Talk:Seinfeld/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Contents

DVD Release Gossip

I removed the "gossip"/hearsay from the end of the DVD Release section.

Critics

I understand that Seinfeld's critical reputation decreased slightly in it's last two seasons; I also understand that most readers consider critics' opinions to have at least some value in an encyclopedia article. Personally, I take critical analysis (especially older, more dated critical analysis from 8 years or so ago) less seriously and sometimes I think television critics in particular manufacture strong opinions that date quickly or else have little significance for serious (or even casual) fans of the show. That's my subjective opinion. However, more importantly, I don't feel the show's reputation or it's popularity, quality, and influence among fans decreased significantly in its final seasons, despite some relatively weaker reviews. It's still a beloved show with numerous standout episodes in its final seasons. For these reasons, I have made the ending of the Critical Assessment section a bit stronger, since the original version sort of implied that the show flamed out, which I really don't think is at all true, either in terms of ratings, critical analysis, or comedic quality. I think a majority of Seinfeld fans would probably agree (at least, I have never heard any particularly notable hostility towards the later seasons, and the show did not dramtically change its approach). I think sometimes in an effort to be subjective, people turn to critics, which isn't always a bad thing, but can lead to an overreliance on "professional opinions" that have minimal, or at least transient, value for people with an interest in and appreciation for the show.

The Contest

I removed this hilariously incongruous and unilluminating inclusion from "the Contest" description: "Although some fans love this episode, many find it to be irritating and one dimensional in comparison with other episodes." I feel this is a totally reasonable deletion. (it's like saying "although people consider the Beatles to be one of the greatest groups of all time, many find them to be not very good").

Salary Request

As someone who's only recently discovered the glory of Seinfeld I remember hearing somewhere/getting the impression that there was some amount of a falling out between Jerry and the 3 other primary cast members over wages - an issue which came up when dealing with the DVD releases as the cast (particularly the chap who plays George) kicked up a fuss about payment and this delayed the DVD release of the show for some time. I came to this wikipedia article in the hope that there would be a section on the topic so that I could learn more, alas there isn't but i'd like to request one from someone who knows more about it please. MagicBez 20:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Tense

This article uses the past and present tenses interchangably; it would probably be better as one or the other. What is the standard for something like that?

present tense is the standard (at least when referring to action within episodes). Theshibboleth 02:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the tenses in many places, in addition to some other grammatical changes. --Moltartwo 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Which Seinfeld

We to distinguish, or even to emphasize, that the linked entity referred to "Jerry Seinfeld in Seinfeld", not to "Jerry Seinfeld in Wikipedia"? Specificly,

Seinfeld: [...] features clips [...] of Seinfeld delivering a standup routine

Is it reproducible that the reference is strictly to "Jerry Seinfeld, the character appearing and scripted in Seinfeld", or not possibly instead to "Jerry Seinfeld, the overarching comedian which may have drawn on the whole of in Wikipedia"? In the latter case, at least as an POV, ought We not give this particular instance the recognition of providing a link Seinfeld?

Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 6, 12:34 PST.

I don't think the show itself ever makes it clear whether the clips of standup are Jerry Seinfeld, the real comedian and actor commenting on the show, or Jerry Seinfeld the fictional sitcom character commenting on his fictional life. It's probably worth mentioning that the distinction between the two Jerry Seinfelds is blurred in this sitcom -- it inspired others such as Ellen to do the same IIRC -- Tarquin 20:40 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, the show makes it clear on numerous occasions that the clips of standup are Jerry Seinfeld, the character. For example, in the episode The Red Dot, Jerry is heckled by a character from the episode, and interacts with him. He is again heckled in the episode The Fire by Kramer's girlfriend Toby. There are a few other occasions like this. The clips of standup are definitely by Jerry, the character. --203.213.7.131 03:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Isms

"Seinfieldisms" seems to be a made up term. Google sez:

  1. Seinfieldisms: 12 hits
  2. Seinfeldisms: 601 hits

Therefore the second spelling is to be preferred. --Eloquence


I certainly respect your preference to adhere to what Google sez, and I wish to have it represented no less than my own in Seinfeld (as it is presently), as well as in the yet to be defined [[Isms:which are not those Isms|Seinfeldisms (in cooperation with Yogiisms)]] ...

Btw., will you be updating Seinfeld if and when Google sez, say, the opposite ratio of "hit"s (whatever that might be -- presently Google doesn't seem to know about that particular phrase); or if in ... five ... ten ... years Google (sez) were not even recognizable as Preferences derived from ratios obtained with the biG G
?

Regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 7th, 12:32 (PST).


I think you misunderstand the use of the ":" in Wiki links, Fwappler. There are only a small number of tokens that can precede the ":", such as "user:", "talk:", "Wikipedia:". These distinguish special non-encyclopedia pages from articles. -- Tarquin 10:27 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)


You know, most of this page should be moved to a page called "Seinfeld Trivia" or so. - The actual text is ridiculously short and edits adding pointless nonsense ('Celebrities Referenced' for crying out loud!!!) don't help at all. This is not a fan page, it's an encyclopedia. --Pteron 20:19, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wording

I urge all to mull the wording

real people, rather than the idealized escapist characters often seen on television.

and see whether there's a more accurate wording available. I think their freedom from consequences, especially as reflected in their relationship to work, is not very real. Do they ever worry concretely about money, except to squabble among themselves about the implications that who pays have for their one-upmanship, or as an ostensible motivation for impractical schemes like driving a truckload of deposit-eligible bottles to a state where their small value doubles?
IMO what we have here is actually an unfamiliar form of escapism, tho i'm far from being able to word it. --Jerzy(t) 17:20, 2004 May 11 (UTC)

I believe that what this is referring to is the fact that these characters are not particularly likeable and are severely flawed, unlike the usual sitcom archetype of lovely people living lovely lives and having great relationships.

Outside the U.S.

Not wanting to be rude but is this actually liked (moreover "one of the most popular and influential of the 1990s") outside of the U.S.? Though the intro mentions that it's an American show it doesn't state that it has not had such an impact or gained such respect outside of it's home country. I don't know about other places (particularly Canada) but in the UK it's not really known very well. Perhaps a slight rewording? violet/riga (t) 20:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In Sweden, Seinfeld is really big. Everyone knows it and reruns are shown all the time.

In Australia its known very well. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And in fact re-runs are shown nightly on cable even today. --plattopus (talk) 15:29, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

In Romania, there were already two complete reruns after the original series ended. Quite important, familiar and influential! [Alexandru H.]

When it first ran in the U.K., it was on at 11 PM. It grew a large fan base who lobbied the station to air it earler in the evening, but it was kept at the late slot. Paul Klenk 09:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
saw this nightly when i was in Dubai, UAE. Subtitled in Arabic. Apparently very popular there :)

-:Interesting - I was going to mention the UK. Yes Seinfeld did not do very well in the UK - unlike Friends. I would support this being added to the article but I doubt that would get much support. The late time-slot is only partially to blame - the BBC did screen Seinfeld at a reasonable time for a while but apparently it failed to get decent ratings. Both Sky and Paramount Comedy regularly screened Seinfeld at different times as well. I think the reasons for its failure in the UK include: a) a lot more references to american products (food etc) and services than the average US sitcom which probably alienates UK viewers (I know - other countries don't mind but the UK doesn't seem to like that) b) To fully appreciate seinfeld you have to watch a whole episode, to get the plot threads - you can't just dip in for a one-liner c) The characters are unlikeable - although the UK has sitcoms with many unlikeable characters I think in the UK we are used to our US sitcoms having 'nice' characters like in Friends. There is an aspirational quality to a lot of sitcoms from the US popular in the UK (look at the luxurious fantasy apartments of Frasier and Friends) that Seinfeld lacks. Criticism I have heard from non Seinfeld loving friends is that it is 'over the top' - which I interpret as being 'too New York'

Certainly Seinfeld is a bit of a mystery to people in the UK - and I think that Seinfeld can't really claim to be a worldwide hit in the way Friends can. Even though Seinfeld is miles better. Magic Pickle 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

its problem in the UK was that there was an 'expectation' of it being so great, after having heard nothing but positive things about trickling over the Atlantic divide. By the time it arrived the UK populace took a dive into it, found it was about as funny as cot death and instead went for Frasier. When the Laughter Track kicks in, and the crowd goes wild at a characters entrance, the UK viewer invariably turns off. "Cheers" got away with it, most don't. Doesn't help the observational comdy element (as mentioned above by Magic Pickle) was totally UScentric. The other Larry David effort "Curb Your Enthusiasm" is also suffering a similar death. I, myself, found Seinfeld awful. I have no idea where exactly I'm supposed to draw laughter from, and am perpetually confused when the laughter track begins yet nothing perceptibly funny has taken place (and I say 'laugh track' because I can't conceive of a moment someone would laugh willingly). But hey, if it floats your boat, enjoy! - Sincerely Koncorde
Firstly, Seinfeld very rarely used a laughter track - it was mainly filmed before a live studio audience. They even took audiences out onto outdoor sets occasionally to record their laughter. The audience, did for a while scream and applaud when Kramer entered, but this was strongly discouraged by Larry David who thought it affected the flow of the show. Curb Your Enthusiasm certainly isn't a mainstream hit - but it's being consistently shown on More 4 and has regular slots. I agree that Seinfeld was very US centric indeed, but it also had a very international cast of characters, which gave it much more varied storylines. In the The Ultimate Sitcom British comedy insiders voted Seinfeld third best sitcom ever, beating every single UK sitcom apart from Fawlty Towers. I'm a proud UK Seinfeld fan and I think it's Britain's loss that it has never got the joke. We expect a certain type of humour from Americans over here and - Seinfeld proves Americans do know about irony, and we don't like that.... Magic Pickle 20:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware it didn't use "canned laughter", but it did use the "laughter track". The laughter track is used to refer to any audience participation - least as far as I'm aware. Nitpicking, but didn't want you to get the wrong idea. The irony thing is in a lot of the quality US comedy. Just the majority of US comedy is unadalterated tripe (which is surprising given the inventivness of their many stand up comedians) PS. Channel5 also did a show on Britain favourite comedians...won by an Actor, so I wouldn't exactly put my faith in Comedy Insiders :D or even the British Public! Koncorde --82.42.56.236 01:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The definition of Laugh Track is recorded laughter. This the first time I've ever seen it used otherwise (and barring some UK colloquialism, I suspect you're confused). Dictionary.com at the very least seems to agree only with the recorded aspect. ChrisLawson 21:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Might well be, I'll have to check where I got my info from :D Koncorde--82.42.56.236 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It sounds to me as if "Koncorde" were basing their perceptions of the show on early episodes (which I think Seinfeld fans may come to agreement were weaker, esp. 1st season), and never gave the show a chance due to a bad first impression. Too bad for him I say. Whitejay251 22:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Aye, I saw (and tried to persevere) with it when BBC2 showed it about 6 years ago. Not sure which season they started with, probably season 1, but it never made any sense anyway. I just wanted to beat Costanza and Jerry's head together. By comparison the 'comedy by numbers' "Ray", "Frasier" and "Home Improvement" (and even "Nurses") I liked from the intro onwards. And I like to think I do give shows a chance, I watch most of the dross C4 puts out in the early mornings . Such is life I guess. I have no problem with it being shown on TV, and if people draw enjoyment then that's fine. I was merely giving the majority British 'viewpoint'. For what it's worth - my American girlfriend and her family don't find it interesting at all either, nor can I name any member of my family who likes it. Koncorde--82.42.56.236 01:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Come on Koncorde, Home Improvement and Nurses were awful....You find the characters in Seinfeld irritating - fair enough, but that's actually kind of the point. It's different to most US sitcoms, most sitcoms in general in fact.Magic Pickle 12:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
All true Pickle, but it's why Seinfeld didn't work. Despite the weakness of the two you mentioned they were instantly accessible and didn't have truly obnoxious characters for whom the public had no sympathy, or interest in watching further. "The Office" (UK version, for all its awards) almost suffered a similar fate somewhat - but word of mouth and incidents that people identified with (everybody knows a David Brent) made it a huge success. Seinfeld was just too US centric. Koncorde--82.42.56.236 --68.83.47.220 13:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Popular British sitcoms with unlikeable, obnoxious central characters:
-Fawlty Towers
-Till Death us do Part
-In Sickness and in Health
-Steptoe and Son
-Rising Damp
-One Foot in the Grave
I would add I know someone very like Jerry, I know someone very like Kramer, and I know someone very like George (sadly, that person is me). Many women told Julia Louis Dreyfus they identified with Elaine, much to her dismay.Magic Pickle 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't say I dislike any of the characters in those British sitcoms. Rigby, Steptoe, Basil, Garnett and Meldrew were certainly likeable if only because they made you laugh, but also because they were in themselves laughable creatures. If you can identify with Seinfeld, then there is possibly where you find enjoyment - but others don't, and I would suggest its failure in the UK is down to the above mentioned things. Koncorde--82.42.56.236 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
For a UK perspective of why Seinfeld really is ace - check out this BBC article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/s/seinfeld_7775675.shtml
To be fair I think his opinion is shared by a lot of UK viewers, and that's why Seinfeld failed over here. But, as I say, our loss - now Seinfeld is on DVD I can watch it whenever I want and the BBC can get stuffed! Giddyup! PS - As for early Seinfeld being weaker - well that's a matter of opinion. it was less wacky and more thoughtful, more about the minutiae of life - which had its own charm. As much as I love later- season Seinfeld as well - it did have the tendency to go over the top and have some bizarre plotlines (which I love) - but perhaps alienates some UK viewers.Magic Pickle 23:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I'll admit I may have been a bit hasty in stating that most Seinfeld fans would agree with my opinion that the earlier seasons are weaker. This has been some interesting discussion. If only we could find some verifiable sources for why Seinfeld didn't take off in the UK .... Whitejay251 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The co writer

This is a great analysis of the show, but I think more credit needs to be given to 'Seinfeld's co-writer and producer, Larry David.

Not only Larry David, but the entire crew should be mentioned, like Suzy Mamann Greenburg, Alec Berg, all the bit actors (soup nazi, the girlfriends, George's girlfriends, etc). There should be a WikiLink to David's new show, Curb Your Enthusiasm. --172.131.99.119 03:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Larry Charles, writer for seinfeld, wrote a large number of episodes in the first 5 seasons, as of now there is one credit to his entire contribution.

Am I missing something?

There are rather extensive articles for virtually every character on Seinfeld. However, there doesn't appear to be one for Jerry. All links to Jerry go to Jerry Seinfeld the actor and have no on the trivia, character descriptions or anything else the articles for Elaine, George, Kramer have. Is there an article somewhere that I am missing?

No, you're right. I'll create a separate character article. They are certainly not the same. (Although the real Jerry and the fictional one are blurred, they are not the same.) Revolver 08:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Music

Just wondering if we could add the song "Master Of The House" from the musical "Les Miserables", (which did feature prominently in an episode where George couldn't get the lyrics out of his head..) to the "Music" section

You are more than welcome to do so. I'd do it myself but I don't know which episode it is from.--Will2k 04:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
That's from the episode "The Jacket" where Jerry and George went out to dinner with Elaine's father. But I didn't feel it should be included because it was only sung by the characters, as far as I can remember, while the rest of the list features pre-recorded music. If we include character-sung songs, we could include "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria" and "Lemon Tree" from the episode "The Apartment" (where George has Jerry switch answering machine tapes in his girlfriend's apartment). Hoof Hearted 19:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm fairly certain the slap bass in the theme is not synthetic; it's either sampled or "real." Does anyone have any definitive information regarding its recording? Brendan Vox 04:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

70 %?

  • Superman is mentioned in every single episode of Seinfeld. Whether it may be a direct reference, or just a magnet on the fridge. I know that because I once saw that fact on the TV Guide Channel, at some time.CDNguye1 01:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
No, that's not quite true. There are several episodes that don't include any scenes of Jerry's apartment or make reference to Superman. "The Chinese Restaurant" and "The Parking Garage" are two that come to mind. Hoof Hearted 19:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the article or any Seinfeld-related article currently cites specific instances of Superman references. It'd me nice if that would be done. Theshibboleth 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Weird fact

I saw this posted on a disussion board: here. "Something I found interesting. When George is at the coffee relating the story of the kung pao, Jerry says, ' I dont know how you can eat that spicy chicken'. But earlier in the epsiode he has kung pao in his own frige." posted by "Timmy" - I just found this interesting -Hyad 08:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jerry's comment relates to the fact that George is upgrading his Kung Pow orders from "mild" to "medium" to "hot" over the course of the episode. As with many things in Seinfeld, the concept is clearer in the script than the final edited show.

Tuft University

Elaine went to Tufts University (her "safety school")

Which episode was this from?

Episode 176, The Puerto Rican Day [1] RMoloney 19:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

What episode is this picture from

Right on the page of Seinfeld there is a image of Seinfeld episode. Can any of you tell me which episode this is from? Thanks. Anouymous 02:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • That would be "The Dinner Party", one of the best. -- GreenLocust 20:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

DVD

What's the release schedule?--Jerryseinfeld 18:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Four seasons are already out. I'd expect season 5 around Christmas, but that's just a guess based on how companies usually like to issue DVD sets. I think they'll do that, then seasons 6 and 7 next year, and seasons 8 and 9 in 2007. --Daydream believer2 17:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The Seinfeld Curse

Someone who works on this page often should take a look at the first couple grafs of the Curse section. The curse is introduced in the 2nd graf, and referred to in the 1st graf as though it has already been introduced. Maybe the 1st and 2nd grafs could be switched. I didn't do it myself because it seems like a subtle thing to get right and I don't want to step on toes of the regular maintainers. -- KevinC


It's noted here that Duckman was a curse, although this program aired for three years. All the other programs listed in this section were only one season. This section is noting programs that these three stars have been on.--User:Xm2631

---Duckman aired during Seinfeld's heyday. It was not a post-Seinfeld "cursed" project. While Duckman might have been a great project also by Jason Alexander, it's orgin and ending *during* Seinfeld's run I believe completely disqualifies it as a "cursed" project. I have edited it based on this. --User:RevRaven

The whole "curse" concept is ridiculous. Seinfeld is not the first series whose spinoffs turned out to be failures. --RicardoC 14:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Right now, the section on "Cast Careers after Seinfeld" is a total mess. It really should explain what the myth of the "Seinfeld Curse" was before dispelling it. Also, right now it's listing every single thing each cast member has done, including many minor cast members, and minor works done by castmembers (such as "webisode commercials" for American Express in 2003). This should either be tightened significantly, reorganized, or spun out into its own article. --DDG 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting soup nazi section

This section has many problems, one of which is its "fan" style of writing. Another problem we should discuss here is the addition of the words "homosexual, Puerto Rican." Although they act effeminately, I do not believe the episode ever explicity asserted that they were homosexuals. Also, they are certainly Latino, but does the series anywhere specifically identify their Puerto Rican origin? "Latino" should suffice unless that can be proven. (Even if they were to appear in the Puerto Rican day parade episode -- and I don't know if they do -- the real-life New York Puerto Rico Day Parade is actually attended by Latinos of many countries; you can't defend it from that.)

Anyway, I will rework the section; if you have problems with it, please discuss here. paul klenk 14:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

-They are in that damn puerto rican day parade episode...and they carry around the puerto rican flag.. so stop trying to defend them, they were clearly gay (unsigned comment by User:68.158.64.90)


Product Placement

There is now a section outlining the show's involvement in product placement, but does anyone have a source for these claims? It seems highly unlikely to me that Seinfeld, David and co. could be induced by NBC or marketers to work specific products into their scripts. And IIRC, they mention on the DVD commentaries how surprised they were at Pez's positive reaction to that particular episode. So is there any evidence of actual product placement, i.e., that this was part of a marketing campaign? RMoloney 00:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing, RM. The question is, does this use of product names simply reflect Jerry's fabulous preoccupation with the trivial and arcane; is it deliberate, paid-for placement; or a combination of the two? I'll bet there is great info about this on the Web. I'll do some checking; if you like, do the same, and we'll compare notes. Even it is not actual paid placement, the use of product names is a signature of the show, and should be mentioned. paul klenk talk 01:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
(This will also be a welcome break from my research on high-tech toilets.) paul klenk talk
This article suggests, not explicitly perhaps, that the placement was intentional. Note that a company was involved in obtaining the participation of a candy company, and that the Junior Mints company is described as being "willing." paul klenk talk

Articles on Product Placement

(I wrote the original section on product placement) Here are some articles on product placement and Seinfeld, but also see my specific examples below of blatant product placement on seinfeld with negligible narrative or comedic value:

"Seinfeld broke the barrier on brand-name products in television", Hollywood Reporter] - note that this article has a claim that no money was received for placements on Seinfeld - I think that this is true for the Junior Mints episode - see this http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051002/ZNYT01/510020367/1001/NEWS06 NY Times article], and this should be clarified in the wiki page.

  • But I remain unconvinced that later examples of product placement were not paid for, given how little they sometimes contributed to the show - see my next section
  • Also note how even the unpaid placement is considered to be the start of product placement in primetime.

I thought I saw an article earlier today specifically saying NBC was paid for seinfeld placements, I'll continute to look for it.

Bwithh 02:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, i want to go and play video games now, but based on the research I've done, I believe that the earlier Seinfeld product placements were done for free, and am still not convinced about the ones like those listed below. In any case, the bottom line is that the marketing industry definitely regards Seinfeld as the pioneer in product placement for primetime tv. (Also as an aside, note how HBO always claims that there is absolutely no product placement on the Sopranos and the name brands are just used for realism - even though the Sopranos seem to ALWAYS ALWAYS drink a Snapple or Coke (and its usually Snapple), when they reach for a soft drink. - TV companies dont always want to admit product placement, I mean) Bwithh 02:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the statement that Jerry always had an Apple computer on his desk. At least in season 7 it's some other PC, and I'm just watching Episode 119 that displays a big Windows manual or box. I don't want to change the article right now, maybe somebody knows more? Repetition 03:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Specific Examples of Low Comedic Value Product Placement

I introduced the product placement into the Seinfeld page. From my own memory of the show, the product placement was often astonishingly blatant ( they could get away with it as a sitcom, I suppose), and sometimes with little relevance to the plot. For instance, in the episode "The Caddy", the character Sue Ellen Mishke (the woman who doesn't wear a bra, and then wears a bra as a top, causing Seinfeld to crash his car) is introduced as "The heiress to the O'Henry candy bar fortune". This line is repeated several times - at one point there's this exchange between Kramer and his lawyer, Jackie:


(excerpt from script located here... note that this script mispells Oh Henry ! as O'Henry, but the American Oh Henry! candy bar wrapper is clearly visible in the episode, so this is an error on stanthecaddy's part.)

Jackie: So we got an attractive woman, wearing a bra, no top, walkin' around in broad daylight. She's flouting society's conventions!

Kramer: She was flouting.

Jackie: That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, vesivius, salacious, outrageous!

Kramer: It was outrageous. And she's the heir to the Oh Henry! candy bar fortune.

Jackie: Could you repeat that?

Kramer: I said she's the heir to the Oh Henry! candy bar fortune.

Jackie: O'Henry? That's one of our top-selling candy bars. It's got chocolate, peanuts, nougat, it's delicious, scrumptious, outstanding! Have you been to a doctor?

Kramer: No.

The Oh Henry! reference was original to the script and did not come from product placement. --The beekeeper 18:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


In the episode, "The Heart Attack", there is this scene for Chuckles jelly candies - note how the dialogue about Chuckles is completely disconnected from what's happening in the actual episode's plot (and is not particuarly funny - almost a direct sales pitch for the candy - also note the repetition of the brand name again): Script source

(Scene ends) [Setting: Ambulance]

(George's strapped down on a gurney. His face is purple, and he's screaming. Jerry and Kramer are trying to calm him down. The driver and the assistant in the back are having a huge fight)

GEORGE: (In a state of hysteria) I'm an eggplant! I'm an eggplant! I'm a minstrel man!

DRIVER: (To Assistant) I didn't take your Chuckle, man!

ASSISTANT: I had five Chuckles. I ate a green one, and the yellow one, and the red one is missing!

DRIVER: I don't even like Chuckles!

JERRY: (To Assistant) Maybe he doesn't like them. That's possible.

GEORGE: My face! My face! Get me to the hospital!

ASSISTANT: I want that Chuckle! You hear me?!

JERRY: (To Assistant) I'll get you a Chuckle. You want me to get you a Chuckle?

ASSISTANT: (Angry, to Driver) Pull over!

DRIVER: Pull over? Did you say pull over?! You want a piece of me?!

ASSISTANT: Yeah!

JERRY: You're gonna fight?

GEORGE: Now?! I'm a mutant!

KRAMER: (To Driver) Hey, let me drive.

ASSISTANT: Come on, man. Pull over!

DRIVER: Alright! I'm gonna mess you up, man!

(Ambulance comes to a screeching halt. Driver gets out, and the assistant heads for the back door)

JERRY: (Pleading) Really, gentlemen, please.

GEORGE: My heart! My heart! (To Assistant) Where you going? Are you crazy?!

ASSISTANT: I'm gonna kick his ass.

KRAMER: (To Assistant) Hey, you have keys?

GEORGE: You can't leave! This is an ambulance! This is an emergency!

(The Assistant leaves. Jerry, Kramer, and George watch the two fight)

JERRY: All this for a Chuckle.

KRAMER: What's a Chuckle?

JERRY: It's a jelly candy. it comes in five flavors.

(Scene ends)

Both the Chuckles and the Oh Henry! examples show how there was use of product brand names on the show which added little or no narrative or comedic value to the show (they could easily be taken out of the episodes with no effect)

Bwithh 02:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Bwithh, I appreciate these examples, and truly see your point. I also appreciate your introducing this concept into the article -- it is fun and valuable. However, concerning these examples, comedic value is a bit in the eye of the beholder; further, some jokes are just funnier than others. Sometimes a writer can get it to work, sometimes they fail. We need to be very careful not to read too much into our own subjective enjoyment or lack thereof, with respect to whether these are or are not actual placements. All we can do at this point is try to document individual instances of p.p., and, without having info on others, not let anything but verified facts decide what any mention of a product really means. We also should avoid allowing own own analysis, however valid, into the article, but rely on the analysis of others. Ciao, paul klenk talk 05:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

- good point. I agree. Bwithh 01:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I want to add is a link to an interesting discussion of this topic in a seinology.com discussion forum here, which quotes Larry Charles and Glenn Padnick denying any intentional product placement, which is consistent with the stated role of AIM promotions in the Tuscaloosa News article. RMoloney 01:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that comedic value is in the eye of the beholder. However, I find the product placement to be extremely appropriate. If Sue Ellen Mischke made her money in the stock market or in real estate, that wouldn't be funny. However, making her money in the Oh Henry candy bar fortune is completely off the wall. Who thinks of that....I've never even had an Oh Henry---does it have the cookie crunch? JWL 10:32, 2 February 2006

Another reason why the comedic value is in the eye of the beholder: there's a subtle variety of speech that the show is satirizing by having people recite lines that sound as though they come from marketing materials for a particular candy, it's a more sophisticated intention than for them to be intending us to take the advertising message straight. Consider the way the foursome is portrayed as living in a dream world, absorbed by their own interests in trivia, like the kind of people who have spent enough hours watching TV commercials that they know certain tag lines by heart. One day they could be relaying the story of the Bottle City of Kandor in detail, and the next, telling the names of all the colored marshmallows in Lucky Charms, but that doesn't make the references a product placement for either DC comics or Lucky Charms. Respectfully, I think when Bwithh says the Chuckles and O'Henry examples "added little or no narrative or comedic value to the show," he/she is missing a couple levels of the narrative. KC, 3 May 2006

I agree. "Low comedic value" is too subjective to be included in the article. If anything, I think they specifically used obscure candies and products, such as Bosco. It's almost similar to how certain directors (Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson) use defunct or foreign cigarette and cereal products in their movie to create a quirky atmosphere. --DDG 16:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

3 things

First, according to www.seinfeldscripts.com, there are 18 episodes in which Superman is mentioned.

Second, what's the deal with the Newman section? It looks like it was written by a five year old. Full of spelling errors and such; I think it should be scrapped completely and re-written by a competent writer.

Third, I've never heard of Chuckles before.

I've bought chuckles from ordinary vending machines in the US. Look it up on wikipedia, it has its own entry. Bwithh 21:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the first thing: yes Superman himself is only mentioned in some episodes. However, you also must take into account references to Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, Kryptonite, Metropolis and even things like Jerry's Superman magnet on his fridge. However every episode does not contain a Superman reference of some kind - visual or aural - as is the common misconception. Daydream believer2 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert

Sorry, my edit on this page (11:52, December 8, 2005 JHMM13) was reverting this "11:52, December 8, 2005 209.50.132.205 (→Main characters)" back to the previous edit. JHMM13 (T | C) 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Seinfeld: Jerry's Favorites DVD?

Does this actually exist? No listing on Amazon, US or UK, or TVShowsonDVD.com, and a quick Google brings up nothing relevant except this page. Anyone object to its removal? - Wezzo 21:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed - Wezzo 20:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

On the Season 3 DVD collection, in the "Notes about Nothing" for the episode "The Boyfriend," the Jerry's favorites DVD is mentioned. Jared 12:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh.. thanks for letting me know. But I can't find anything about it on the Internet or anywhere.. - Wezzo 14:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it can't seem to be found on Amazon, or anything. But I reread that Notes About Nothing thing to make sure I hadn't misread it, and I don't think I did. That DVD does exist. Maybe it was discontinued, or I got the title wrong. It doesn't matter all that much, I suppose. I'll stop bothering you about it now. Jared 20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No bother at all - thanks very much for letting me know (I've yet to work my way through all of the Notes About Nothing!) - Wezzo 20:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe this DVD was never sold commercially, it was given away to friends and celebrities who attended a party toward the end of the show's run. It was comprised mostly of episodes from the series final two seasons, when Jerry himself was executive producer. No sources to cite on that, but I'm pretty sure of it if anybody was personally curious.

DVD article?

Anyone object to a Seinfeld DVDs article, as per The Simpsons DVDs? - Wezzo 20:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Would there really be enough content to put in that article? Jared 12:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think so, there's a lot of extras and a lot of releases, and the Seinfeld series are (I think) the 2nd highest-selling TV-DVD property after The Simpsons. I'm open to persuausion though. - Wezzo 14:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I thought that you meant that it would be basically just a list when I first saw the idea. Jared 20:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Okey-doke, I'll try starting work on this article as soon as I have time then. - Wezzo 20:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Laugh Track in Series' Finale

In the section about the series' ending, it says that there was no laugh track in the first airing of the final episode - an artistic statement on the part of writer Larry David. It also says the laugh track was only inserted upon the episodes' rerunning in syndication, following criticism. I have to say, this seems completely untrue. I watched the final Seinfeld on the first night it aired, prime-time NBC, (east coast, even!) and there was definitely a laught track througout the episode. I remember thinking it was totally overdone.

POV

I'm deleting this line from the end of the Criticism section:

This is a testament to the acting and the development of the characters who always remained funny.

Obviously, that doesn't conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and I'm not sure that it's a properly structured sentence. --relaxathon 06:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism/"Jumping the Shark"

I have to take issue with a recent entry into the 'Criticism' section.

Jerry Seinfeld ... also pointed out that critics never talk about other shows going downhill, because most shows aren't very good to begin with. It would later become fashionable in the post-Seinfeld era for fans to talk about their favorite shows going downhill, due to the "Jump the Shark" phenomenon.
A saying that would be repeated among loyal and jaded fans alike was that even a bad Seinfeld episode was better than virtually anything else on TV (a mantra that has since been adopted by fans of different shows when talking about a poor episode).

I don't think this is very accurate...critics and viewers have always talked about long-running series declining in quality (or improving). Mash, All in the Family, Cheers...shows that ran longer than and long before Seinfeld also generated criticism in their later years, as well as fan defense. Jerry Seinfeld's comment at the beginning is, I think, referring more to the lack of quality TV shows that were on the air at the time, rather than historically (there were very few long-running sitcoms still in production during the late 1990s.)

Differences in reruns v. original airing

Has anyone else noticed that the reruns have changed some of the popular names from the original airing? Two glaring examples come to mind: (1) In the original "the Chicken Roaster" episode (#142), Seinfeld and Kramer both mention Kenny Rogers several times; however, in the rerun, "Kenny" is only mentioned at the end when the restaurant is shut down (due to the rat hat); and (2) In the original "the Millennium" episode (#154); New mentions that he rented the "Rainbow Room"; however, in the rerun, Newman states that he rented the "revolving restaurant overlooking Time Square." Has anybody else noticed this? I am sure there are other examples, but these are the two that come to mind. JWL 10:40 EST 2/3/2006

Thats a shame in the Chicken Roasters, since the hilarious ending w/ Kramer and chicken doesn't make sense if you take out the Kenny Roger's references early on. But yeah - it's a copyright issue that probably doesn't warrant inclusion here. --72.224.182.201 05:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
They'll probably still be on the DVD though since they may not have the rights in syndication. It is a shame though. Sfufan2005 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

wikicities

There is a Seinfeld wikicities now here -- Astrokey44|talk 04:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Story convergence

Entry says: "...in almost every episode, several story threads are presented at the beginning, generally involving the various characters in separate and unrelated situations, which then converge and are interwoven towards the end of the episode in an ironic fashion." This doesn't really happen until season 4. Watch the episodes from seasons 1-3 and you'll see this rarely happens. Burns flipper 15:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Very true - it even died down a bit toward the end (though when they did attempt it in the last couple of years, man was it ever forced!). --72.224.182.201 05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

On Seinfeld on DVD, Larry David stated the first time the dovetailing of the stories happened was in 'The Busboy' (Episode 3 of Season 2), almost accidentally, and that he liked the effect so much he tried to make it happen as often as he could. The dovetailing of the stories was certainly a hallmark of the series but did not happen in every episode. Wwwhhh 03:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

True First Appearance

The Seinfeld page says that Newman first appeared in "The Suicide" but in actuality he didn't. He didn't appear until the episode where Elaine has to fast for 3 days and George gives up his trip to the islands because a psychic told him something bad would happen. - Juber 10:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

-That episode is "The Suicide". You're thinking of Newman's suicide in "The Revenge" where he actually doesn't appear on camera (This is the first episode to use his voice).

Template

I propose we use this template:

v • d • e
Seinfeld
Cast
Crew
Characters
Seasons
List of episodes · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9
Related articles

Does anyone here have any thoughts on it?--TBC??? ??? ??? 06:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I like that. You should definitely use it. It would eliminate a lot of the space for the "See also" section. Just make sure to put it on all the Seinfeld-related pages. Sfufan2005 17:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Like it too. Good stuff! When I (or anyone else) get around to writing a Seinfeld DVDs article that could be listed too. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the feedback --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I would eliminate the Ultimate Sitcom link entirely. It's just another useless "poll" from one of those throwaway TV programs about the a list of the top something-or-other that have no real authority -these programs are made simply because they are cheap to make and are excuse for running sitcom clips. And that list is focused overwhelmingly on UK comedies... only shows that have been broadcast in the UK on the list, and the judges are mainly UK. I would consider nominating it for outright deletion Bwithh 02:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the Ultimate Sitcom link from template - please see talk page on template. Also have nominated Ultimate Sitcom for deletion (though given the generally very low standards for article retention, I give my chances at signifcantly less than 50%) Bwithh 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Koko nickname on Seinfeld

Tgunz (talk, no user page) has repeatedly added a misplaced statement that Koko is a nickname for George Costanza on some Seinfeld episode to the article Koko (gorilla), which is about a gorilla that uses sign language symbols. Assuming good faith, I've moved his statement to the disambiguation page Koko. However, I see Tgunz has made at least one strange edit in the past few momths, so I'd appreciate if someone who knows Seinfeld validated that this is correct. If it checks out, all is fine. If it doesn't, please remove the line on Koko and drop me and/or Tgunz an appropriate note on our talk pages. -- Martinp 05:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Koko is Constanza's nickname with Mr. Krueger as his boss. TommyBoy76 01:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76
The nickname originated in Season 9's "The Maid", for those of you still wondering.

Dr. Tim Whatley

FYI: The Dr. Tim Whatley article has been nominated for deletion. -AED 08:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC) wanted to be called t-bone but they gave him koko then he hired a lady name koko so theyd quit calling him koko but didn't work

Good Article nomination

Hi. I have reviewed the article following its nomination and found that it doesn't quite mee appear to meet the Good Article criteria. I'm concerned that the choice of episodes and quotes "Memorable incidents" section is not sufficiently clearly sourced for it not to be seen as an arbitrary choice - for example, evidence that the "Popular catchphrases" are indeed popular.

(Outside the criteria, I felt that the prevalance of the red links in the recurring characters section might be best dealt with by cutting the section more drastically and delying on the minor characters article to which there is already a link.) —Whouk (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason's/George's clothing

(removed the Superman-remark; it was allready mentioned here). In order to make George look like he does, he always weares clothing that's one size too small (and sometimes too big). Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read it. Maybe someone could verify this and at to the George-section

145.58.214.44 13:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Memorable Incidents

Isn't that POV? Some may find episodes memorable that are not on the 'list' and vice versa. TommyBoy76 23:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

List of fictional films in Seinfeld created and up for deletion

I recently created List of fictional films in Seinfeld, merging the independent articles for Sack Lunch, Rochelle, Rochelle, Prognosis Negative, and Sack Lunch into one, and adding in information on seventeen other fictional films referenced. It's already up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional films in Seinfeld. Dylan 01:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

I noticed this was recently re-nominated for a Good article. One thing that stands out that could cause problems is that there are a LOT of images used in this article. Too many, in fact, to reasonably qualify as fair use. Someone more involved with this page than I am might consider paring the images down to an essential few. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 04:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that as well, there are way too many images here, not only is it a fair-use violation, but its kind of annoying as they get in the way. I don't think this article is ready for GA status, personally, the whole memorable moments section is just too pov, and should really go. Also, the info on Kramer is more than double than that of the other characters, the lists about him should really be in his own article. The Criticism and popularity section is also massively pov. In addition, the lead is too short, there are too many lists and short/choppy paragraphs, and some things should be cut and removed into sub articles. Just some ideas. Cvene64 16:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Memorable incidents based uponon real incidents

I just learned a lot of the stuff that happened in the series actually happened in real life. For example, they made a series about nothing where people they know were characters and their characters in the series decided to make a a series about nothin where people they know were characters. A show abouth them within a show about them. The reality tour of cosmo kramer was like wise based on the reality tour of kenny kramer. George constanza problems with the actor playing kramer were recreated after the problems Larry David had with Michale Richards. They planned the show in a diner like the one on the show... where the characters planned a the show within the show.

I just learned that from the Special, but I bet there are a whole bunch of stuff in the series with paralels in reality.--T-man, the wise 04:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Recurring characters

It seems like some of the characters under the other category are not recurring at all (excluding the finale). Otherwise, they were only featured in one episode. Am I correct? --Will2k 20:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to cull a lot of the material in this article

A lot of the things here are very subjective. "Memorable incidents" ? Memorable to whom? With the exceptions of "The Soup Nazi" and "The Contest" -- verifiably important episodes because of the Emmy nominations -- these just seem to be favorite episodes of fans and Wikipedia editors. Further, the entire content of these subsections are merely a plot summary of the episode, which should be (and is) located at the episode's individual article.

And the same is true for "Popular Catchphrases." Popular amongst whom? And who says so? Again, it seems like a very subjective list, based merely on the feelings of the editors. I feel like both of these sections can be completely eliminated for not satisfying WP:V or WP:NPOV.

Finally, we need a cull in terms of information that can be moved to other Seinfeld-related articles (I will begin doing this after posting this message). Things like a list of Kramer's inventions belong at his article, not on this main page. Nearly the entire list of characters that have appeared? Probably should be at Minor characters in Seinfeld with a short summary on this page. I'd even say that the four main characters' biographies are a bit long in the tooth, but maybe that's all right for now. Dylan 19:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, good job so far however I feel that the Finale synopsis section should be deleted since it is the exact wording as on the finale's individual page. The hype and criticisms should stay though. Sfufan2005 22:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved some of the character detail sections into the main articles of each character. There's no need to repeat minor character details in both this article and in the Elaine, George Kramer and Jerry character articles. They were created for that purpose. I only left basic info and I think it can be cut down even more. It's just redundant and it makes this main article too long anyway. ~~Mezaco 10:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Character Info

I think we should cut down the descriptions of Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer in this main article, because they all have their own pages anyway. Why are we repeating info that can be detailed better on their own individual pages. I suggest making the main characters info just a blurb on this page and directing people to the articles in question. It's stupid to repeat info on Elaine's character, for example, both here and on the Elaine Benes page! Mezaco 13:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


GA failed

Even though a lot of work has gotten into this article, it still has some flaws, enumerated thereafter :

  • The lead section is too brief and doesn't really show the whole article's breadth.
  • It was only thanks to Rick Ludwin needs to be changed.
  • The overview should be a plot or scenario section but it has some awards and reception phrases at the end of it which makes it less plot like. Restructuring this paragraph would help in creating the lead section.
  • The Kramer video is a bit dizzying... plus he never slids backward (though I don't know everything about the show).
  • The Memorable incidents section could become a plot or scenario section as well. It looks more like pop info about the show than a real encyclopedic section.
  • The subsection Popular Catchphrases should be prose as to why it became pop catchphrases.
  • Running Gags should be in the Criticism and Popularity section and be shrunk to the best running gags ever (like the best 3) and give the reason why.
  • Ratings should be at best a subsection and normally, blended into the Criticism and Popularity section.
  • Ending should also become part of an overview or plot section.
  • It misses a section on the casting of Seinfeld.
  • The references should stick to only one method. Lincher 18:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

animated Kramer image

WHY? Why was it deleted?? I thought it was great! It fit right into the article! Please tell me...--Shadow2 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit Tags

They're screwed up. Some don't bring you to the section they are meant for. I would fix, but am not sure how to do so. Can anyone help?--CPitt76 01:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I made the change here: [2]. It seems to be working now. - Akamad 20:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Akamad.--CPitt76 00:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable Episodes

The contest, the soup nazi and yadda yadda are indeed notable, but according to the special (and my opinion) those are not the pivotal. The chineese restaurent, the parking episode and the one when Kramer makes a hole in one with the whale blow hole are the ones that got the most controversy and changed the format of the series.

I don't mind If we keep the notable episodes we have, but we must have the ones the producers already indicated as the most notable ones--T-man, the wise 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No hugging, no learning

Will someone please explain what this phrase means? It's here as a heading but never mentioned again. xod 22:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I did not create the title nor the section, I believe it's a reference to how many television shows (especially sitcoms) end in a morality assignment where we're "taught a lesson" by the characters & scenario of the show. Seinfeld was notable for, among other innovations, turning away from this approach. Thus, no "hugging" & no "learning." Anthonylombardi 13:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seinfeld Goofs

Somebody recently added a new section labeled "Seinfeld Goofs", attempting to start a list of continuity and technical errors throughout the show's run. This strikes me as a bad idea - this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Movies have enough of these "goofs" in them, but a weekly series that ran for nine seasons would understandably have too many of these to mention.

If it were Wikipedia worthy, it would need it's own article. But it is in no way Wikipedia worthy. Better just to link to a site that tallies these things. --relaxathon 03:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I believe I read in some article in WP space somewhere that sections with lists of animation and continuity goofs were not to be added to articles, but I can't find it. --WillMak050389 04:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jerry's sister?

In the Chinese Restaurant episode, at 14:53, Jerry mentions having a sister. Is this mention repeated in any other episode? royblumy 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, just as in the episode in which George gets into a parallel parking argument outside Jerry's building, he mentions a brother that never is mentioned again. BabuBhatt 18:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

On the relevance of the Derrida reference.

Someone deleted my reference to Derrida and I put it back. Mostly because the section "No hugging, no learning" talks about the view that Seinfeld is "postmodern". The link to the article by R. Wesley Hurd actually mentions Derrida as a "leading postmodernist". In my reference, Derrida's view of using deconstruction to apply to Seinfeld is this:

"Deconstruction as I understand it, doesn’t produce any sitcom. If sitcom is this. If people who watch this sitcom think Deconstruction is this, the only advice I have to give them is: Read. Stop watching sitcom. And, try to do your homework and read.”

This quote is in the article I reference (which actually is critical of philosopher's elitism towards pop culture) and is taken from the documentary, Derrida, about his life and work.

I can make this more explicit in the main Seinfeld article if it is desired. Or I can change the reference to be from the film.

As I said when I deleted it, the article being cited does not say that this opinion is "facile and uninformed". If you want to cite the documentary, you can try that too. But, the fact is, he seems to be saying outright that he has never watched 'Seinfeld' and would never watch a sitcom. In my mind, this makes his opinion on the matter entirely irrelevant.
Does anybody else have an opinion one way or another? I don't particularly care, but when I was passing through, I noticed that the citation was false and that the sentence seemed not only gratutious, but unneccessarily critical of the show (for the placement in the article).
ThatGuamGuy 17:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)sean
Fair enough. I think that since the section discusses a possible interpretation of Seinfeld and one of its key references uses Derrida's work as a starting point, I would like to see Derrida's opinion of the application of his theories within the work, especially since it is contrary to his conception. He hasn't watched Seinfeld, but the people who call the show postmodern haven't read Derrida (or understood him, in his opinion). I think I would prefer another reference that discusses Seinfeld's postmodernism without referencing Derrida directly. I will leave the main article alone if this is found, otherwise I will edit again when I come up with a more neutral sounding entry. Folkform 03:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok someone did it for me. Thanks! Folkform 03:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)