# Doesn't Seinfeld gets credit that Cheers deserves? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 16, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275 "2005-08-16T14:55:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/1 "2005-08-16T14:55:23Z")
Everyone, myself included, talks about how Seinfeld changed the landscape of sitcoms. The conventional wisdom goes that Seinfeld led TV away from family sitcoms and high concepts to shows about character interaction and true _situational_ comedy. Isn’t that exactly what Cheers had been doing for almost a decade? I know the show was about a bar owner, but “set in a bar” is not really the highest of concepts. Wasn’t Cheers really a show about nothing LONG before Seinfeld? Now granted, Cheers is not some unappreciated entry in the dustbin of television history, but didn’t it play as big a role as Seinfeld in changing the face of the sitcom? (It may all be academic at this point, as cable and reality TV have killed the sitcom). ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/2 "2005-08-16T15:08:51Z")
I fail to see how Cheers can be credited with moving the sitcom away from “family” sitcoms when other popular sitcoms did it before. What about: 1. The Mary Tyler Moore show 2. WKRP in Cincinnati 3. Lavern and Shirley Seinfeld was exactly what they said it was: a show about nothing. The focus on mundane idiosyncrasies about life and situations was unprecedented. Like all sitcoms before it, Cheers focused on basic themes and character types rather than looking at the strangeness of the world at large in the way that Seinfeld did. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/3 "2005-08-16T15:12:12Z")
I don’t think Cheers came close to achieving what Seinfeld did, but then I admit I never found Cheers funny. When they say Seinfeld was “about nothing,” they didn’t mean it didn’t have typical sitcom plots: they meant what it was really “about” was the small, trivial ways we talk and interact with (and, usually, annoy) each other. In doing that, Seinfeld added enormously to the cultural lexicon. “He’s a close-talker.” “Did you just double-dip?” Seinfeld has a real knack for getting in your head and popping out at the weirdest times; how many times have you found yourself telling a story and saying, “Remember the guy on that one Seinfeld episode who …?” I also think Seinfeld terrifically portrayed the segment of Generation X (or whatever generation Jerry belongs to) that clings to a kind of perpetual adolescence, unable to commit seriously to anything and seeing life through a continuous prism of comic books and old Star Trek episodes. It’s exaggerated for comedic purposes of course, but I think Seinfeld shows something very true in its characters’ self-centered, emotionally arrested interactions. Finally, I don’t know that I agree with your view of the “conventional wisdom.” Sure, Seinfeld fostered the move away from the family sitcom and into the wacky-folks-in-an-apartment sitcom (hello, “Friends”), but true “character interaction”? I don’t know if I buy it. There are no real “characters” on Seinfeld, only caricatures, although George’s operatic neuroses bring him close to true depth. I’d agree that Cheers did characters better, though I would also argue that Roseanne did it better than Cheers. ---
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/4 "2005-08-16T15:32:12Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > Finally, I don’t know that I agree with your view of the “conventional wisdom.” Sure, Seinfeld fostered the move away from the family sitcom and into the wacky-folks-in-an-apartment sitcom (hello, “Friends”), but true “character interaction”? I don’t know if I buy it. There are no real “characters” on Seinfeld, only caricatures, although George’s operatic neuroses bring him close to true depth. I’d agree that Cheers did characters better, though I would also argue that Roseanne did it better than Cheers. I simply mean the show was driven SIMPLY by character interaction. Not that they were well-defined characters. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/5 "2005-08-16T15:48:05Z")
> [@middleman](#): > > I simply mean the show was driven SIMPLY by character interaction. As opposed to what? The days of the wacky, screwball comedy were well over by the time Cheers came along. ---
**Author:** ![RumMunkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@RumMunkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RumMunkey)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/6 "2005-08-16T16:19:24Z")
I think Seinfeld “changed the face of TV sitcoms” more so than Cheers simply because it happened later and they got away with more. Cheers wouldn’t have been able to do a show about masturbation (or lack thereof), or a show about being mistaken as a homosexual couple or a lot of the other racy things Seinfeld did simply because Seinfeld was peaking in the late 1990s, and Cheers was peaking in the late 80s. It was just a different time. That said, if you want to go back I point you at Three’s Company for one of the earliest attempts at pushing the envelope. (And hey, didn’t I Love Lucy break new ground forit’s time? Wasn’t that the first show to actually show a married couple in bed (-just sleeping at that!)? I think Leave it to Beaver was the first show to actually show a toilet on screen, too. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/7 "2005-08-16T16:50:53Z")
> [@RumMunkey](#): > > That said, if you want to go back I point you at Three’s Company for one of the earliest attempts at pushing the envelope. (And hey, didn’t I Love Lucy break new ground forit’s time? Wasn’t that the first show to actually show a married couple in bed (-just sleeping at that!)? > > I think Leave it to Beaver was the first show to actually show a toilet on screen, too. Ahh, mundane, pointless sitcom trivia. Yes, Leave It to Beaver was the first show to feature a toilet, albeit only the tolet tank. The first show to feature a married couple in the same bed is a highly charged subject for debate. Some TV experts say it was _Mary Kay and Johnny_ – which is often considered the first network sitcom. However, since there are no copies of the show remaining, no one knows for sure. Harriet Nelson always claimed that _Ozzie and Harriet_ was the first sitcom couple in the same bed. Since this would require actually going back and watching the show, I refuse to verify the claim personally. Likewise, Florence Henderson claims it was the Bradys who first slept together. Back to the OP, if you want a show about nothing, I’d suggest going back to _The Andy Griffith Show._ Sure, some episodes had “plots” but a lot of times it was just wacky characters sittin’ around talkin’ slow. For that matter, _Mr. Peepers_ once had Wally Cox taking the pins out of a brand new shirt. Nothing remotely funny about that, except for the fact that there were hundreds and hundreds of pins in the shirt, and the entire bit was his response to it. The concept of “nothing” is a long and hallowed sitcom tradition. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/8 "2005-08-16T17:50:24Z")
In terms of changing the situation comedy, I don’t think it’s fair to compare _Seinfeld_ with _Cheers_ because the shows are too different. About the only thing they really had in common was at one time they occupied the once-coveted Thursday night at 9 p.m. time slot for NBC. The most notable area where I think _Cheers_ broke new ground was in introducing the whole continuing “will they or won’t they” plotline between Sam and Diane. \*Seinfeld \* never really had anything like that. True, Jerry and Elaine had a past and did get together in one episode but, after that, it was back to the usual minutia. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/9 "2005-08-16T17:57:59Z")
Great explanation/analysis of _Seinfeld_, **Nonsuch**. I think _Cheers_ was very good but pretty conventional for a sitcom. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/10 "2005-08-16T18:06:34Z")
> [@middleman](#): > > The conventional wisdom goes that Seinfeld led TV away from family sitcoms and high concepts to shows about character interaction and true _situational_ comedy. I think you misunderstand the concept of situational comedy. A situational comedy uses a particular situation as a template for each episode. _eg;_[ul][li]An extremely conservative and bigoted man shares close quarters with his extremely liberal daughter and son-in-law.[_]A group of disparate characters are marooned on an island.[_]Two best friends dress in drag to get into affordable women’s-only housing.[_]An American man’s distant cousin immigrates to the U.S. and comes to live with them. Their world-views are extremely different.[_]A WASP millionaire adopts two brothers from the projects.[/ul]Etc, etc. What makes a situation comedy a “true” situation comedy is that every episode begins from the starting point of certain tensions that are established in the conception of the show – with the germinal _situation._[/li] _Cheers_ was still cast in the mold of a traditional sitcom: You’ve got this guy-- a guy’s guy. A jock. Meat-and-potatoes. A woman comes into his bar who is totally unlike him: She’s all about “high culture” and “quality people.” Her fiance (and employer) ditches her, and the guy takes pity on her and offers her a job in the bar, where she contrasts strongly with the other barmaid and the clientelle of the establishment. It evolved over the years, but it was always very much a situation comedy. _Seinfeld_ tossed the idea of a sitcom out the window. You had four characters, and whatever happened to them each week had _nothing_ to do with any “What if…” scenario dreamed up during the development of the show’s concept. Personally, I think _Cheers_ was a better show – but _Seinfeld_ was certainly more innovative, and owes no debt to _Cheers_. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/11 "2005-08-16T18:08:30Z")
> [@NDP](#): > > The most notable area where I think _Cheers_ broke new ground was in introducing the whole continuing “will they or won’t they” plotline between Sam and Diane. No way. That is an old theme. That shitty Bruce Willis series _Moonlighting_ did it before _Cheers_ and they certainly weren’t the first. ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/12 "2005-08-16T18:36:25Z")
I thought what was ground-breaking about Seinfeld wasn’y any of the points mentioned thus far, but the two rules Larry David and Seinfeld observed from the start: _no hugging, no learning_. Most other sitcoms, including Cheers, include hugging / learning moments at least from time to time. But the Seinfeld crew were determined to avoid either, and I think that’s what gives the show its unique flavour. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/13 "2005-08-16T18:42:21Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > No way. That is an old theme. That shitty Bruce Willis series _Moonlighting_ did it before _Cheers_ and they certainly weren’t the first. Nitpick: _Cheers_ began in 1982, with Sam and Diane hitting the sheets at the end of the first season. _Moonlighting_ didn’t arrive on the scen until 1985. What made _Cheers_ different is that once the characters did it, they did not immediately get married. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/14 "2005-08-16T18:46:48Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > _Seinfeld_ tossed the idea of a sitcom out the window. You had four characters, and whatever happened to them each week had _nothing_ to do with any “What if…” scenario dreamed up during the development of the show’s concept. I think this overstates things a bit. For a show about nothing, _Seinfeld’s_ plots were extremely tight, with the “Jerry/George” strand of an episode often dovetailing with the “Kramer” strand in unexpected ways. In terms of story construction, _Seinfeld_ owes surprisingly much to the classic farce exemplified by _Fawlty Towers_, where plans always go wrong and characters who lie or cheat receive their karmic just desserts. Moreover, _Seinfeld_ strictly obeyed Sitcom Rule #1: **Everything Is Back to Normal Again By the End**. So I don’t think you can say they “tossed the sitcom out the window.” But by breaking away from the family living room comedy, they were able to avoid a lot of the cliches that even good family sitcoms fall prey to. Moreover, although Jerry and the gang typically paid a price for acting deceitfully or selfishly, _Seinfeld_ is sufficiently devoid of sentiment (Jerry’s famous “no hugs, no learning” dictum) that it indeed doesn’t seem to have much in common with a show like _Full House_. Now, if you want a show that truly throws the “sitcom” out the window, let’s talk about _The Young Ones_ or _The Larry Sanders Show_. (Thanks, **Thudlow** ) ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/15 "2005-08-16T18:48:08Z")
Addendum: I was still writing when **ianzin** made much the same point I did, and in fewer words to boot. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/16 "2005-08-16T18:50:10Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > Nitpick: _Cheers_ began in 1982, with Sam and Diane hitting the sheets at the end of the first season. _Moonlighting_ didn’t arrive on the scen until 1985. > > What made _Cheers_ different is that once the characters did it, they did not immediately get married. Also, unlike _Moonlighting_, _Cheers_ wasn’t creatively exhausted once the main characters got past the “will they do it” hurdle. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/17 "2005-08-16T19:18:03Z")
Seinfeld might have been a show about “nothing” but Cheers was the first show where people talked about “nothing.” Before Cheers characters in tv shows almost never engaged in small talk, all the dialogue existed to advance the plot. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/18 "2005-08-16T20:19:06Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > I don’t think you can say they “tossed the sitcom out the window.” But by breaking away from the family living room comedy, they were able to avoid a lot of the cliches that even good family sitcoms fall prey to. Here we have a minor disagreement over definition of terms. I’m using the much narrower definition of “sitcom,” as defined by folks like Norman Lear and Harlan Ellison, where the “situation” part comes from the initial situation established by the show’s _premise_, as opposed to the broader (and arguably more common) definition, in which the “situation” part refers to the episodic definitions. The broader definition really only serves to distinguish situation comedy from stand-up or sketch comedy. For taxonomic purposes, a better term for this type of show is “episodic comedy.” > [@Nonsuch](#): > > Now, if you want a show that truly throws the “sitcom” out the window, let’s talk about _The Young Ones_ or _The Larry Sanders Show_. These shows are much more unconventional (and IMHO _better_) than _Seinfeld_ – no argument there. However, using Lear’s definition, _The Young Ones_ is a situation comedy, while _Seinfeld_ simply isn’t – since each week the writers of _The Young Ones_ drew on the formulaic premise of four very different housemates sharing close quarters, a hippy, an “anarchist,” a punk, and a self-interested capitalist. So, while the episodic variations were extremely unusual, everything flows naturally from the initial parameters. (Eg; Vyv accidentally strikes oil in the basement while breaking shit up for the sheer hell of it, Mike claims it as his own and sets himself up as an oil-baron dictator, Rick plans to overthrow the ‘government’ through violent revolution, and Neil frets about the environmental impact and hopes to bring about a desirable resolution through “good vibes.”) As a side note, in one sense _The Young Ones_ isn’t a situation comedy – it’s a “variety show.” This is really just a ruse, though: The producers wanted to work in stereo, and the BBC had an inflexible policy that situation comedies should be mono, while variety shows should be stereo. They couldn’t get around this, so they decided to include a musical number in every episode and say “Oi! It’s a variety show! Now give us our stereo gear and bugger off!” 😃 Anyway, what distinguishes _Seinfeld_ is that it never relied on a formula to drive the direction of the plot. This is why it’s a show “about nothing.” Yeah, you’ve got distinctive characters, but there was nothing about their _situation_ that the writers used to hang plot ideas on – unlike a show with an actual premise, like, say, a guy tells an uptight landlord that he’s gay so that he can share an apartment with two girls, wherein the episode writers riff on that situation for laughs. How does he have a personal life without his landlord finding out that he’s straight and evicting him? What about the sexual tensions that arise in this platonic arrangement? You can do paint-by-numbers episodes. With _Seinfield_, there simply was _no situation_ like that for the writers to keep rehashing. While, personally, it never really turned my crank, it really was something new as far as American half-hour comedies was concerned. It tossed out a fundamental rule that every single other episodic comedy before that treated as fundamental. It’s the comedic equivalent of atonal music. Seinfeld (and LD), like Schoenberg, surprised people by disregarding an established starting point for composition. “Key? What key?” “Premise? What premise?” ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/19 "2005-08-16T20:53:54Z")
I think the biggest innovation of Seinfeld was that the four leads were wholly unsympathetic characters. Other sitcoms featured somewhat unsympathetic characters, but only on the surface: lovable losers, or grumpy old farts with hearts of gold, or wacky dysfunctional people learning to live, laugh, and love. Even shows that included an unredeemable character (like Danny Devito on Taxi) didn’t center on that awful character, but rather on the normal characters reaction to him. But Seinfeld gradually revealed the sheer awfulness of all the characters in an uncompromising way. And they weren’t awful in a grand operatic way, but rather were petty, aimless, and hopeless. I don’t think any other show had the courage to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275/20 "2005-08-16T21:44:13Z")
**Larry Mudd,** I’m not sure I’m getting it. Maybe because your counter-examples are so vivid; obviously _Seinfeld_ doesn’t have a “gimmick” the way _Three’s Company_ or _Bosom Buddies_ did, in that there is no inherent tension in the show’s premise: they are simply four friends who live near each other. You see _The Young Ones_ as being a more traditional “sitcom” because (if I’m understanding you properly) of the inherent tension, the “funny-ness,” of four completely antagonistic personalities sharing the same space. So is it simply a matter of _Seinfeld’s_ characters being geographically dispersed, not forced together in a way artificially engineered to produce wacky situations? If so, couldn’t one argue that, since so much of the action occurs in Jerry’s apartment anyway, _Seinfeld_ is still formally just a “roommates” sitcom? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doesnt-seinfeld-gets-credit-that-cheers-deserves/317275.md?page=2)