were married to a certain perception of each character and then when the show began pushing the envelope you chalk it up to it just not being the same. I give a number of examples of this in the episode, including Jerry and the mouth to mouth and the gang after Susan's death. If you'd actually like to approach this without letting your ego get in the way I'm open to it but that doesn't seem likely. "This would mean that if her revenge was as measured as being banned from a store for a year for saying you didn’t like lima bean soup then if wouldn’t narcissist. I think this example of the Soup Nazi brings up some interesting questions about revenge, and if or when it’s justified. Still wouldn’t call it a slam dunk case about narcissism. If you are accusing me of arguing in bad faith; just because I said it wasn’t like Elaine burned down his shop, does not mean I am suggesting the two actual actions were equivalent, I am merely saying it wasn’t some extreme narcissist reaction. If you think I am arguing in bad faith, then you think I am basically a troll. And if you think I am trolling you, you shouldn’t be responding to me. I think you are saying I am arguing in bad faith because you don’t want to refute what I’m saying." I don't think you are a troll just letting your ego prevent you from backing down from your original point that you seem to realize wasn't well thought out. I don't see how Elaine burning down his shop to you is leagues away from publishing his recipes which in turn cost him his entire livelihood. It seems you may have a limited understanding of how narcissism presents itself. "Pretty sure that I said Georges actions with the fire were cowardly. I’m not sure what I backtracked on. Did I give the impression that George was not narcissist in other situations? Must of been a typo, because before this conversation, my attitude towards George was he was the most narcissist of the characters. But yeah, the fire example was a bad example of George’s narcissism. You might as well have used the time George was concerned the security guard had to stand all day so he got him a chair as an example of narcissism. Again, I never disputed George was a narcissist, I simple disputed the fire example was not an example of narcissism outright. I said it was cowardly, and then wondered if cowardly behavior is rooted in narcissism. I never backed off any original point. You really didn’t read what I said." If your original argument was that it wasn't the best example, that would have been fine. But you finished your comment with a claim that I did not have a grasp on the characters. Perhaps this was an inarticulation on your part but I am not sure how else that was supposed to be taken. Again, it seems as though your ego won't let you rescind your original point which leads you to making poor arguments. "Ummm, stupid. (Based on the fact that he had nothing to gain in this situation, his actions were not motivated by narcissism but stupidity)." Once again, I think this is demonstrative of you not really understanding narcissism and how it can present itself. "Again, I will use your own quote against you. We are all explaining these character's actions based on our perceptions of them. If you think you're any different, you are being naïve. I like how when I do it, it's wrong. But when you do, you have some sort of perfect system that is infallible." Again, it seems like you are letting your ego prevent you from making more substantial arguments. Once can have that perception but in your case when one disregards certain actions by the characters because it doesn't fit with their narrative, this seems clear your are floundering to support your original ill-conceived point. "How many times are you going to bring this up? You did not understand anything I said about George, and have now brought up this misunderstanding three times like its some sort of victory. I did not back down from any claim about George. And in the future, if you have a point, just saying it once. Its annoying to have to refute it three times." Easy son, no need to get upset. Your original point was that I did not have a grasp on the characters and yet you rescinded later that my classification of him as a narcissist was correct. You may have been inarticulate in your original post which is fine but your reticence to rescind it seems ego based. "Hahaha, holy moly, I’m not able to let go of my own ego to see how the characters come off? Okay, that is a hilarious proposition. As if my ego is intertwined with four fictional characters on a tv show from the 90s. And dude, who’s really arguing in bad faith here. My “rose-colored glasses perception of (the characters)”. Lolol. I find when someone is loosing an argument, they often claim the other side is arguing something they really aren’t so they can easily dispute it. In this case, you are claiming I have rose-coloured glasses for these characters. Haha. Oh Lord. Just because you make of stuff about me, doesn’t mean I have to conform to your fabrications." Again, easy man. I think the fact your are getting upset is indicative of your ego getting the better of you. In this discussion you made a claim I didn't have a grasp on the characters and then backpedaled saying I didn't use better examples to try and cover up your ill conceived original comment. And yes, the fact that your seem to want to ignore Jerry's actions or say try to justify Elaine's completely unmeasured response to the Soup Nazi banning her from shop seems you are arguing more with your ego/emotions than your intellect. "This whole part of the conversation has become convoluted, like it's strayed away from anything I thought we were talking about. But yes, intentions matter. Some behaviour can be perceived as narcissist, when in fact the actor had non-narcissist intent. That intent matters." I'm not surprised by that. Again, it is difficult to discuss this when you don't seem to understand narcissism and how it presents itself.
Brilliantly crafted and executed. I just finished the series for the first time, and while I kinda knew what was coming I still felt let down. I was also simultaneously very interested into why that was, and your video was a perfect summation of so many excellent observations and put it all in perspective. Great work!!
I thought the finale was perfect. I cannot see how it could've ended any other way really. Plus, and this is the important point, it was hysterically funny.
It didnt use the seinfeld formula. Where all four characters have there own interesting storylines. Sometimes the storylines converge at the end. This was just them in court. Nothing clever. People wanted a hyper Seinfeld episode, which didnt happen.
But to address some of the things you bring up, the big problem I had with it was that they were being sent to jail for things that, even though they're awful, shouldn't get you sent to jail. Yeah, they were making fun of the guy getting robbed but what were they supposed to do, he had a gun. They never should have been arrested in the first place, even with that Good Samaritan Bill.
So many feelings. Just well done. I loved the ending- because they are totally jerks. I’m interested in how some people didn’t think they were that bad. Like... telling, right? I’m self aware enough to realize I identify with jerry the most, for his self centeredness and snobbery, but he’s my least favorite character because of that....I watch the show and I am like, I have to change my behavior- I never thought they were in the right. To be fair, I watched this as an adult and after seeing shows like Always Sunny, so I can’t imagine how blindsided people who genuinely thought the characters weren’t that bad felt.
I'm beginning to think that television is rotting people's brains. It could be the longer time spend with television characters over movie characters, both in screen time and the years over which TV shows run, which contributes to these weird vicarious connections. Maybe I'm out of the loop with fan culture, but television fans seem particularly obsessed compared to other mediums - except for that Avatar depression shit. They have this genuine anger if things don't go the way they desired - which I can sympathize with - but take it way too far. If media disappoints you just ignore it, you don't have to write about how terrible it was, just let go and find something you actively enjoy experiencing. I quite like Just Cause 2, and recently played one of its sequels which disappointed me so I just found something else to do. Perhaps I just don't care enough so letting go is easy.
It could be the case you afford to ignore some media, because of the abundance of content we have these days, in the 90s there was TV and what the TV overlords wanted you to see, not many options like now, but I agree if you don't like something change it, if there's nothing to change to, turn it off!
You jumped the shark with the Friends analyses the characters aren't wrong,they have sane reactions that were perfectly acceptable up till then,the proof is in the pudding,no one was upset at it back then,it's only now that people pretend that it always was wrong,what you're trying to push for is anachronistic outrage,talk about being politically biased.
The Grimes episode is one of my favourite Simpsons episodes of all time. I wonder if there was a different perception of this, and similar types of episodes outside of America. I think it is common to hold caricatures of people from other countries, which informs on how people respond to portrayals of characters and their comeuppance. Outside of America there are certain stereotypes of Americans, with all tending to be negative, but will always include lazy and stupid, and will often include other traits such as callousness. It is easy to bring to mind examples of these (probably because negative things are more memorable), e.g. being the place creationists come from, being where you can be bankrupted because you became ill. But I think most of it is a catharsis to deal with the frustration of the influence and overwhelming power of USA, such that our countries are in thrall to an extent to the country, or at least trend lightly when it comes to them, despite outside the military not really doing anything better than anyone else.
Man, I love the 90 shows, just some blunt fun, and everyone took it for what it was, some jokes.. And no one needed a safe space afterwards, or had the urge to complain on the non existing social media.
People excuse the behaviors of more flawed people. IE the expectations of Charlie Sheen aren't near those of Mr Rodgers. People are also more forgiving of people they consider to be their friends. There was a relationship with those characters so people are more excusing of them instead of what's on the objective paper.
Which I speaks to something with the ending as to why you befriended such horrendous individuals. With other characters, you can see their more redemptive sides, but not with the Seinfeld gang.
my headcanon was that they all died in aircrash and the trial is about heavens judging their souls. They loose and are dammed to eternity in hell ("Hell is to spent eternity with your best friends" Sarte)
I have never watched an full episode of Seinfeld but i will watch this hour long video talking about it.
holy shit you need to. your missing the best sitcom ever made period.
That’s a true fan of MS right there
Me too
It's not just a sitcom. It's a work of Art. Season 9 sucked because Larry David wasn't they're.
@@dp27thelight9 the most hated episode (The finale) was written by LD. Also, he didn't write for the last two seasons
I think what makes the Seinfeld characters so relatable is that they DONT learn lessons, going through my life I rarely see people learning lessons from their mistakes, people constantly repeat the same mistakes time and time again, no insight gained, no responsibility admitted, and a whole lot of blaming others as a way of rationalizing the consequences of poor judgement.
That's a big ouf
I relate to this comment. I think that’s why I always enjoyed seinfield so much. They were fucking narcissistic assholes who never learned anything and they remind me of so many adults I know and sometimes even myself. I feel like maybe that is a big part of why people were offended by the ending back they related to the characters and seeing them be punished for being shitbags made them offended
@Cat Egorical Nice copypasta, where did you get it? 4chan?
@Cat Egorical Why do you care about something that you don't like?
@Cat Egorical I still don't understand why you care, you're expending far more energy on this than we are, you seem to care more about this than we do. Don't you think your efforts would be better put into doing something constructive? I feel sorry for you that this is the hill you've chosen to fight over. I have much better things to do than debate on subjective opinions.
...Like watching Seinfeld again. ;)
George being happy when Susan died was hilarious and right in line with his character. Anyone who complained to NBC about that is AN IDIOT and shouldn't watch this show if they take things that seriously. I applaud Larry David for that one.
I totally agree. I was happy she died too. She was annoying and dragging George down. A lot of people can relate to that predicament.
It’s even funnier when he uses her death in “the Andria Doria” to get pity points
Agreed. If you saw the arc of season 7, it was hilarious
Susan represents the audience in some respect....The harsh response to Susan's death forced fans to realize they too could be mocked and dismissed.... The idea that we aren't Jerry, Kramer, Elaine and George...that we could just be a Susan 🤷♂️
I think it’s funny that people were upset about that.
It's weird. When I was a kid watching Seinfeld, I hated the ending. When I got older, I loved it. But strangely enough, I have never had a problem with the Susan's Death episode or the Frank Grimes episode. In the case of Grimes, I guess I just never identified with Homer Simpson much. In the case of Susan, I always kind of viewed her as a redshirt. I mean, it would have been weird for George to be married, and it would screw with the formula of the show in horrible ways. Susan had to go.
And the fact that Susan died purely due to George's cheapness and complete lack of enthusiasm about marrying her made it perfect.
It's a hilarious character arc for George. And it's okay to do, you know, because IT'S FAKE.
I didn't like the ending... not necessarily because I didn't want to see them get their comeuppance, I just couldn't believe that even in this fictional version of earth that they could be sent to prison for not intervening in an armed robbery.
Second everything you said.
Being married to George Costanza is a fate worse than death
To be honest, I think the finale’s biggest problem was that it just wasn’t that funny. The response I had at the time, and from what I recall others did too, was that it was mediocre. I remember the review in the local paper said that it felt contrived and bloated by an endless string of call backs.
In its defense, I think any sort of finale for a show like Seinfeld was doomed. Since it was such a breaker of conventions, obeying the idea of a finale is, in and of itself, self defeating. They probably should have just had an episode that was like any other and just left it at that; doing so certainly would have been subverting the convention. Jerry himself said they should have had an ending like the subway episode.
The video references Sunny a few times and I think the point about audiences knowing what to expect by the time that show aired is accurate. However, audience expectations do not change the ending issue faced by these postmodern shows. Sunny and Seinfeld have arcs but they are not about advancing a story or character development, they simply are vehicles for related comedy bits. So when they end, the only change is a change in the available jokes. Take George working for the Yankees, there’s a lot of comedy milage had regarding the antics he gets up to while working there, many involving Mr Steinbrenner. But once the jokes have run their course, George is fired. How does this affect George long term, does he learn from his mistakes or gain a new desire to achieve something better, no he’s the same, but now the show cannot use him as a vehicle for Mr Steinbrenner jokes. And this lack of narrative completeness leads to no actual need for series completeness. Seinfeld could have ended after season 8 and no one would have felt that there was an incomplete story or characters that never were fully developed, because there was none of that to begin with. The same is true for Sunny, I feel the only reason they keep making more seasons is because there is demand and they can come up with funny ideas, not because the creators or fans want to see some story or characters reach their final end states.
Which leads me back to my point, these shows should just end, with as minimal a finale as possible. Trying to do a big finale for a show like Seinfeld was a bad idea, and making it not that funny was what made it get some much hate.
I think its biggest problem was that it was essentially just a clip show episode.
So basically you believe that the show never ended with closure? Because that’s how I felt watching the ending too.
Sunny did a good fake out series finale with the laser tag episode
In a weird way, growing up with Seinfeld and watching it over and over again, I'd say for me the two episodes (Susan's death and the Finale) were very uncomfortable because they brought reality into the show in a way. It's like someone mentioned, these characters are horrible but in an almost caricature way. For me the appeal of the show is its kind of paradoxical innocence. All four of them are like children, living in an immature dreamworld of no (serious) consequences and over the top situations. Superhero magazines, cereal and living without working (Kramer), if you will. Therefore, watching it is an escape from reality. Not because I want to be the characters or have their lives, but because the show isn't asking too much of me.The characters do deal with some relatable problems, but the mental way they are presented and solved makes for a comedic escapism rather than a discussion of real life. That is why I put on Seinfeld when I'm struggling in life, and a well written emotional drama when I want to enjoy quality storytelling. The show make me laugh, not feel, if that's any explanation. I'm not disagreeing on the sentiment of this video at all, but rather wanted to add a slightly different angle as to why many people didn't like the Finale, myself included. Or maybe I just further proved your point. In that case, you're welcome and I'll have to think about what that says about me, haha.
I feel like there's some serious value in that take. There is something to be said about reaching levels of being so incredibly awful and mean-spirited it's comical, like its so over the top it actually endearing in an Looney Tunes sort of way. From that respective though, I think the Finale is still strong as its almost like ultimate punchline, and the joke is thinking they would more or less get away with everything they did and said consequence free. A real 'Chicken crossing the road at the end of a pun filled joke book' type send off.
Maybe I didn't see the right episodes, but most I saw there's nothing that strikes me as "awful people," and in the few where someone did something like that I felt it didn't land unless it was so over the top that it felt like a fantasy of the character -- like when Jerry called the old lady an "old bag" and stole her bread. It's like something someone might fantasize about in the situation but not actually do. Even still I felt that scene disrupted my image of Jerry.
But really, TV characters are often supposed to be larger-than-life caricatures. It's weird to hear this interpreted so literally as "horrible people," though admittedly I've only watched 3/4 of the episodes.
Having now completed the video, I’ve got some anecdotal evidence that parallels your own theory on the audience’s split reaction.
My late grandfather considered the finale to be the best episode specifically because they brought back all the old characters and how the main four finally get their (literal) justice; they even brought back Babu to shake his finger at that “very bad man!”
My grandfather was also the type of person who’s greatest display of anger would be to, once in a blue moon, mutter “Aw, shit” at the television when watching sports.
Anyways, I wonder if his pure wholesomeness has something to do with his almost instinctive grasp on the point of the Seinfeld ending?
Then again, the old bastard once stacked the deck against me when playing poker in the kitchen. Yeah, he was probably worse than George.
As a huge fan since the beginning of the show (i watched it every week on network starting in 1990 at the age of 14), i can easily tell you why the final episode was a disappointment: It was a glorified "clips show." And the new scenes weren't particularly funny. That's it. I loved the storyline. Living the dream, only to have it dashed away and getting their comeuppance for their indifference. Perfect story. But recycled clips + mediocre comedy tanked it. That simple.
Exactly how I felt
I've finished rewatching the entire series and I reached the last 2 episodes and cant seem to want to watch the finale for exactly this reason.
Storytelling is ancient and I think that we crave a conclusion,: marriage, death, a new journey, and they lived happily ever after. . .", etc.
I've been thinking about this a lot today, and I've developed a theory as to why the finale feels off. Larry David hadn't written for the show since "The Invitations". It's almost like he was writing from an outsider's perspective, trying to capture the cynicism that plagued the final two seasons.
EXACLY.
You see these people trying to understand why fans hated the finale, when the reason is that simple; it was lazy, and it wasnt funny.
They clearly knew what people expected from a sitcom series finale, and were actively trying to subvert it.
Like when the plane is crashing, and Elaine says, “I love you!” but when Jerry asks her about it later, she says she was saying “I love U...nited Airlines.”
Top tier trolling.
Why is it ok when Seinfield does it but not game of thrones
@@thepinkestpigglet7529 Game of Thrones was not a comedy. When a comedy does it, the meta perspective is that it's another layer of jokes outside of the narrative, where the man behind the curtain is obvious and appreciated. When a drama subverts expectations, it hurts the payoff / climax that the plot has been building towards, which also rips the audience out of immersion, and the meta perspective of the man behind the curtain is wholly negative.
@@thepinkestpigglet7529 Because just because it's a subversion of expectations doesn't mean it doesn't work as a climactic payoff. You still need to provide fitting conclusions for aspects of character or story beats, and throwing all of that stuff that's essential out the window in service of "subverting expectations" can never work as a substitute for truly effective and noteworthy storytelling.
Good idea, terrible execution.
They went from there to literally 30 minutes of old footage.
Frank Grimes is still to this day, the Simpsons most highly rated episode. It is my personal favourite as well.
maybe someone else has already brought it up, but I think it's worth pointing out that the SEINFELD finale was preceded by a super sentimental retrospective special that basically celebrated the characters (via the actors) and had the GreenDay song montage
and then following THAT up with the finale is some primo trolling
Larry David KING
god yeah, all that stuff really annoys me, and it tells you that at least the networks didnt even understand what they had been watching up to that point
It’s not trolling They worked together for 9 seasons. Theirs Sentimentality with the people working on the show together, No Hugging No learning Is for the actual characters and episodes. What do you think after 10 years The actors and crew are just like The characters on the show??
@@kingfadal4711 maybe the sarcasm didn’t come through, but I didn’t mean to suggest that the trolling was intentional
the point was simply that the gap between the tone or the finale and the retrospective special was funny
@@mcnooj82 oh okay ✅
Personally I thought the ending couldn't have been more perfect, the characters were objectively terrible people no matter how much viewers came to sympathize with them, myself at times included, and it was nice to see them get their comeuppance. The same could have been said of the characters in Friends had the writers had them get what they also deserved. But then that series didn't have the balls Seinfeld had.
JOEY DIDN’T DESERVE LOVE!
I laughed when George has the first selfish thoughts expressed about his fiancée's death. My reason for finding it hilarious was for the writers going there about death. Nothing's sacred (I felt proud for the writers being able to push that joke for airing. I don't really know the c process) and it felt like a breath of fresh air to allow death in the sphere. When I saw Larry David dressed as a nun in the 3 Stooges movie I felt it was in line with the part comedy, rebel, and pushing the envelope I've seen in Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm.
The best part for me was not even mentioned positively. The court room with everyone there part of the same thing and some of them reacting and interacting with each other. Jokes continued from the episodes they originated from. Jokes being resolved just by facial expressions and the way they glance at each other.
It was nice to see a developed idea be the vehicle for the 2 part finale. I thought it was something to reminisce with everyone all that has been aired. Nice there was an opportunity for the cast and crew to say bye.
Personally I don’t think it’s that complicated and I’ll use a Seinfeld reference to illustrate my feelings. The episode where Jerry is annoyed with the Bryan Cranston dentist character converting to Judaism so he could tell jokes. Someone asks Jerry, does this offend you as a Jew? Jerry redid no it offends me as a comedian.
I think a lot of fans would have enjoyed karma catching up to the cast if the finale were actually funny - it largely wasn’t. It felt like a glorified clip show episode, with a set up that felt a bit insulting (yes mocking someone getting mugged is in poor taste but does anyone think bystanders should be arrested for not inserting themselves into possibly dangerous situations?). They could have gotten help but going to jail as a response?
And let’s not say all the people they interacted with were good themselves, it was mostly just a compilation of little evils over the course of the show.
Going back to the not giving mouth to mouth on the pool boy - people also noticed the pool boy was intentionally messing with Jerry. He stuck that pool thing trying to annoy Jerry, this was just one of many torments he inflicted on Jerry over the episode in response to Jerry not wanting him as a friend, he didn’t deserve to die but he’s not some innocent guy either.
And the Susan death... we have to remember she had many opportunities to get out of that situation, George made it clear he wasn’t interested in being married. So it wasn’t out of the blue. And George did get some karma payback the following season in one of my favorite episodes The Summer of George. The rest of the cast gave him the same indifference they gave to everyone else.
Long story short, if the finale were funnier I think it wouldn’t have gotten any backlash. And maybe they should have ended it like Jerry commented on the episode where they take the subway to different events - just all four walking off with barely a goodbye.
Tldr
My biggest issues with the finale (which strangely I don't see mentioned very often) are:
1. Several of the incidents brought up in the trial are either completely untrue, misunderstandings, or cases where both parties shared at least some blame. If the intent was for the audience to rejoice in seeing them get comeuppance, allowing multiple false accusations to resurface in an unfair kangaroo court setting makes it harder to do so. There were also a few that were just the characters being shamed for things that weren't actually hurting anyone (ie. bringing up the contest, shaming Elaine for buying too many sponges as if that were anyone else's business.)
2. Most of the side characters are just as self-centered and unlikable as the main quartet themselves, yet some of them get to testify against them and it's unclear whether we're supposed to see their celebration of the result as the hypocritical pettiness that it really is.
3. Seinfeld always seemed to take place in some version of reality, albeit an exaggerated one. The premise is very fantastical by the show's standards and it comes across as very jarring. There's a reason why the theory that it actually takes place in purgatory or hell is so popular, because it's actually very difficult to imagine this actually taking place in the Seinfeld world.
Very good points! I also dislike the clipshow aspect of it, but that's probably because I have rewatched the show so many times and always skip the clip show episodes.
The show starting taking itself too literally, like that the crew were actually "horrible people" rather than feckless but likeable people living out comedy fantasies of what people think about doing in real life but (most) would never do. When they started to actually do something horrible, that felt like the show taking its own over-the-top and fantastical presentation as if it were some ground truth.
I was looking for a comment like this! Completely agree!
@@naturesown4489I'm pretty sure Seinfeld had reruns airing before the show finished. Some people had already seen several of the episodes several times over by the time the finale aired.
People never like clip shows, having on demand streaming makes them worse but they were always seen as cheap and lazy.
3 amazing dark comedy films I would recommend to Seinfeld fans are The King of Comedy (1982), The Heartbreak Kid (1972), and In The Company of Men (1997).
I made this comment over a year ago, and I just found out today that The Heartbreak Kid is actually one of Jerry Seinfeld's top 5 favorite films of all time.
The horrendous nature of the Seinfeld characters is more of an exaggerated caricature that shouldn't exist in real life, I mean there are assholes everywhere, but not at the level that the Seinfeld characters would get away with, they would be shunned from society everywhere!
I think there are a little bit of each of those characters within all of us. We've all done stupid regretable things that in some light is prob pretty funny
Ermm...well...maybe I would have agreed with you...until a New York Seinfeld caricature became President!
@@BelatedCommiseration That joke was fresh four years ago!
@@personanongratis I guess...but both 'The Trump Show' and 'Seinfeld' maintain large cult followings...Trump's is certainly the biggest cult I know :)
Politicians exist and are much worse than any Seinfeld character. George never drone bombed a hospital. lol
I think you're off. The reason people hated the susan incident was because she had already left george once and he begged and pleaded to get her back, only to be jubilated by her passing. THAT is why. the "why didn't you just let her go before if you didn't want her?".
but also; in the 'heightened reality' of seinfeld, our beloved main characters are jerks in a jerk store *filled* with jerks.
I think that describes Curb Your Enthusiasm, as well. We as viewers live in Larry's reality, which is populated by pricks who are arguably more prickish than the bald prick himself.
My guess before watching the video of why: because the audience was expecting something else because they saw the characters differently than the ones who played them and/or those writing and producing the show
One thing I also think could have played a factor in the show finale being hated was the fact the Seinfeld is, by design, a show that deals with the mundane. Taking small parts of life and the in between parts of society, So for a show that focused on small things to pull off a big ending would have been difficult to do. For the season 9 dvd, one of the extras includes the main cast and Larry David getting together and talking about the show including the finale and Jerry Seinfeld makes this point. It is available on RUclips under the name Seinfeld: Roundtable if you haven't seen it. I think with what they came up with was actually rather good in terms of fitting the theme and feel of the show. Great video, Really well done.
First thought: People don’t like the finale to Seinfeld?
Second Thought: Almost an hour long video?
Third Thought: Yee!
Fans are so fickle - the show was great all around, including the finale
Also yee! is not a thought lol
I honestly never knew that everyone hated the ending. I thought it was good and a fitting end. And btw, I never had an issue with Susan’s death. It seemed perfectly in line with George’s behavior and the rest of the cast as well. The Sopranos ending bothered me only because I just didn’t know what to think happened to him. Years later it occurred to me that it didn’t matter. Tony’s life was over either way. Either he was going to prison (because whatshisname flipped) or he was shot right then and there.
Having literally just watched the entire series and finishing it with the finale today, I think what ultimately made it not work for me is that the punishment always fit the crime in seinfeld stories. Either the consequences they suffer were the result of their own actions coming to bite them, or a comedic convergence of the A and B plot of the episode. In the finale though, most of the things brought up against them were things they already ended up suffering for one way or the other. Almost nothing (that they actually did, anyway) felt like it was worth jail time, even if it was bad. I was expecting some weird coincidence to lead to them getting acquited, then NBC deciding to cancel the show due to bad association or something. That'd have been a lot more fitting of them being terrible people.
The last episode is a work of ART. Cause it connects with all the years back and the very 1st scene. MASTERFUL
There is a startling lack of Seinfeld-related content on RUclips outside of clips and memes which is a damn shame. You did a great job with this deep dive! I especially like the connection between the finale and Homer's Enemy, really spot-on there.
But while I agreed with a lot of your points, I disagreed with quite a few others. For example, one thing I felt that you left out when asking why critics and fans disliked the finale, is the simple fact that a lot of people just didn't find it to be very funny. You can go back to reviews from the time and see critics pointing out that they felt the extended trial sequence basically made the finale feel like a glorified clip show. That's my opinion of the finale as well - you can definitely see the moments where Larry David is saying screw the audience, which were fun (such as the fakeout with Jerry and Elaine on the plane), but the trial goes on for way too long and just isn't funny to me - which is a pretty big drawback to the finale of a comedy show.
But anyway, I also disagree with your thoughts on Susan's death. You do have a point - George IS a selfish prick, and it makes sense for his character to be secretly happy with Susan's death. However after rewatching season 7 in its entirety recently (as well as season 4, the Susan Seasons) I just can't stand the rest of the gang's response to her death. Jerry and Susan got along, as did Elaine, even if they had a disagreement in one episode (the one where Susan gets annoyed at them talking during a movie). And Kramer...well Kramer's reaction was fairly in-character actually (poor Lilly...). So I do completely buy George's reaction. But the fact that nobody pushes back against his joy is what makes that moment feel so sour to me. I really respect the writers for doubling down on George's reaction during season 8, however, using her death to hit on women and whatnot.
Last thing - the gang's selfishness, at least pre-Susan death, simply played differently compared to their selfishness in the finale. You brought up the example of Jerry and Newman not wanting to give a man CPR - in that moment, they're not taunting the man as he dies. They're not laughing at him. They're both being incredibly selfish and lacking any empathy in that moment, sure, but the joke is more about them being uncomfortable rather than being complete monsters. That is not the same as them recording a man being robbed and making fat jokes. They're both examples of bad behavior but they're not the same types of bad behavior, the way I see it. The finale could have gotten them arrested without making them so actively gleeful at a random stranger's misfortune.
Another example you mentioned is the situation with Baboo's Visa - the fact that Elaine made a mistake, and didn't go through Jerry's mail, is not an example of either of them being selfish people. It just isn't. The Visa application was delivered to Jerry by mistake, he wasn't expecting it, he had no reason to be looking out for it. Elaine was collecting his mail and gave it to Jerry late, but that isn't an example of selfishness when she also had no idea that such a serious letter would be delivered to him by mistake. In addition, despite what you said, Jerry DID show remorse for the whole situation, and even tried to fix it - he spoke to George's lawyer girlfriend in order to try and have her defend them in court (which didn't work out because she and George broke up on bad terms, which again, isn't an example of Jerry being selfish or not showing remorse). I actually really dislike Baboo's appearance in the finale for that reason - Jerry IS a selfish prick, and there were many better examples to prove that (him stealing the marble rye), but the show using an example like Baboo just muddies the whole point of the finale. The fact that Larry David was willing to condemn Jerry for such a genuinely innocent mistake shows that he wanted the gang to go to prison, and was willing to reinterpret moments from the show in order to paint them as more villainous than they really were.
But yeah, overall great video, I enjoyed it a lot, but I just had to push back on those points. I apologize for this very long comment. I do think there's a world where them going to jail would have made for a great finale, but the one we got simply isn't funny enough, runs too long, and doesn't really prove the point that Larry David was intending to make, even if there were plenty of examples of the gang being cruel, unlikeable people. In order for the finale to work, he had to exaggerate their cruelty (laughing at the man being robbed and making a show out of his suffering instead of just casually choosing to ignore him, recontextualizing classic moments of the show) which is, in my opinion, the finale's biggest flaw and why it just doesn't work.
Seinfeld is pretty much a very toned down version of Its Always Sunny. The characters, unknowingly, are awful people out for personal gain. The Seinfeld characters finally have some sort of consequence in the end... I wonder if IASIP will end the same?
The gang will end up dead before they let themselves get arrested
In the meantime, I love that the characters constantly suffer for their decision yet never learn in Always Sunny
I like their fake out series finale at the laser tag
Larry David's "no hugging, no learning" rule really put the series above all the other sitcoms that came before and after it.
This video made me appreciate Bojack Horseman on a whole new level. Thinking about it now, Bojack Horseman, as a show, slapped your hand away and flipped you off when you thought you would be going for the 'invisible handshake'. The episode with Penny was a really good example of what we would usually accept under that 4th wall barrier as "horrible thing the protag does to teach us a lesson" and then, over the coarse of the show, get extremely real about what kind of damage something that disgusting can cause.
Real life is filled with haunted memories that affect us. Bojack was one of the few shows that showed you the 'guy shoots someone in the head but it's ok because 4th wall' moment and then excruciatingly drag you through what would be a lot of real world implications of doing such a thing.
Thinking back on it now, The View from Halfway Down would not have had such a massive impact on me and my suicidal tendencies if the show was not that brutal about being real about consequences.
I honestly liked the finale! It felt like a love letter to the show, but with a final little twist that made it interesting on it's own.
I generally prefer unhappy endings, though.
I liked it too. Dont really understand where all the hate is coming from.🤔
I watched Seinfeld all in one go a few years ago and I couldn't figure out why people disliked the ending. It caps the show off perfectly. The whole "several conversations going on at once because no one is listening to each other" gag made it clear from early on that they are supposed to be self absorbed. It goes into full narcissism as the show progresses, and that's part of what gives it such charm. The idea that the show ends by showing them getting jail time for not caring about others but then sitting in a cell totally unrepentant is the most genius ending I could imagine.
Man, these pretzels are making me thirsty!
I COULD get behind the finale IF the characters in seinfeld NEVER got their comeuppance throughout the show, akin to the It's Always Sunny gang. But for every selfish action by a main character in seinfeld, there is an almost equal number of times that they've been screwed over by the universe.
I always saw the point of seinfeld that they didn't care about the world, and the world didnt care about them. They were always getting the short end of the stick and lashing out in response. To end the show with them getting a big finger-wag at the end of it all makes it seem like we've just watched them litterally float through life for 9 years when that's sorely not the case.
I remember watching that Simpsons episode as a kid. I still see the scene when Grimes absolutely loses and essentially screams "...BECAUSE I'M HOMER SIMPSON." over and over like it was just the other day. I wasn't sure if I was suppose to laugh or not at this and I definitely wasn't laughing when he died. I was too young to understand Grimes was playing a straight or what the writers were even trying to say with this, but I did think the humor came from the idea a "normal" person would go mad if they had to work with Homer everyday. Guess I was way off on that. lol
A favourite moment from the finale was Jerry’s comment to George when they are in the holding cell after being found guilty. Jerry comments on the button placement on George’s shirt. A callback to the very first joke in the first episode, great bookending from a great series.
Exactly, it was so funny.
I will give Big Bang Theory credit for somehow making my dad cry, it ended around the fallout of my sister moving out, and me being due up next. I have no idea exactly why he did this for awhile, until I realized he related to Sheldon. The thing is that through the spinoff young sheldon, we see that sheldon had lots of support throughout his early education years, while it may not be understood why they should support him, and he believes if he was supported when he was younger he couldve been like Sheldon. I don't know why you'd want to be like Sheldon Cooper, socially awkward, irritating, and unpleasant, until I eventually realized that's becausr eho my dad is. I do still live with him, dude is essentially alive through his prescriptions and oxygen machine, and is also getting a wheelchair soon. I'm fine mentally, he's had the littlest bit of charm(like Sheldon I guess) where he told me not to be regretful or to blame myself for his eventual death, as that was once what bothered me. What bothers me is having to take care of him while he doesnt take care of himself, but I have to do this if I have kids anyways so I have accepted it on top of the knowledge that once I move out I'm not legally obligated to assist him. So, I'm doing good.
and the bridge between the old formula and the postmodern was Married with Children, that wanted to stick it to the wholesomeness but still had a very big heart.
So you’re saying that Seinfeld was sort of the anti-Shawshank Redemption?
I think the main appeal of How I Met Your Mother is their clever narrative structuring. I finally ended up watching it last year, and almost every single episode plays with the mechanics of the plot in cool ways. Flashbacks, flashforwards, unreliable perspectives, parallel point of views…it really is wild how creative they get with it, and it ends up adding A LOT to the show.
The darker the comedy the better in my opinion. That being said I hated the finale but I hated because it was just a stupid clip show.
Same. In fact, most of the opinions I've heard lined up more with this than feeling the ending 'wasn't justified'. I think Macabre Storytelling just wanted to talk on the topic and needed a show to attach it to, because that ending was a total slog.
I sooo agree. They were so passive. That is what made it boring!
In how i met your mother it really seemed as though the story was leading to a tragic conclusion for Ted. In the final two seasons there are many moments that seem to foreshadow Ted ending up alone. The story was heading in a direction that showed all of the other main characters growing up and moving on with their lives, while Ted refused to, and in some ways even regressed as a character. I thought the show was building to the message that if you want to find true love, dont be like Ted. But instead Ted got everything he wanted. The ending went against everything the show was building to. It was so bad i honestly think it would have been better if his kids were revealed to be a fantasy in his head.
Yes. Good analyze
That's why I love Seinfeld. The characters represent who people really are without society's (sometimes arbitrary) moral filters. It becomes even more hilarious when they somehow fit into society seamlessly. It's cathartic. And it allows me to analyze which societal morals I choose to adhere to, and which I want to disregard. It makes it realer that other sitcoms that operate within societal morality.
I think the main reason the finale didn’t land for everyone was because 1. It was a clip show that wasn’t too funny, and 2. the crimes that they were being held accountable for were… strange.
For instance, The Contest and Elaine’s use of sponges are ridiculous to use in a way to paint their characters. I get it was used more as a highlight reel of all the show’s best moments, but a good amount of the characters used to give them their “comeuppance” were equally as bad or even worse, which is why I think audiences were blind-sighted.
The Soup Nazi was a horrible person who deserved to go out of business, so it was strange to have him come in and condemn the gang. Babu was a person who blamed all of his issues on Jerry (like his restaurant failing), but praised him whenever he benefited - he could never take accountability.
In the episode of the Pool Boy, Jerry didn’t give CPR because that guy was harassing and not respecting the boundaries Jerry set. But the show also acknowledges the mindset of Jerry when Elaine calls him a child due to that action.
I disagree when some say the show didn’t have a heart. It absolutely did between the core four and that’s why it was successful. They cared about each other at the end of the day. Many (not all) of the scenarios they got themselves into were caused in their attempts to not hurt the other party’s feelings and follow the unwritten rule of society, which would then spiral to insane levels - making the show feel relatable.
For the car jacking scene, yeah they were absolutely rude and they should’ve gotten help, but having them punished for not getting involved in a potentially dangerous scenario doesn’t entirely land (at least for me) even in a comedic POV.
I get it’s part of the cynical nature of the show, but it doesn’t really leave much for entertainment to see the people we watched and related to for years be punished. Jerry even mentioned that he pitched this finale due to listening to the critics constantly calling the characters “horrible people” when actually, while they were super selfish at times for the sake of comedy, they were just flawed people.
I think people excused the characters because "they are new yorkers" like shows have perpetuated that is ok to do whatever to survive in the "concrete jungle". I think is a similar reason why people see Pam from The Office with those rose specs, without acknowledging that she is an awful person just because "the workplace made her tuff"
I was in college when I first saw the finale, I recently watched it again when I binged on the entire series as something to watch during the lockdown... my opinion has not changed, it still stinks.
I will say I did appreciate the callback to the first episode with the shirt button.
As an aside, I absolutely hate the two gay side characters who were in the Soup Nazi and Puerto Rican Parade episodes. They appear to never experience consequences, I always wanted them to get some karma.
Sounds to me like: Larry David caught flak for the Susan's death episode, he wanted his own show (started a year or two after the finale of Seinfeld), but needed to get back in good graces with critics and fans...so he pens that shit of an ending. I LOVED that episode when Susan dies. He should've doubled down and let the Seinfeld and gang beat the case and ride off into the sunset. They're exaggerated caricatures who've gotten away with everything before (because it's not real life), why couldn't they get away with it one last time?
Yeah, I didn't like that part of the finale, it was like, "So...they're thrown into prison for...being assholes?"
@@wchan39 They went to jail for breaking the law - being bystanders of a car theft and laughing about it. I think it was pretty good and they used that as a way to bring back all the major characters throughout the 8-9 seasons which was great.
I love your explanation of the 4th wall barrier in part 1 and how we can watch morally repugnant characters and still like them because we know it’s not real. It’s weird to me when people start arguing over the morality of characters and seem to suggest that a character has to be morally righteous in order for you to like them and if you still like them despite their flaws then there must be something wrong with you
Why is it wrong for a character to "feel uncomfortable" about seeing his father as a drag queen? You say that it happened in the 90s and also imply that such a feeling would be far less common now, but... would it? Do you really think so? Obviously you can't take a survey on something like that. Many people will just say 'no' simply because they know that's what they're supposed to say. But also, the overwhelming majority of people have no clue how comfortable they would feel when seeing their father wearing a dress, wig and makeup. It's really kind of stunning that anyone would say a character/person is automatically, unequivocally wrong to feel uncomfortable in a moment like that, and this may be part of the reason why most people just don't relate to "modern" characters. We're not robots operating on the binary code being fed to us in "modern" television and movies... so you may want to consider nuance every once in a while.
You okay bro?
Dude... you make multi-hour videos talking about stuff like this. Is that OK, bro? You brought up the very thing I was commenting on. And this is your response to someone engaging with your own points in your video? I wasn't even being rude or negative toward you or your opinion... FFS.
If you were a Seinfeld character, you'd be the bubble boy. How's that for topical? 😏
As a small sidenote, I also really never saw the appeal of How I Met Your Mother either. Although I also distinctly remember telling my ex, that if they didn't deliver on the conclusion to the series like the set-up promised, the fans were going to saw their balls off.
Your interpretation of Breaking Bads finale is a lot sweeter than most lol. Walter didn’t redeem himself at all. He threatened Gretchen and Elliot and got his motivation in Granite State because his ego was hurt (selfish reason). He also did want Jessie to die. He bought himself time bringing him out but changed his mind once he saw his battered shape. All he did was get revenge and take out the Blue meth because that’s his legacy, not anybody else’s. He did one or two good acts but not because he wanted to redeem himself but because it was for him. The ending shows that Walt’s action left him dead and alone in a Meth lab. Content because that’s the selfish person he was and his reasons were not noble in the slightest.
I think it's simpler than that. The thing is that after years of someone making you laugh you grow to care about a person, even if it's fictional. And it was years not seasons back then. So you don't want them to go to jail over an idiotic law.
Well that is the whole thing. The way the audience bonds with the characters can be completely different and out of the control of the cretor.
@@MacabreStorytelling Yeah, but we weren't condition to it by years of watching sitcoms. It was a honest, natural emotional attachment that grew over time. Seinfeld could of been the first sitcom in the history of the time and people would still hated that the characters they love got hurt so badly at the end.
@@dnightwalker Eh I don't know if I agree with that. I think especially given their reaction to the finale, them wanting to see certain things happen, was definitely driven by conditioning to some extent by other sitcoms. Perhaps not entirely but definitely added to it.
@@MacabreStorytelling The reaction can be explained as them not wanting the gang to go to jail and when trying to come up with alternatives their brains went to what was familiar. Do another ending where the punishment is not that severe but they still get punished and I bet that the audience would have left happy. Or at the very least not hated it.
@@dnightwalker Oh no I mean specifically due to things such as the characters not having a "touching" final moment or Jerry and Elaine getting together. These in particular seemed to indicate the way OTHER sitcoms ended played a part.
Fantastic work here! I'm so glad the almighty algorithm decided to bless me with a recommendation for your channel. I totally agree with your assessment. Everything I know about Larry David leads me to the same conclusion.
As for Sunny, I felt they ratcheted up the characters unlikability to ridiculous level after season 2 explicitly for this very reason. So that even the biggest idiot knows that THE GANG are the butt of the joke.
In part 2, you should've mentioned Greg Heffley/Diary of a Wimpy Kid
For me those books get better when you get older and see it for the series of satirical and mean spirited books they are.
“His character is wrong because he’s weirded out at his dad being a drag queen”. Noooooo, he is not *wrong* because of this.
That’s doesn’t make him wrong. He’s confronted with a complete challenge to the role of the person that is an absolute pillar to his life. That’s not something anyone is just able to accept. Much like there might be good reasons for a couple to get a divorce but the divorce will still be devastating to the kids because it pulls the rug from under the ‘safe base’ of their life
My mum and I always loved the final episode. It just makes sense for that show to end that way
Holy cow dude, you literally spelled out something I never could explain to anyone! I NEVER liked sitcoms. Any of them. The Office was particularly painful, but many light hearted comedies just dont vibe with me.
Then you said it "people have a handshake with the writers, agreeing that this isn't real and therefore theres a leeway to not analyse it as realistic"
I guess I never got that handshake, these characters INFURIATED me Everytime I tried watching them, bc my first thought is "welp that looks like something I definitely would never want to engage with"
8:00 Chandler's estranged relationship with his dad wasn't about him being a drag queen, it's that he blamed him for the broken home he grew up in after his dad left his mom to be with his swim coach.
It's why he broke it off with Janice. He didn't want HER kids thinking he was a homewrecker because he knew that feeling.
I thought Chandler didn’t wanna be with Janice because he didn’t like her and thought she was annoying
@@scifinerd17 One time they had a cute relationship, it was right after she discovered her husband cheated on her (I am not sure if that was the reason though). But after Joey discovered both of them kissing and Chandler find out, he told Janice to give her marriage a try because of her kid.
@@ulisesarmenta8155 Janice divorced her husband and wanted Chandler back though and Chandler rejected her because he thought she was more annoying than ever
@@scifinerd17 OK, I remember that episode, at THAT time, she indeed went back to be annoying, and he lied to her about going to Yemen, but several episodes before that, he fell in love with her, seeing a side of her he hasnt see before, and her irritating qualities were either absent or down played.
@@ulisesarmenta8155 Or rather he just ignored them
I was a teen when I saw the finale. I loved it immediately, I knew what they were going for. How genius that it ends with them facing the consequences of being bad people, something that was never even touched on before the show, despite it being the entire subtext
It's funny you mentioned it's always sunny in philly when talking of worthless terrible humans.
That's actually the whole point. It weaponizes the status quo. A great video essay by quinton reviews called weaponizing the status quo is a great watch
Thanks for the video!
For me, the problem with the finale wasn't the ending, it was that the whole episode was just a huge fan service fiasco filled with forced refrences, you don't have to bring EVERYTHING back for the ending. a good example of how to do a finale of an anti-sitcom is the show peep show, the finale of peep show doesn't have forced refrences to past episodes and has barely any cameos of characters, it simply closes the season arc and leaves us with the status quo
Why does the finale blow? Because clip shows blow. They blow mightily. They blow long, they blow hard. If the finale had no other sins, it would still remain, not entirely, but, largely enough to blow, a clip show, with a majority of the comedy in second hand form, either in clips or oddly mannequin like call backs that for me are only a notch above catch phrase comedy.
Also, good video.
Tbh I think the biggest reason people hate it isn't some deep psychological connection with the characters, it's probably because the show ended with a clip show
Well ironically that is what was so brilliant about it. It took the cliché of the clip show finale and instead of having it be an instance of making you remember all the good times, it was meant to make you reflect on how awful these people truly were.
They didnt like it because it was over. You said it yourself but started ignoring it
That's not the main reason people didn't enjoy it tho... that's why he ignored it
The finale was perfection. I can see David sweating blood in every scene. Plus we get to see Jerry stealing bread of the old bag again!
I think it was a perfect finale. Not only brought back a bunch of characters but also is fitting given that the characters are literal psychopaths lmao
I wouldn't say the finale was my favorite, or even that I liked it much, but I do respect it. It took some balls on Larry David's part to end a beloved sitcom with the beloved characters in jail. They didn't get sentimental for a second.
Great video as always, lots of good points but I can't help but feel the answer can be a bit more simple: you grow attached to these characters because of the laughs they give you, you can understand they are not good people but a story, especially comedy stories, can be good without the "bad" people getting their comeuppance and while the ending was very tone compliant, I don't think there is anything wrong with being disappointed in not having just a really good final episodes with lots of jokes and good times. I think the ending fine and even pretty good but it wouldn't be anywhere close to my favorite episode and doesn't have many jokes that I found terribly funny, so you could argue that episode that just focused on just being a great episode rather then a finale for the show could have been better, but thats just a thought.
Yeah the psychology of how we as people grow attached to these characters could be a video in and of itself. When you think about it, we don’t just spend say the length of the actual show with them, but if we are watching the show as it airs, we basically sit with these characters and remain invested in them for up to a decade.
I felt the finale kinda made sense. As much as people find flaw in it, I wanna think it did make sense. Usually in TV and movies, it’s natural for people to face consequences for their actions. All the things the Seinfeld quad had done to offend or cause harm to others, were never turned back on them for a lesson in how to be less selfish people so these people finally having to face all these people who had a laundry list of grievances about them and finally put them in a position where they have no choice but to face their past behavior
Why did people hated the finale?
Simple:
1)You might sing its praises of how thematically fitting it is, but in the end it's just not funny
2)The execution was awful, it just felt like a really cheap recap episode.
3)The whole trial thing felt really unfair. If writers wanted the characters to pay for their sins, they should be on trial for something more than just filming and laughing at a guy getting mugged.
If I was in charge of doing the finale, I would do a normal Seinfeld episode ending it with Jerry and George going to the same laundry place they started in the pilot. Cursing the characters to be forever trapped in this infinite loop of pettiness, just like they are in syndication.
Kinda seems like this message proves the point of the finale...
@@MacabreStorytelling Not really.
Lil bit
Yeah, the reason for the trial was pretty milk toast, just a reason to bring all the characters that had something to do with the Seinfeld gang, and some of them didn't even suffer, or I would say they treated the Seinfeld gang badly, I guess being an asshole was in all the side character's nature in this show too!
I haven’t watched Seinfeld but a recap episode is not a good series finale. They’re lazy and not recieved well by critics or audiences. Also the characters going to jail severely breaks immersion
5:30 Tell that to my best friend, who judges fictional characters to the same standards as real people.
No time to watch the full video but I can already tell right now based on the title screen about most of our favorite sitcom characters being narcissists if not sociopath that you're getting to the point that people just simply failed to see the vileness of these characters...
Exactly!
Worse yet, I think people got off on vicariously identifying with their selfish, narcissistic behavior...
Whereas The Sopranos seduced us into identifying with its characters, then rubbed the moral culpability we thus took on in our faces in later Seasons...
...people just didn't have that realization with Seinfeld.
It was a tremendously clever and witty show but these characters became more and more abhorrent as it progressed.
(Similar but less extreme trajectory on Will and Grace.)
If fans didn't understand the finale, which I do think was tonally rather different--but so what--it's pretty much their own fault for thinking that being narcissistic assholes is just, like, great fun and games...🤦🏼♀️
Your central point in this video makes me think of Vladimir Nabokov’s critique that ‘good readers’ (yes, he actually uses this term) do _not_ try to personify themselves with the characters in a book.
If they renamed the series "My name is Id" things would be just fine.
I gotta say that vicarious wish fulfillment stuff can really enhance a movie even if you have little to nothing in common with the character or their actions. I cant clap in sync with a metronome nor do i have any desire to perform to an audience but Whiplash was still one hell of a ride from just a pure "giving it your all" kind of angle
I LIKED THE FINALE...
I love Seinfeld. And I love the ending. Precisely for the reasons you stated.
I will say, Season 7 ending was The Invitation. Season 9 was the Finale. Season 8 had The Summer of George, in which George lost his job. So, George lost his fiance, his job and eventually his freedom all over the course of...2 years? Not entirely sure how time works in Sitcoms.
Seinfeld drugging his gf to play with a toy collection happened towards the end of the series when the writing wasn't as strong. I really don't think that was truly representative of his character. Elaine putting the soup Nazi out of business for piety reasons, that's a little bit of a stretch as her being a complete narcissist, you are really under playing the conflict. I would call Georges actions more cowardly, perhaps there can be an argument made that cowardliness is a symptom of narcissism. He passionately defended his actions, all the while knowing he was in the wrong. He acknowledges it second after. Kramer didn't quite abandon the dog, he left it on the doorstep of someones house, hoping they would take it in. And he was doing it to help Elaine sleep, which is a non-selfish reasons. I really don't think you have a grasp on these characters.
"Seinfeld drugging his gf to play with a toy collection happened towards the end of the series when the writing wasn't as strong. I really don't think that was truly representative of his character."
Not really sure how to respond to this. You don't seem to feel as though Jerry doing so is representative of his character... except he did it. Idk what the writing not being as strong has to do with anything as it is still something his character does in the show and is thus indicative of his character. You cannot pick and choose what a character does in the show to suit how you perceive that character; you must define them based on everything they do. In any case, this was not the only selfish act Jerry has done throughout the series.
"Elaine putting the soup Nazi out of business for piety reasons, that's a little bit of a stretch as her being a complete narcissist, you are really under playing the conflict."
In any sense of the word, I don't see how Elaine responding to being banned from his shop by destroying the man's entire livelihood is not indicative of her being incredibly narcissistic/conceded/egotistical/selfish. Do you feel as though her reaction to the situation was warranted?
"I would call Georges actions more cowardly, perhaps there can be an argument made that cowardliness is a symptom of narcissism. He passionately defended his actions, all the while knowing he was in the wrong. He acknowledges it second after."
Would you consider George being extremely rude to the family whom allowed him to watch Breakfast at Tiffany's with them, faking being handicapped to reap the benefits, and showing little remorse for the death of his fiancé who he only got back together with due to a "pact" and then immediately regretted it just him being cowardly or rather him not really taking into account the feelings of others?
"Kramer didn't quite abandon the dog, he left it on the doorstep of someone's house, hoping they would take it in. And he was doing it to help Elaine sleep, which is a non-selfish reasons."
Let me reframe this: "My friend is having trouble sleeping due to a barking dog. I will aid in kidnapping that dog, regardless of the heartbreak it may cause the owner, and hopefully these people whose doorstep I leave it on take good care of it... instead of taking it to the pound."
"I really don't think you have a grasp on these characters."
Not only do I find your retorts pretty off base in general, I actually find that you demonstrate exactly what I discuss in the video; you trying to explain away these character's actions and defend them to some extent perhaps due to your perception of them.
In any case, whether or not you feel as though the characters are as "bad" as I framed them in the video, I think you seem to, ironically, not be able to see how they are perceived by people who do not have as much insight into the actual circumstances of their actions as we do. Sure there are many cases where the characters may not have MEANT to do certain things that led to bad outcomes... but as I state in the video, this is indicative of them not really considering how their actions affect those around them and the consequences their actions may bring.
Maybe give the vid another watch 👍
@@MacabreStorytelling
In regards to Jerry's character you said : “You cannot pick and choose what a character does in the show to suit how you perceive that character; you must define them based on everything they do.” The irony here is hilarious. What you said I cannot do is precisely what you are doing! Lol. You picked a terrible episode of the show, when the writing was going down hill, and applied it to Jerry's character as if it was how he behaved through the whole series. The writing not being as strong as it used to be is relevant to this. I'm surprised that someone like you would not see that as obvious. Bad writing doesn't respect the established characters, and just writes things that they think are funny. Why in the hell would George want to go play with toys with Jerry at his gf's house. The episode is terrible. It turns the characters into idiots.
“In any sense of the word, I don't see how Elaine responding to being banned from his shop by destroying the man's entire livelihood is not indicative of her being incredibly narcissistic/conceded/egotistical/selfish.”
First off, in any sense of what word? That is not clear. Please explain what word you are referring. Elaine was unjustly banned from his shop and gave away his recipes. You act like she burned down his shop or something lol. I guess revenge is always narcissistic/conceded/egotistical/selfish in your eyes. That is an interesting thing to consider. I definitely wouldn't say it flippantly as if it was a given. But yes, it is an interesting idea, which brings up a lot of questions about stoicism.
Soooo, you retorted my response to George by bringing up an example that you didn't bring up in the video. Maybe you should have brought up the Breakfast at Tiffany's example, because it has a better case for narcissism than this running from a fire example. George is a coward, he's pathetic, and yes, I agree he is a narcissist, in that neurotic Woody Allen kind of way. Just saying the example that was brought up in the video was pretty weak.
"My friend is having trouble sleeping due to a barking dog. I will aid in kidnapping that dog, regardless of the heartbreak it may cause the owner, and hopefully these people whose doorstep I leave it on take good care of it... instead of taking it to the pound." Yes, this sounds like something a stupid person would do, not a narcissist. Since when does bringing a dog to a random strangers house rather than a pound indicate narcissism? I think you are way off on Kramer.
“I actually find that you demonstrate exactly what I discuss in the video; you trying to explain away these character's actions and defend them to some extent perhaps due to your perception of them.” lolol. Dude, we are all explaining these character's actions based on our perceptions of them. If you think you're any different, you are being naive.
“I think you seem to, ironically, not be able to see how they are perceived by people who do not have as much insight into the actual circumstances of their actions as we do.” So, that point of your video is not about how the characters actual were, its just about how people unfamiliar with the show perceived them? I guess I missed that part.
"The irony here is hilarious. What you said I cannot do is precisely what you are doing! Lol. You picked a terrible episode of the show, when the writing was going down hill, and applied it to Jerry's character as if it was how he behaved through the whole series. The writing not being as strong as it used to be is relevant to this. I'm surprised that someone like you would not see that as obvious. Bad writing doesn't respect the established characters, and just writes things that they think are funny. Why in the hell would George want to go play with toys with Jerry at his gf's house. The episode is terrible. It turns the characters into idiots."
Again, it seems as though you are simply upset as you do not like how the episode handled the characters because it conflicts with how you perceived them. I'd argue the episode itself is simply an extrapolation of who the characters already proved themselves to be. Does Jerry drugging his gf in this episode to play with her toys strike you as all that much of a stretch from Jerry not wanting to give an unconscious man mouth to mouth, while fully knowing he may have died?
The show continually pushed the envelope in showing who these characters were and the depth of their selfishness, among the other countless times Jerry was shown to be a selfish, self-absorbed individual. Again, it seems odd how you just want to forget about this one episode because it seems to conflict with your perception of Jerry.
Many people said the exact same thing about George being so flippant about Susan's death. At first it seems jarring, but upon thinking back it really isn't all that surprising given his other behavior over the course of the series.
"Elaine was unjustly banned from his shop and gave away his recipes. You act like she burned down his shop or something lol. I guess revenge is always narcissistic/conceded/egotistical/selfish in your eyes. That is an interesting thing to consider. I definitely wouldn't say it flippantly as if it was a given. But yes, it is an interesting idea, which brings up a lot of questions about stoicism."
She was banned from his shop for a year and in response she gives away his recipes, his life's work, which leads to him closing down his shop in disgrace. I can't see how you can possibly be arguing in good faith if you cannot see the massive false equivalency here.
"Soooo, you retorted my response to George by bringing up an example that you didn't bring up in the video. Maybe you should have brought up the Breakfast at Tiffany's example, because it has a better case for narcissism than this running from a fire example. George is a coward, he's pathetic, and yes, I agree he is a narcissist, in that neurotic Woody Allen kind of way. Just saying the example that was brought up in the video was pretty weak."
So are you backtracking on your original statement? I make it pretty clear in the video that I am discussing the characters as a whole and all their actions throughout the show, simply using certain ones to demonstrate, yet I did extensively discuss George's uncaring attitude towards Susan's death. Perhaps I could have used that one, but you seem to be backing off from your original point of me "not really having a firm grasp on the characters" considering you just admitted in this comment that you are now agreeing that he is a narcissist.
"Yes, this sounds like something a stupid person would do, not a narcissist. Since when does bringing a dog to a random strangers house rather than a pound indicate narcissism? I think you are way off on Kramer."
You can think that all you want but, again, it seems you are clearly seeing these characters through rose colored glasses. You can say Kramer is just "stupid" but, once again, what would you call doing actions regardless of the consequences and pain they may result in for others?
"Dude, we are all explaining these character's actions based on our perceptions of them. If you think you're any different, you are being naïve."
I am taking their actions and behaviors and deriving conclusions based on said actions and behaviors. In the Jerry example you seemed to just negate something Jerry does because it conflicts with your perception. You seem to be I'd say quite off when it comes to Elaine and the Soup Nazi thinking that her response was measured in response to his actions. You now seem to be backing off your original claim of me saying I don't have a grasp on George as you also consider him a narcissist.
Again, the difference is I'd say it is quite clear you are unable to let go of your own ego to see how these characters actually come off and instead, due to your rose-colored glasses perception of them, try to frame them in the most gracious light possible, going so far as to simply ignoring an entire action of Jerry's because it conflicts with who you perceived him to be.
"So, that point of your video is not about how the characters actual were, its just about how people unfamiliar with the show perceived them? I guess I missed that part."
When I say "we" I am talking about the viewer as opposed to the other characters in the show. One of the most common complaints of the finale was that viewers felt as though it was unfair for the characters' actions to be put in the most ungracious light possible since the characters didn't have as much context to the situations as we the viewer did... which is ignoring the fact that as individuals they are perceived by others based on their actions, not necessarily what their intentions were... even though there are numerous cases of the character's actions just being driven by straight up narcissism.
@@MacabreStorytelling Let me assure you I am not upset. I just think what you are doing is lazy. It’s like when people say the show is about nothing. These four characters are not four full blown psychopaths. You argue that Jerry’s behaviour in the toy episode is an extrapolation of what his character already was. I disagree. I think the final two seasons, the show went down hill without Larry David. George changed from a neurotic character to one with rage issues. I think Jerry changed too, not to the same degree. At this point, I really can’t see us coming to an agreement on this. You have seemed to dug your heels in pretty deep that the characters didn’t change. When Jerry didn’t want to give the guy mouth to mouth, the joke behind it was both about Jerry being a germophobe and male insecurity about being perceived as gay for putting your mouth on another mans mouth to save their life. But yes, you are making progress, in this conversation, you are giving better examples than you did in the video, so good on you.
“Again, it seems odd how you just want to forget about this one episode because it seems to conflict with your perception of Jerry.” Nah, I haven’t seen the last two seasons in a while, but I’m sure there are plenty of examples where the character aren’t behaving like they used to. Jason Alexander even talked about that in regards to his own character George in interviews. But hey, leave it to you to exaggerate something to make a point.
“The show continually pushed the envelope in showing who these characters were and the depth of their selfishness”. Without anything to back it up its meaningless statement. But I guess “pushing the envelope” is a nice phrase though.
“She was banned from his shop for a year and in response she gives away his recipes, his life's work, which leads to him closing down his shop in disgrace. I can't see how you can possibly be arguing in good faith if you cannot see the massive false equivalency here.” This would mean that if her revenge was as measured as being banned from a store for a year for saying you didn’t like lima bean soup then if wouldn’t narcissist. I think this example of the Soup Nazi brings up some interesting questions about revenge, and if or when it’s justified. Still wouldn’t call it a slam dunk case about narcissism. If you are accusing me of arguing in bad faith; just because I said it wasn’t like Elaine burned down his shop, does not mean I am suggesting the two actual actions were equivalent, I am merely saying it wasn’t some extreme narcissist reaction. If you think I am arguing in bad faith, then you think I am basically a troll. And if you think I am trolling you, you shouldn’t be responding to me. I think you are saying I am arguing in bad faith because you don’t want to refute what I’m saying.
“So are you backtracking on your original statement?” Pretty sure that I said Georges actions with the fire were cowardly. I’m not sure what I backtracked on. Did I give the impression that George was not narcissist in other situations? Must of been a typo, because before this conversation, my attitude towards George was he was the most narcissist of the characters. But yeah, the fire example was a bad example of George’s narcissism. You might as well have used the time George was concerned the security guard had to stand all day so he got him a chair as an example of narcissism.
“but you seem to be backing off from your original point of me "not really having a firm grasp on the characters" considering you just admitted in this comment that you are now agreeing that he is a narcissist.” Again, I never disputed George was a narcissist, I simple disputed the fire example was not an example of narcissism outright. I said it was cowardly, and then wondered if cowardly behaviour is rooted in narcissism. I never backed off any original point. You really didn’t read what I said.
"You can think that all you want but, again, it seems you are clearly seeing these characters through rose colored glasses. You can say Kramer is just "stupid" but, once again, what would you call doing actions regardless of the consequences and pain they may result in for others?”
Ummm, stupid. (Based on the fact that he had nothing to gain in this situation, his actions were not motivated by narcissism but stupidity).
“I am taking their actions and behaviors and deriving conclusions based on said actions and behaviors.” Again, I will use your own quote against you.
We are all explaining these character's actions based on our perceptions of them. If you think you're any different, you are being naïve. I like how when I do it, it's wrong. But when you do, you have some sort of perfect system that is infallible.
“You now seem to be backing off your original claim of me saying I don't have a grasp on George as you also consider him a narcissist.” How many times are you going to bring this up? You did not understand anything I said about George, and have now brought up this misunderstanding three times like its some sort of victory. I did not back down from any claim about George. And in the future, if you have a point, just saying it once. Its annoying to have to refute it three times.
“Again, the difference is I'd say it is quite clear you are unable to let go of your own ego to see how these characters actually come off and instead,”
Hahaha, holy moly, I’m not able to let go of my own ego to see how the characters come off? Okay, that is a hilarious proposition. As if my ego is intertwined with four fictional characters on a tv show from the 90s. And dude, who’s really arguing in bad faith here. My “rose-colored glasses perception of (the characters)”. Lolol. I find when someone is loosing an argument, they often claim the other side is arguing something they really aren’t so they can easily dispute it. In this case, you are claiming I have rose-coloured glasses for these characters. Haha. Oh Lord. Just because you make of stuff about me, doesn’t mean I have to conform to your fabrications.
“When I say "we" I am talking about the viewer as opposed to the other characters in the show. One of the most common complaints of the finale was that viewers felt as though it was unfair for the characters' actions to be put in the most ungracious light possible since the characters didn't have as much context to the situations as we the viewer did... which is ignoring the fact that as individuals they are perceived by others based on their actions, not necessarily what their intentions were... even though there are numerous cases of the character's actions just being driven by straight up narcissism.”
This whole part of the conversation has become convoluted, like it's strayed away from anything I thought we were talking about. But yes, intentions matter. Some behaviour can be perceived as narcissist, when in fact the actor had non-narcissist intent. That intent matters.
"When Jerry didn’t want to give the guy mouth to mouth, the joke behind it was both about Jerry being a germophobe and male insecurity about being perceived as gay for putting your mouth on another mans mouth to save their life. But yes, you are making progress, in this conversation, you are giving better examples than you did in the video, so good on you."
Both of which he put over the life of another human being. Again, it seems as though you may have realized your original point wasn't well thought out and are now backtracking, stating it is about the examples I used as opposed to me not grasping the characters.
"Nah, I haven’t seen the last two seasons in a while, but I’m sure there are plenty of examples where the character aren’t behaving like they used to. Jason Alexander even talked about that in regards to his own character George in interviews. But hey, leave it to you to exaggerate something to make a point."
Unfortunately now it seems as though you have completely realized your original argument was off base but instead of just admitting it you double down and pivot.
"Without anything to back it up its meaningless statement. But I guess “pushing the envelope” is a nice phrase though."
And again. Again, it seems as though you were married to a certain perception of each character and then when the show began pushing the envelope you chalk it up to it just not being the same. I give a number of examples of this in the episode, including Jerry and the mouth to mouth and the gang after Susan's death. If you'd actually like to approach this without letting your ego get in the way I'm open to it but that doesn't seem likely.
"This would mean that if her revenge was as measured as being banned from a store for a year for saying you didn’t like lima bean soup then if wouldn’t narcissist. I think this example of the Soup Nazi brings up some interesting questions about revenge, and if or when it’s justified. Still wouldn’t call it a slam dunk case about narcissism. If you are accusing me of arguing in bad faith; just because I said it wasn’t like Elaine burned down his shop, does not mean I am suggesting the two actual actions were equivalent, I am merely saying it wasn’t some extreme narcissist reaction. If you think I am arguing in bad faith, then you think I am basically a troll. And if you think I am trolling you, you shouldn’t be responding to me. I think you are saying I am arguing in bad faith because you don’t want to refute what I’m saying."
I don't think you are a troll just letting your ego prevent you from backing down from your original point that you seem to realize wasn't well thought out. I don't see how Elaine burning down his shop to you is leagues away from publishing his recipes which in turn cost him his entire livelihood. It seems you may have a limited understanding of how narcissism presents itself.
"Pretty sure that I said Georges actions with the fire were cowardly. I’m not sure what I backtracked on. Did I give the impression that George was not narcissist in other situations? Must of been a typo, because before this conversation, my attitude towards George was he was the most narcissist of the characters. But yeah, the fire example was a bad example of George’s narcissism. You might as well have used the time George was concerned the security guard had to stand all day so he got him a chair as an example of narcissism.
Again, I never disputed George was a narcissist, I simple disputed the fire example was not an example of narcissism outright. I said it was cowardly, and then wondered if cowardly behavior is rooted in narcissism. I never backed off any original point. You really didn’t read what I said."
If your original argument was that it wasn't the best example, that would have been fine. But you finished your comment with a claim that I did not have a grasp on the characters. Perhaps this was an inarticulation on your part but I am not sure how else that was supposed to be taken. Again, it seems as though your ego won't let you rescind your original point which leads you to making poor arguments.
"Ummm, stupid. (Based on the fact that he had nothing to gain in this situation, his actions were not motivated by narcissism but stupidity)."
Once again, I think this is demonstrative of you not really understanding narcissism and how it can present itself.
"Again, I will use your own quote against you. We are all explaining these character's actions based on our perceptions of them. If you think you're any different, you are being naïve. I like how when I do it, it's wrong. But when you do, you have some sort of perfect system that is infallible."
Again, it seems like you are letting your ego prevent you from making more substantial arguments. Once can have that perception but in your case when one disregards certain actions by the characters because it doesn't fit with their narrative, this seems clear your are floundering to support your original ill-conceived point.
"How many times are you going to bring this up? You did not understand anything I said about George, and have now brought up this misunderstanding three times like its some sort of victory. I did not back down from any claim about George. And in the future, if you have a point, just saying it once. Its annoying to have to refute it three times."
Easy son, no need to get upset. Your original point was that I did not have a grasp on the characters and yet you rescinded later that my classification of him as a narcissist was correct. You may have been inarticulate in your original post which is fine but your reticence to rescind it seems ego based.
"Hahaha, holy moly, I’m not able to let go of my own ego to see how the characters come off? Okay, that is a hilarious proposition. As if my ego is intertwined with four fictional characters on a tv show from the 90s. And dude, who’s really arguing in bad faith here. My “rose-colored glasses perception of (the characters)”. Lolol. I find when someone is loosing an argument, they often claim the other side is arguing something they really aren’t so they can easily dispute it. In this case, you are claiming I have rose-coloured glasses for these characters. Haha. Oh Lord. Just because you make of stuff about me, doesn’t mean I have to conform to your fabrications."
Again, easy man. I think the fact your are getting upset is indicative of your ego getting the better of you. In this discussion you made a claim I didn't have a grasp on the characters and then backpedaled saying I didn't use better examples to try and cover up your ill conceived original comment. And yes, the fact that your seem to want to ignore Jerry's actions or say try to justify Elaine's completely unmeasured response to the Soup Nazi banning her from shop seems you are arguing more with your ego/emotions than your intellect.
"This whole part of the conversation has become convoluted, like it's strayed away from anything I thought we were talking about. But yes, intentions matter. Some behaviour can be perceived as narcissist, when in fact the actor had non-narcissist intent. That intent matters."
I'm not surprised by that. Again, it is difficult to discuss this when you don't seem to understand narcissism and how it presents itself.
Brilliantly crafted and executed. I just finished the series for the first time, and while I kinda knew what was coming I still felt let down. I was also simultaneously very interested into why that was, and your video was a perfect summation of so many excellent observations and put it all in perspective. Great work!!
I thought the finale was perfect. I cannot see how it could've ended any other way really. Plus, and this is the important point, it was hysterically funny.
It didnt use the seinfeld formula. Where all four characters have there own interesting storylines. Sometimes the storylines converge at the end.
This was just them in court. Nothing clever.
People wanted a hyper Seinfeld episode, which didnt happen.
@@DYKWINNING A fair and valid point. I expect, being the last day, Larry David and the writing team just wanted to slack off a bit.
But to address some of the things you bring up, the big problem I had with it was that they were being sent to jail for things that, even though they're awful, shouldn't get you sent to jail.
Yeah, they were making fun of the guy getting robbed but what were they supposed to do, he had a gun. They never should have been arrested in the first place, even with that Good Samaritan Bill.
Pretty good video Linkara, but when is the next History of Power Rangers video?
HAHA BRO HOLY SHIT
These reaction shots from much darker shows/movies reacting to the 90s Sitcoms is pure comedy. Absolute gold!
That or... it was a clip show that was preluded with two clip show episodes.
The Juiciest Lemon that was exactly the problem!
I wonder if people just didn’t like the finale because they didn’t like the fact that the show ended 🤷🏻♀️
16:42
* GAAASP *
IT’S THAT NEIGHBOUR UNDER MONICA’S APARTMENT FROM _FRIENDS !!!!!_
So many feelings. Just well done. I loved the ending- because they are totally jerks. I’m interested in how some people didn’t think they were that bad. Like... telling, right? I’m self aware enough to realize I identify with jerry the most, for his self centeredness and snobbery, but he’s my least favorite character because of that....I watch the show and I am like, I have to change my behavior- I never thought they were in the right. To be fair, I watched this as an adult and after seeing shows like Always Sunny, so I can’t imagine how blindsided people who genuinely thought the characters weren’t that bad felt.
As finals to long-running shows go, Seinfeld is probably the greatest combination of everything the show had established.
This is exactly why I always lived Seinfeld and hated Friends. Seinfeld knows it’s gross, friends thinks it’s good, when really it’s gross.
I'm beginning to think that television is rotting people's brains. It could be the longer time spend with television characters over movie characters, both in screen time and the years over which TV shows run, which contributes to these weird vicarious connections. Maybe I'm out of the loop with fan culture, but television fans seem particularly obsessed compared to other mediums - except for that Avatar depression shit. They have this genuine anger if things don't go the way they desired - which I can sympathize with - but take it way too far.
If media disappoints you just ignore it, you don't have to write about how terrible it was, just let go and find something you actively enjoy experiencing. I quite like Just Cause 2, and recently played one of its sequels which disappointed me so I just found something else to do. Perhaps I just don't care enough so letting go is easy.
It could be the case you afford to ignore some media, because of the abundance of content we have these days, in the 90s there was TV and what the TV overlords wanted you to see, not many options like now, but I agree if you don't like something change it, if there's nothing to change to, turn it off!
A really great analysis, you captured the nuances of many of these shows, this deserves way more attention
I loved the finale. Just getting to see all the characters over the years was enough.
They only hated the ending because of the way it went made them saddeningly devastated.
You jumped the shark with the Friends analyses the characters aren't wrong,they have sane reactions that were perfectly acceptable up till then,the proof is in the pudding,no one was upset at it back then,it's only now that people pretend that it always was wrong,what you're trying to push for is anachronistic outrage,talk about being politically biased.
Bor you okay? lol
'Grimey as he likes to be called' had me rolling!!
The Grimes episode is one of my favourite Simpsons episodes of all time. I wonder if there was a different perception of this, and similar types of episodes outside of America. I think it is common to hold caricatures of people from other countries, which informs on how people respond to portrayals of characters and their comeuppance.
Outside of America there are certain stereotypes of Americans, with all tending to be negative, but will always include lazy and stupid, and will often include other traits such as callousness.
It is easy to bring to mind examples of these (probably because negative things are more memorable), e.g. being the place creationists come from, being where you can be bankrupted because you became ill. But I think most of it is a catharsis to deal with the frustration of the influence and overwhelming power of USA, such that our countries are in thrall to an extent to the country, or at least trend lightly when it comes to them, despite outside the military not really doing anything better than anyone else.
Great video. The "Homer's Enemy" early audience reception comparison was unexpected but glad it was there. Also Susan's death is classic "Poor Lilly"
One note, the guy that laughed at Chappelle was a cameraman on the show, not an audience member.
It did feel like they trolled us.
Man, I love the 90 shows, just some blunt fun, and everyone took it for what it was, some jokes.. And no one needed a safe space afterwards, or had the urge to complain on the non existing social media.
People excuse the behaviors of more flawed people. IE the expectations of Charlie Sheen aren't near those of Mr Rodgers. People are also more forgiving of people they consider to be their friends. There was a relationship with those characters so people are more excusing of them instead of what's on the objective paper.
Which I speaks to something with the ending as to why you befriended such horrendous individuals. With other characters, you can see their more redemptive sides, but not with the Seinfeld gang.
my headcanon was that they all died in aircrash and the trial is about heavens judging their souls. They loose and are dammed to eternity in hell ("Hell is to spent eternity with your best friends" Sarte)
That’s actually be pretty sweet lol