Within this subthread of Seinfeld, I think we are getting off track a bit.
Perhaps I should more straight-forward with the reasons for my opinion that Family Guy is great, and why, for the most part, Seinfeld, while, admittedly, is somehat superior than most of the other garbage that masquerades as comedy, is FAR FAR FAR inferior to Family Guy (and other great shows I listed in my previous post) (again, all, obviously, IN MY OPINION).
First, the shows' premises:
The fact that a beyond-comprehension-brilliant one year old baby, who wants to destroy his mother and to take over the world is fascinating on so many levels, primarily because (like to a degree in South Park, but done slightly more effectively here), we get to see the world through the lens of a one-year old . . . who just happens to be smarter than his parents, but who is as inexperienced as as his age would indicate.
I cannot for the life of me draw out any comparably fascinating premises in Seinfeld.
That Jerry and George routinely date women fourteen elechelons better looking than them?
That the characters are all narcissitic, and for no good reason?
That there's a goofy next-door neighbor who at best, is a poor man's Jim Ignatowski, and at worst, an even poorer man's Ed Norton (as played by the legendary Art Carney)?
The fact that weird mundane stuff happens to each of them in their respective mundate lives in New York, and that invariably, all of this "nothing" is beautifully and magically interconnected in some way, and revealed to us at the end of the episode, as if I should be expected to fall out of my chair in awe like I did when the pieces of Chaz's character's Kobayashi-brand coffee cup splattered all over the floor in the penultimate twist in The Usual Suspects?
And, to me, this discussion about premise, to me, is a minor issue anyway.
To me, the main thing that makes one comedy show better than another one is the quality of its jokes.
And to me, while Family Guy has CLEARLY the most cleverly-written jokes (with Vintage Frasier and Conan's Simpsons vying for second), not only doesn't Seinfeld have top-notch jokes . . . in my opinion, most of the applause-sign inducing incidents (another annoyance Seinfeld has that Family Guy doesn't, by the way) in Seinfeld AREN'T EVEN JOKES.
I don't know if any of you (other the glowbug) have ever have had the pleasure of watching a young Gilbert Gottfried absolutely SKEWER comics like Seinfeld, Romano, and rest of the mundane observational comedy presented annoyingly school.
In the sketch, Gottfried puts on coke-bottle thickness glasses and gets into character of a 75 year old man and switches back an forth from his Mock Seinfeld and Said Mock 75-year old man:
<as Seinfeld>:
"Did this ever happen to you . . . . ?
<as the 75 year old man in the audience>:
<smiling and clapping> "Oh yeah, that actually did happen to me!"
<as Seinfeld>:
And how about his . . . did THIS ever happen to you?
<as the 75 year old man>:
<smiling and clapping even more vigorously than before>
"Oh yes - that sometimes happens to me too!
In fact, sometimes, that first thing happens together with that second thing!
This is remarkable!
And you see, to me THIS is comedy - the comedian asks me if something has ever happened to me, and if it did, then I clap my hands.
Because clapping your hands is a natural reaction when someone says something hilaruious."
I apologize if it loses something in the translation, but I strongly agree with his not-so-subtle jab at Seinfeld.
Observational comedy about mundane things CAN be extremely funny if:
(a) these things DO actaually sometimes happen; and
(b) there's something in additional to them merely happeneing, that for some concrete articulable reason, is humorous in some way - either becuase it points out that we, as humans, sometimes act ridiculously, or alternatively, if the comic leads the audience to focus on A, and the reveals, in the punchline, either "Not A" because of some unforseeavle streange twist, or "B," which he cleverly didn't let you to even focus upon.; and
(c) it's presented in the first person, using declaratory statements, rather than Seinfeld's annoying tardemark "Did this ever happen to you?" or worse yet "Don't You Hate It When?" faux questions to the audience.
Stop pretneding that you care about me or my opinions.
You're a comedian.
You thought of something funny.
Tell it to me.
Or convey it to me subtlely using sarcasm.
But, please, for the love of God, don't ask questions you don't want answered and to which you couldn't care less about the audience's answer anyway, so that you can then PRETEND to answer your own inane question and appear to be hilarious.
As an example, this Mitch Hedberg gem, is, in my opinion, one of the best observational jokes ever written, in part, because it avoids all three above mentioned potential pitfalls, which often diminish the quality of most comics' (including, Seinfled's) jokes:
"Yesterday, I bought a donut, and the guy behind the counter gave me a receipt for the donut.
Dude . . . you don't gotta give me a receipt for a donut.
I'll give you the money . . .
. . . you give me the donut . . .
. . . end of transaction . . .
. . . we do not have to bring ink and paper into this . . .
. . . I can not image a scenario, in which I would have to prove that I bought that donut . . .
. . . some sceptical friend?
"Don't even act like I didn't get that donut!
I've got the documentation right here . . .
. . . oh shit . . . it's a t home . .
. . . in the file . . .
. . . under "D."
You see, to me, this joke works primarily because the joke writer saw the potential drawn-out ramifications of a scenario that sometimes ACTUALLY does happen, and because he presents the point of view of just how ridiculous it is that, often, cashiers spend time, energy, ink and paper to give us a receipt for a fifty-cent non-controversial item (just as McFarlane often points out through Stewie just how remarkable life would be if we had the brain of an adult genius and the emotional maturity of an insecure one-year old - come to think of it,
The Graduate did a less extreme version of a similar theme, and also did it extremely well.).
In summary, you can certainly choose NOT to analyze comedy, and be OK with simply saying "A makes me laugh, and B doesn't make me laugh, so, to me, A is funnier than B."
But if we're going to choose to analyze comedy (and I for one, shall continue to enjoy doing so, and sincerely hope that all least some of you join me), here are my main critiques of Seinfled:
Seinfeld, unlike Hedberg, for instance, typically fails, because his observational jokes othen fail on all three tets I mentioned above:
Spending the better part of thirty minutes on just how absurd it would be if a person seriously dated a "close talker," to me, is cheating because it is TRYING to illustrate how ridiculous things would get in this situation, with one huge probem: there are almost NO "close-talkers" in real life.
I suppose, if one was so inclined, one could write a show about a retarded person acting retarded, but to me, that wouldn't be funny; it was just be weird.
Second, in my opinion, nothing particaulrly funny ever happens once Jerry and George get themselves into situations that rarely make sense.
Again, weird or strange, maybe, but, to me, not funny.
And as I have already mentioned, stating ajoke in the first person as in "This thing, XYZ, happened to me yesterday" is a far less annoying form of saying something such as the insultingly disingenious "Did this ever happen to you?"
There are several other reasons I feel that Hedberg, Carson, Conan, Baron-Cohen, Girlado, and a host of others are absolutely hilarious and brilliant and that Seinfeld is only so-so funny, and not even approaching brilliant.
But in the interest of not further boring those of you who have read this far as much as Elaine and Kramer bore me, I shall end this missive here.
