'The Bottle Deposit' - arrrrrrrgh
John Woodin
Well, that was the much balleyhooed 1-hour episode....
What a disappointment.
Let's take a critical look:
As another poster pointed out, a 1-hour episode and no sign of Susan.
George's marriage date is looming and not a single mention.
And where was David Putty, Jerry's old mechanic? He was committed to
him at the end of last season.
When the mechanic stole the car, why didn't anyone think to call him
on Jerry's car-phone? That's what Jerry did the first time his car
was stolen, in 'The Alternate Side'.
And the issue wasn't even resolved! A whole hour and the car is
still missing.
This show could easily have been edited down to a half-hour. There
were long scenes that weren't very funny at all. Some of them didn't
even attempt to be funny.
The auction scene - no laughs
Monk's scene - George and Jerry going over the words to
'Downtown' - lame laughs
Newman at the farmhouse - very few jokes even attempted
And the very worst came at the very last. Most episodes have a tail-end
scene for the credits to roll over which is usually very funny. There
have been some classic eps with a killer punchline in this position.
So what were we served up last night? An exterior building shot!
They didn't even try! It was like they had simply run out of jokes!
Did anyone else feel shortchanged? Where was the insightful humour?
Where was the witty banter? Where was the comedy we could relate to?
I'll give them credit for one good laugh, though:
Steinbrenner talks about his brother-in-law and the mental hospital:
"The man was obsessed with lactating women. They completely cured him...
Although he still eats a lot of cheese."
That comment was so bizarre that it killed me.
Anyway, my spleen is vented, now it's your turn...
Flame-on!
JW
i...@sdsu.edu
In article <4mdarl$q...@orb.direct.ca>, jwo...@Direct.CA (John Woodin) wrote:
> Well, that was the much balleyhooed 1-hour episode....
> What a disappointment.
Gotta agree with you -- I came in a few minutes late and by the end, I
still didn't know the reason for it all. It just seemed like a bunch of
fragmented ideas that they nver fully developed so they decided to link
them together under a one hour show. And it wasn't even funny. A big
disappointment.
> I'll give them credit for one good laugh, though:
> Steinbrenner talks about his brother-in-law and the mental hospital:
> "The man was obsessed with lactating women. They completely cured him...
> Although he still eats a lot of cheese."
>
> That comment was so bizarre that it killed me.
>
Once again -- I agree. It was so bizarre that I did a double take -- did I
just hear that right?
I wonder what they were thinking when they viewed it themselves. Hell, I
bet they didn't even do that. I've found that all of the one-hour episodes
over the years are the LEAST funny ones. They try too hard to make them a
BIG event, that everything falls flat. Don't they get it? The whole point
fo the show is to point out the little things, not the big things...
Oh well, at least I can tape over that one...
ICF
Peter Ryan
>
>Anyway, my spleen is vented, now it's your turn...
>
I agree - totally dull show - waste of time. :<
~P
Mitchell Virchick P225
It didn't make the pantheon of classic Seinfeld shows, is my 2 cents worth. However, they did reveal Newman's name (I forgot, was it Norman?), so maybe we can put that thread to rest. They even said "Elaine Benes" at one point! The story elements were too unreal (the whole mechanic business with the "Did you take good care of your car" line), or too cliche'd (The auction scene with the spiteful bidding, and George in the mental ward were just not very fresh-feeling). I may have not been in the mood to
watch it, but I think it just wasn't up to par. Though I gotta say that Jerry & co. on a bad day still beats most any other sitcom on a good--I mean, do you really want to watch the Helen Hunt's and Paul Reiser's marriage go on the rocks in "Mad About You"?--ecchh!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Virchick "Now is the time for all
mvi...@bnr.ca good men to come to the
Nortel-35 Davis aid of their party."
Monty D. Martin
jwo...@Direct.CA (John Woodin) wrote:
>Well, that was the much balleyhooed 1-hour episode....
>What a disappointment.
As much as I hate to criticize what is usually a well written and
funny show, I must agree, also. So much time was spent developing an
elaborate interconnected plot that could be sustained over an hour,
that they lost sight of what makes Seinfeld really good. The pace was
way off and some of the characters were not the same.
>Let's take a critical look:
>As another poster pointed out, a 1-hour episode and no sign of Susan.
>George's marriage date is looming and not a single mention.
Even if they end up not getting married, Susan is an important part of
George's life right now and her character also provides some of
George's funniest, most tormented scenes.
>And where was David Putty, Jerry's old mechanic? He was committed to
>him at the end of last season.
I believe he was in Florida repairing Dave Barry's Refridgerator.
>When the mechanic stole the car, why didn't anyone think to call him
>on Jerry's car-phone? That's what Jerry did the first time his car
>was stolen, in 'The Alternate Side'.
>And the issue wasn't even resolved! A whole hour and the car is
>still missing.
If they don't revisit that issue in the next episode than they have
totally screwed up. That is not one of those questions that you can
leave unanswered like the the woman with the same dress.
>This show could easily have been edited down to a half-hour. There
>were long scenes that weren't very funny at all. Some of them didn't
>even attempt to be funny.
> The auction scene - no laughs
> Monk's scene - George and Jerry going over the words to
> 'Downtown' - lame laughs
> Newman at the farmhouse - very few jokes even attempted
It was almost like the auction scene was in to justify Elaine bidding
above Peterman's limit, and no more thought was given to it. Even
though auction scenes are so cliche (almost every sitcom that has run
for more than two years has done one) I would have thought that the
Seinfeld writers could have made it a little fresher. Especially
since it was Jackie O's auction.
Monk's scene might have been funnier and certainly more relevent if
they had come up with something. If they couldn't remember the lines
and other people in Monk's tried to help them but kept coming up with
bogus lines like the McD's jingle ads; that would have been funny.
The scene at the farmhouse where the gorgeous woman falls for Newman
might have been funnier if they hadn't done the same thing two nights
before on '3rd Rock'. I thought the reference to all those old
traveling salesman/farmers daughter jokes was great, but I think they
missed a lot of opportunities for some really big laughs here.
I also thought Kramer was taken out of character. He must be taking
medication because he was much less spasmotic and often times very
lucid. This is probably a good example of what a spin-off with Kramer
would be like. Newman was not his brilliantly evil self either.
Some of the plot elements were just too outlandish even for Seinfeld.
It's one thing to block traffic arguing about a parking space or
kidnapping a dog, but Newman and Kramer could face very serious
federal charges for what they did with the mail truck and the mail.
There was also a technical error in this plot. When the USPS
transports that much mail over land, they use semis and not 'bread
wagons'. And why would they worry about the cost of gas? The post
office would be paying for that.
While the scene with George Steinbrenner was funny, only a legal
guardian can have somebody commited, otherwise their admission to a
mental hospital or clinic is voluntary.
>Did anyone else feel shortchanged? Where was the insightful humour?
>Where was the witty banter? Where was the comedy we could relate to?
There were some great bits, like treating the car as a person.
Especially at the end when they found the woman's Saab. Also,
Peterman's reaction when he finally got the clubs. Mostly it was just
to long. I would have rather seen a new half hour episode that was
well written and a repeat. I never had a least favorite Seinfeld
episode until now.
>I'll give them credit for one good laugh, though:
>Steinbrenner talks about his brother-in-law and the mental hospital:
>"The man was obsessed with lactating women. They completely cured him...
> Although he still eats a lot of cheese."
>That comment was so bizarre that it killed me.
I'm not sure how bizarre it was but it was very funny. Especially the
delivery, done as only Larry David can do.
Monty
--------------------------------------
"A cigar may be just a cigar, but Lanie, now she's a smoke." -- W.T. 'Doc' Pfefferle, PhD.
Gary Kline
In article <4mdarl$q...@orb.direct.ca>, jwo...@Direct.CA says...
>Well, that was the much balleyhooed 1-hour episode....
>What a disappointment.
Yeah, I'd agree. Very poorly written episode, weakly threaded together
with implausible situations and out-of-character decisions.
>And where was David Putty, Jerry's old mechanic? He was committed to
>him at the end of last season.
Another inconsistency. And I think the writers have gone too far. It's
one thing to take a concept such as "how mechanics feel about your car"
and exaggerate it a little, but this was WAY over the top. It becomes too
silly to be funny. Earlier Seinfeld episodes would just skim along the
border of reality with situations, which made it quite hysterical.
>When the mechanic stole the car, why didn't anyone think to call him
>on Jerry's car-phone? That's what Jerry did the first time his car
>was stolen, in 'The Alternate Side'.
And what the heck is the policeman doing acting like the mechanic?
Where's the connection? They suddenly jump into this "other world" where
cars are like people's children. Strange, and highly unrealistic. Most
people beat on their cars. I think they took this too far.
>And the issue wasn't even resolved! A whole hour and the car is
>still missing.
Yes, a real let down. Whatever happened to it and the mechanic?
>This show could easily have been edited down to a half-hour. There
>were long scenes that weren't very funny at all. Some of them didn't
>even attempt to be funny.
I'm going to post an 'alternative' episode based on this one...
>And the very worst came at the very last. Most episodes have a tail-end
>scene for the credits to roll over which is usually very funny. There
>have been some classic eps with a killer punchline in this position.
>So what were we served up last night? An exterior building shot!
>They didn't even try! It was like they had simply run out of jokes!
All of the sudden, Mr. Peterman is walking out of the office with the beat
up clubs, and it's over. Done. Nothing. And it looks like UPN has
rubbed off on NBC. They did that 'half-screen' credits deal. Really
lousy.
>Did anyone else feel shortchanged? Where was the insightful humour?
>Where was the witty banter? Where was the comedy we could relate to?
It was one of the WORST Seinfeld episodes, in my book anyway.
>I'll give them credit for one good laugh, though:
>Steinbrenner talks about his brother-in-law and the mental hospital:
>"The man was obsessed with lactating women. They completely cured him...
> Although he still eats a lot of cheese."
Yes, that was hilarious! But one thing that was weird... When George is
missing, presumed dead, Steinbrenner promotes someone else almost
immediately. However, this time he says "Don't worry George. Your job
will be here waiting for you, even if it takes a year!"
>Anyway, my spleen is vented, now it's your turn...
>Flame-on!
Tempting... hmmm... Nah, you did a good review of it. <clap, clap>
Hey, who turned out the lights?
-Gary K.
Rita Zobayan
I agree: it sucked. The plot was thin at best, and dragged.
In article <4mdq23$2...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>, mvi...@bnr.ca (Mitchell Virchick
HGLEIDT
If I'm not mistaken, isn't this the third time Jerry has had a car stolen?
He got one stolen last night, once by that guy that had Kramer's gloves
in the glove compartment, & then he gave away the B.B.O. BMW. He sure
has bad luck with the cars. He should quit loaning them to Newman,
Kramer, & George & maybe those problems wouldnt happen. I also remember
Elaine & George screwing up his car in "The Parking Spot." He has really
bad luck.
Heather
r...@mainelink.net
someone wrote:
-> >This show could easily have been edited down to a half-hour. There
-> >were long scenes that weren't very funny at all.
someone else wrote:
-> So much time was spent developing an
-> elaborate interconnected plot that could be sustained over an hour,
-> that they lost sight of what makes Seinfeld really good. The pace was
-> way off and some of the characters were not the same.
Both excellent points.
Isn't it ironic that the producers think they're giving us this GREAT
special suprise, and the concensus seems to be we'd rather see a well done
1/2 hour than a full hour that feels stretched.
I'd even go so far as to say I'd rather see a fast-paced 15 minute show
and get on with my life than be waiting 10 minutes between jokes during a
1-hour bore-a-thon.
//Ralph
____________________________________________________________________
Distribution of this posting on the Microsoft Network(tm)
is permitted for a fee of US$100. Inclusion of this posting
on the Microsoft Network(tm) constitutes acceptance of the
above terms. Report violations to: postm...@microsoft.com.
Darwin Teague
In article <ritzy-03059...@ritzy.hip.berkeley.edu>,
ri...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Rita Zobayan) wrote:
>I agree: it sucked. The plot was thin at best, and dragged.
>
>
>
>In article <4mdq23$2...@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>, mvi...@bnr.ca (Mitchell
Virchick
>P225) wrote:
>
However, they did reveal Newman's name (I forgot, was it Norman?),
>so maybe we can put that thread to rest.
I'd say she just got his name wrong - mistook Norman for Newman.
Mamatha Devineni Ratnam
THe worst Seinfeld episode of all time. There might have been a couple as bad,
but this was for a whole hour.
Chris Perkins
In article <4mqpeq$b...@pegasus.odyssee.net>, ag...@odyssee.net (aglie) wrote:
>>Especially
>>since it was Jackie O's auction.
>wouldnt this have been a great opportunity to bring Mr. Pitt back for
>a cameo appearance? If i remember corectly he was a friend of
>Jackie's, no?
i hadn't thought of that. what a great idea! he could've been there bidding
on jackie's tennis racket, or maybe some of jfk's white socks.
chris
Mike
In "the Cafe" george says he'll take his actual sat test score to the
grave, but he tells everyone he got 1409. is it just me or is it
impossible to score 1409 on the sat's?? if so, its quite funny that
george thinks hes fooling everyone he tells this too, when really they
know he's lying because the SAt score goes in increments of 5 or 10.
mike
call...@gnn.com
The pain in your forehead was the joke not quite clearing your head, it was
not from over-thinking this.
Glenn
cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) wrote:
> In "the Cafe" george says he'll take his actual sat test score to the
>grave, but he tells everyone he got 1409. is it just me or is it
>impossible to score 1409 on the sat's?? if so, its quite funny that
>george thinks hes fooling everyone he tells this too, when really they
>know he's lying because the SAt score goes in increments of 5 or 10.
> mike
The SAT is a two-part test that earns a score between 200 and 800 per
part. (Verbal & Math) 1600 is a perfect score. A 1409 would be an
exceptional score, just shy of being high enough to get him into
Mensa. You're probably thinking of the ACT tests which, I believe, go
up to a high score of 30.
Mike
> The SAT is a two-part test that earns a score between 200 and 800
per
>part. (Verbal & Math) 1600 is a perfect score. A 1409 would be an
>exceptional score, just shy of being high enough to get him into
>Mensa. You're probably thinking of the ACT tests which, I believe, go
>up to a high score of 30.
>
>
no, i meant that the SAT's can't produce a score with an odd number.
a score of 1410 would be possible, not 1409.
mike
pK
cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) ripped off all remaining clothes and hollered:
]In <4n0sbc$3...@news-e2c.gnn.com> ND1I...@cris.com (Glenn) writes:
] no, i meant that the SAT's can't produce a score with an odd number.
]a score of 1410 would be possible, not 1409.
That's correct...increments of ten only.
The PSAT is the same way, I think.
1409 would be a projected average.
____________________________________
+kevin c welch
+http://www.vni.net/~kwelch/genesis/
F_Jackie
cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) wrote:
> In "the Cafe" george says he'll take his actual sat test score to the
>grave, but he tells everyone he got 1409. is it just me or is it
>impossible to score 1409 on the sat's?? if so, its quite funny that
>george thinks hes fooling everyone he tells this too, when really they
>know he's lying because the SAt score goes in increments of 5 or 10.
I believe 1600 is the highest possible score, if you're referring to
the fact that a 1409 is not possible numerically because of the
configuration of the scoring system, I have no clue.
a_mensan
cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) wrote:
>In <4n0sbc$3...@news-e2c.gnn.com> ND1I...@cris.com (Glenn) writes:
>> The SAT is a two-part test that earns a score between 200 and 800
>per
>>part. (Verbal & Math) 1600 is a perfect score. A 1409 would be an
>>exceptional score, just shy of being high enough to get him into
>>Mensa. You're probably thinking of the ACT tests which, I believe, go
>>up to a high score of 30.
A score of 1409 is not possible, as SAT scores are given in increments
of 10.
Furthermore, a score 0f 1400 is indeed not only exceptional, but MORE
THAN QUALIFIES for membership in American Mensa. The requirements set
forth by American Mensa are as follows:
College Board SAT, (Verbal & MAth combined):
Prior to 9/77: 1300
9/77 to 1/31/94: 1250
After 1/94 NOT ACCEPTABLE
College Board GRE
Before 6/94 (Verbal & Math) 1250
After 6/94 (All sections combined) 1875
MAT--raw score: 66
Numerous other tests, especially professional psychometic measurements
of intelligence (Stanford-Binet, WAIS,WAIS-R, WISC,etc.) are
acceptable also, and have different score requirements.
The qualifying score for any given measurement instrument is the score
at the 98th percentile (above which only 2% of the population will
score); the specific score will of course vary from instrument to
instrument.
For more info, write American Mensa, Ltd., 201 Main St., Suite 1101,
Fort Worth, TX 76102. (817) 332-2600
A Mensan
Cheryl Jenkins
As someone whose business is SAT and other test preparation, let
me set this one straight. The SAT, which is scored on a scale of
400 to 1600 combined, is only in ten-point increments, as you
said, so a 1409 is not a score one could get on the SAT. You
could get a 1400, or a 1410, but nothing in between. I have
noticed this error on many a tv show, including some usually
accurate ones like thirtysomething, where a character mentions his
SAT score and it does not end in zero.
BTW, the SAT was recently re-centered to adjust the mean back to
500 per section, so scores before 1995 do not compare to current
scores.
And in my opinion, there is no way George could have gotten a
1400, since he is none too bright! And he freely acknowledges
that fact, and even tried to cheat on an IQ test by giving it to
Elaine! (Who could have gotten 1400, probably.)
call...@gnn.com
Cheryl Jenkins wrote:
>And in my opinion, there is no way George could have gotten a
>1400, since he is none too bright! And he freely acknowledges
>that fact, and even tried to cheat on an IQ test by giving it to
>Elaine! (Who could have gotten 1400, probably.)
I guess I wasn't clear in my answer last Friday, since I was short and witty.
Here it is all spelled out:
The joke is that George 'says' he got a 1409 on his SAT, which is a high
score. The joke is on him, though, since 1409 is not possible. The error
was intentionally introduced, to show that George can't even look smart when
he lies about his SAT score.
sheeesh.
Shelley Nash
> A score of 1409 is not possible, as SAT scores are given in increments
> of 10.
Have they recently changed the scoring criteria? I took my SAT's in 1994 and
it was possible at that time to achieve a perfect score of 1600 (although this is
quite rare for obvious reasons).
Shelley Nash
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~sln
ljwe...@pipeline.com
Mike
In <3197C2...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> Shelley Nash
<s...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
>Have they recently changed the scoring criteria? I took my SAT's in
1994 and
>it was possible at that time to achieve a perfect score of 1600
(although this is
>quite rare for obvious reasons).
1600 is still the highest score, but we are saying that a 1409 is
impossible because it doesn't end in 0.
mike
Alvin Nichter
Mike (cord...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3197C2...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> Shelley Nash
: <s...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes:
: mike
It depends on when you took the SAT. When I took it, the component
tests (math and verbal) each were scored to the nearest point, not
the nearest 10 points. It was possible to get a score that ended
in a digit othe than zero. This was quite some time ago, but the
characters on Seinfeld aren't exactly recent grad's either.
---Alvin H. Nichter
Talk1370
Actually, unless they've changed it recently, it was not only
possible, but normal to get a score like 1409 (or 1408, or
whatever)...if they've gone to a system in which the test was
scorable only in 5 or 10 point increments it's a recent change.
(My own SATs taken in the fall of 1968 generated an aggregate
score ending in 4.) The fictional George would probably have taken
his SAT sometime between about 1969 and 1977, probably about
1971 or 1972, based on the age of all the characters in the show.
At that time, the SAT was scored in such a way that theoretically
(depending on the individual test, the weighting of the questions,
and relative performance of others) the score could end in any digit
0 through 9.
The real joke is that, a) the number SOUNDS real, and b) George,
if he existed, couldn't possibly have scored that well. (Although it
wouldn't be a shock if 1409 WAS the actual SAT of either Jerry
Seinfeld or Larry David...or for that matter, of Jason Alexander).
Bob Smith, middays WXXI-AM 1370 Rochester NY
Barry W Wilson
On May 12, 1996, A Mensan wrote...
> cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) wrote:
>
> >In <4n0sbc$3...@news-e2c.gnn.com> ND1I...@cris.com (Glenn) writes:
>
> >> The SAT is a two-part test that earns a score between 200 and 800
> >per
> >>part. (Verbal & Math) 1600 is a perfect score. A 1409 would be an
> >>exceptional score, just shy of being high enough to get him into
> >>Mensa. You're probably thinking of the ACT tests which, I believe, go
> >>up to a high score of 30.
>
> A score of 1409 is not possible, as SAT scores are given in increments
> of 10.
>
Goofymook
this is true, the highest is 1600 and it is done in increments of 10. i
think they were trying to tip us off that George was lying.
Beddingfield
Goofymook wrote:
>
> this is true, the highest is 1600 and it is done in increments of 10. i
> think they were trying to tip us off that George was lying.
I can't remember the details, but what was it that George said his score was again?
If it was above 1600, it was definitely a lie, but if you're saying that they were
trying to tip us off that George was lying b/c it wasn't an increment of 10, that
might not be the case. I'm not THAT old ;-) , but I believe it wasn't until the
last 10 or so years that Educ. Testing Services has made the SAT only in increments
of 10. Anybody remember?
KJOH5
George said his SAT score was 1409.....in the Cafe. He admits he is
lying...he takes to his grave his real score and wont even tell Jerry!
Katie Johns (Australia)