[QUOTE=Beware of Doug]
…amongst single baby boomers in New York who are either Jewish or crypto-Jewish.
[/QUOTE]
There is nothing “crypto” about being Jewish, sonny. ;j
[QUOTE=Hampshire]
It had characters the same way Laverne and Shirley did. Sure, you could say “Laverne and Shirley was about two friends living together in Milwaukee who work at a brewery and the daily crazy situations they get into. There are also crazy frineds and relatives, i.e. Lenny and Squiggy, Pop, etc.”
[/QUOTE]
Laverne and Shirley did have a premise though. Like Happy Days, its parent show, it was based on 1950s nostalgia.
Hijack:
Okay, I’ve identified every premise except this one:
What show is this?
[QUOTE=acsenray]
Laverne and Shirley did have a premise though. Like Happy Days, its parent show, it was based on 1950s nostalgia.
Hijack:
Okay, I’ve identified every premise except this one:
What show is this?
[/QUOTE]
My guess was Arrested Development.
On second thought, I think it may have been Married With Children.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
Laverne and Shirley did have a premise though. Like Happy Days, its parent show, it was based on 1950s nostalgia.
Hijack:
Okay, I’ve identified every premise except this one:
What show is this?
[/QUOTE]
Married With Children I guess.
Thanks for all the replies. I’m tending to agree with those who shared my opinion in the OP. Many sitcoms, some much earlier than Seinfeld could just as easily be considered ‘a show about nothing’. The Royle Family, although post-Seinfeld is about the only sitcom I can think of that really deserves the title. I don’t enjoy it myself but i can see the attraction.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
On second thought, I think it may have been Married With Children.
[/QUOTE]
:smack: Of course!
[QUOTE=I am a Doughnut]
Seinfeld is often referred to as a ‘show about nothing’, a concept made fun of when Jerry and George did Jerry . I don’t get it though. Seinfeld seemed to be a typical, (although much much better than most), sitcom. Most episodes followed the same format.
Jerry, Elaine George and Kramer have established characters
Somehow all 4 get into a bizarre yet comedic situation based on their character
Situations overlap, and get then get concluded right before end credits.
All in all exactly how your normal sitcom works.
So why the ‘show about nothing’ designation?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it was a normal sitcom at all. There also was never a “2 characters locked in somewhere” or “Boss coming over for supper” episode.
I think they called it a show about nothing, because it is devoid of a standard plot. The characters aren’t married, they aren’t striving towards a goal, they don’t have kids, they don’t have responsibility. They are selfish, shallow people who talk like normal people (about nothing!), who are hilarious to watch.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think some influence can be seen not only in Seinfeld but alos, weirdly enough, in the films of Quentin Tarantino who elevated the use of irrelevant dialogue to an art form in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.
[/QUOTE]
I read an interview with Jerry where he flat-out said that much of Tarantino’s style in those films was lifted directly from his show.
[QUOTE=Nonsuch]
I read an interview with Jerry where he flat-out said that much of Tarantino’s style in those films was lifted directly from his show.
[/QUOTE]
Where? I’d like to read that interview. 
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think some influence can be seen not only in Seinfeld but alos, weirdly enough, in the films of Quentin Tarantino who elevated the use of irrelevant dialogue to an art form in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.
[/QUOTE]
Except that that quality didn’t enter Tarantino’s films via Seinfeld but rather through the influence of the French New Wave. Heck, Tarantino acknowledges the influence of Godard’s Bande à Part in the name of the production company he created for Pulp Fiction, “A Band Apart.” (Although I believe Truffaut’s Shoot the Piano Player has a more direct influence on the dialogue.) You have no idea what a tremendous strength of will it is taking to resist typing out a pages-long digression on Pulp Fiction and its various influences, here. :o
“Don’t ‘Jimmy’ me, Jules.”
[QUOTE=Larry Mudd]
“Don’t ‘Jimmy’ me, Jules.”
[/QUOTE]
:smack:
I never thought it was “a show about nothing.” It always seemed to me to be “a show about nothing terribly important, carried to absurd extremes for laughs.” Put another way, it was “a show about making mountains out of molehills.”
And damned funny, too. Loved it. 
I think that, when Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld first started working on an idea for a sitcom, they realized that a lot of the funniest moments they shared happened at informal get-togethers over coffee or lunch or whatever.
That is, many standup comics are at their funniest NOT on stage, but in bars or diners with their fellow comics, when they’re just having bizarre conversations about this & that.
The actual show was structured and often had standard sitcom stories, characters and plotlines. But I think the original pitch was, “Let’s do a show where a comedian and his friends just get together and talk and break each other up with absurdist conversations. A show where the humor springs more from sitting around talking than from set-up situations.”
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
I never thought it was “a show about nothing.” It always seemed to me to be “a show about nothing terribly important, carried to absurd extremes for laughs.” Put another way, it was “a show about making mountains out of molehills.”
And damned funny, too. Loved it. 
[/QUOTE]
Sadly, sometimes the show was not carried to absurd extremes - or real people can be extremely absurd. I’ve seen the parking space scene with Costanza play out more times than I care to remember, and I’ve met parents and weird as Costanza’s and Seinfeld’s (my best friend’s parents come to mind).
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It wasn’t a show about extraordinary people or extraordinary situations, it was about ordinary people in ordinary situations and finding the humor in that (a lot of which targeted the principle characters’ own self-absorbtion, superficiality and other moral weakness in response to those situations.
[/QUOTE]
This is what I love about it; whatever silly situation I find myself in or hearing about, there’s a Seinfeld to fit it.
[QUOTE=gigi]
This is what I love about it; whatever silly situation I find myself in or hearing about, there’s a Seinfeld to fit it.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah that or The Simpsons. I have to stop myself in conversations from telling a Seinfeld or Simpsons anecdote for just about every subject.
I remind myself of George when I marvel at the powerful flush of one of the bathrooms here; he had an index in mind of how the bathrooms are in every building in NYC.
My parents and I were in the waiting room at NYU ICU and saw a number of Orthodox Jewish folks milling about. One gentleman put on a round fur hat and proceeded on his way. Mom, Pop and I looked at one another and in unison mouthed “It’s the hats.”
And of course The Simpsons inspires a groaning “beer nuts” whenever I am talking about a yummy thing to eat.
What’s the joke behind the “It’s the hats” comment? Don’t remember that one.
BTW… this thread is making me thirsty!
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
What’s the joke behind the “It’s the hats” comment? Don’t remember that one.
[/QUOTE]
George has a crush on a Greek Orthodox girl and goes to the church to discuss converting. The priests are wearing black robes and tall fur hats. “My son, what is it that attracts you to our religion?” “I think…it’s the hats.”
[QUOTE=gigi]
George has a crush on a Greek Orthodox girl and goes to the church to discuss converting. The priests are wearing black robes and tall fur hats. “My son, what is it that attracts you to our religion?” “I think…it’s the hats.”
[/QUOTE]
[nitpick] She was Latvian orthodox. [/nitpick]
I do love that episode though… “I think they convey that pious look that you need in a religion.” 