When was Seinfeld better?

[Trekker4747]

Seinfeld, like many TV series, started off with a different tone than the tone it had later in its life.

The first couple seasons were much more naturalistic in tone and the interconnecting storylines were almost non-exsistant.

By later in the series it became a bit more farcical. It was still very funn and easily one of the best series out there, but part of me prefered the more natural feel of the earlier years.

 

[Kirby]

I prefer season 3,4,5, and 6.
The later seasons were just a little too over the top, although they did showcase some amazing recurring characters such as J. Peterman and David Puddy.

 

[Michael]

I, too, prefer the earlier seasons of Seinfeld. The show didn't seem as formulaic back then; the stories felt more naturalistic and the episodes didn't depend too much on the fact that every character had its own story thread.

Having said that, I still love almost all Seinfeld episodes. It's definitely one of the best shows ever produced. At least in my book.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

When I was a kid, I preferred the more outlandish stories of the later seasons, particularly Seasons 5-7. (Even I could sense the sharp dip in quality when Larry David left after Season 7.)

But as an adult, I prefer the early, more naturalistic episodes. Those just get funnier the older I get because I realize that they aren't making any of this up. There really are people like this and it is just hell being the only sane person in an insane world sometimes.

 

[M'Sharak]

When was Seinfeld better?

Better than what?

 

[A beaker full of death]

When I was a kid,

ah shit, there goes my brain.

 

[exodus]

I prefer "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia"

 

[Good Will Riker]

I, too, prefer the earlier seasons of Seinfeld. The show didn't seem as formulaic back then; the stories felt more naturalistic and the episodes didn't depend too much on the fact that every character had its own story thread.

That, my friend, applies more so to the transformation of Star Trek from 1966-2005 than any other medium on television.

 

[doubleohfive]

I've never been a huge Seinfeld fan... certainly not to the extent some are, and I've never seen it as the huge best sitcom evar!!!11 that people sometimes make it out to be. However, it does crack me up and I do find it ages quite well. That said, I definitely prefer the early to middle years of the show.

Just the other day I saw the one where Jerry gets his kitchen re-done and Kramer starts swimming in the East River...

I, too, prefer the earlier seasons of Seinfeld. The show didn't seem as formulaic back then; the stories felt more naturalistic and the episodes didn't depend too much on the fact that every character had its own story thread.

That, my friend, applies more so to the transformation of Star Trek from 1966-2005 than any other medium on television.

Frakes was still better post-"Evolution." Like it or love it.

 

[OmahaStar]

When was Seinfeld better?

Better than what?

I'm still trying to figure out when it was ever good/worth watching.

 

[Good Will Riker]

Frakes was still better post-"Evolution." Like it or love it.

What the writers of TNG did to the character of William T. Riker post-Season 3 is tantamount to rewriting Trip Tucker on ENT to have as much development, presence, and status on the show as Travis Mayweather.

It was like taking Flash Gordon and transforming him into one of the Arboreal people even before the 1st serial (They produced 3 "Flash Gordon" serials from 1936-1940) was even completed.

 

[doubleohfive]

 

[Smiley]

I enjoy early Seinfeld quite a bit. I own seasons 1-3, and I will probably pick up the fourth season at some point. If I watch the other five seasons, it will be through a rental service first.

 

[Good Will Riker]

Like it or not, the more "Kirk-like" Jonathan Frakes was promoted as "the star" of TNG when it premiered in 1987, and a possible usurper for Patrick Stewart during seasons 1,2,3, had the American audience decide not to embrace an old, bald, British guy in the role of the captain.

Yes, post-TNG season 3 is when Star Trek on television became the predominant formula that we know of today.

 

[JonathonWally]

When was Seinfeld better?

Better than what?

I'm still trying to figure out when it was ever good/worth watching.

Never was.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Like it or not, the more "Kirk-like" Jonathan Frakes was promoted as "the star" of TNG when it premiered in 1987, and a possible usurper for Patrick Stewart during seasons 1,2,3, had the American audience decide not to embrace an old, bald, British guy in the role of the captain.

A lot of TNG was recycled from Phase II. GR envisioned an older, wiser, less active Jim Kirk giving over much of his leading man status to the younger, more dynamic Decker. Of course, when it turned out Frakes had all the charisma of a used tampon, Stewart came to assume both roles.

Yes, post-TNG season 3 is when Star Trek on television became the predominant formula that we know of today.

Which marked the end of Star Trek. What followed was simply something else, regardless of its arguable merit.

 

[RandyS]

I liked all of Seinfeld. It had the occasional bad episode, but that was it's only flaw.

 

[exodus]

Just smile and nod your head.

 

[John Picard]

When Kramer was after Cuban cigars is one of my favorites. It let right up to the episode, "The Cheever Letters", which is one of the all time classics.

 

[slappy]

When was Seinfeld better?

Better than what?

I'm still trying to figure out when it was ever good/worth watching.

It's the best show in the history of television. Know this.