|
The Narrator posted:They all belonged in that jail cell, except maybe Kramer You mean cockfighting, flag-burning Kramer?
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
Oh whats up Kramer, just committing some Federal crimes? Yeah he deserves to be in the cell. Also he may be a murderer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
His intentions were pure 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
Hey, how'd you know about the guy in the park?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:His intentions were pure You think his hands have been soaking in Ivory liquid?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
Woah ho ho, what do you know about what you look like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 08:07
|
|
|
Well, if you'll kill this person, who's to say I wouldn't be next? But you know me! I thought I did!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
All you jerks saying get rid of Elaine are as bad as the jerks saying get rid of Kramer.  The correct answer is to kill the repairman, nobody will ever miss him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Oh whats up Kramer, just committing some Federal crimes? Poor Pinkus. Poor little Pinkus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 08:33
|
|
|
You know why Rifkin was a serial killer? Because he was adopted. Just like Son of Sam was adopted. So apparently adoption leads to serial killing...
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 08:36
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Oh whats up Kramer, just committing some Federal crimes? Hey, I'm doing what I do. You know, I've always done what I do. I'm doing what I do, way I've always done it and the way I'll always do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 08:51
|
|
|
myron_cope posted:So you never saw Last Tango in Paris? Too bad, it was erotic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Bring back Kramer's dog damnit. Why do we need him, when we have Farful!  (Man, now I need to get him a dog so I can name him Farful...and a rooster named Little Jerry...and a couple of horses...though to be honest I don't care for the name Snoopy, so maybe just get Prickly Pete.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:Why do we need him, when we have Farful! Shlomo and Slippery Pete?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
The chances of me ever getting a rooster are slim to none, so I decided long ago that the next dog I get will be named Little Jerry Seinfeld.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Yeah! Look at me! I was free and clear! I was living the dream! I was stripped to the waist, eating a block of cheese the size of a car battery!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
personaljesus posted:OK, painful question of the day... Revisit the pilot, which is like a glimpse at an alternate no-Elaine universe. The waitress they have instead is deeply awful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
If you mean actually remove, not just 'recast and rename', like some of these responses seem to indicate, it has to be Kramer. His plots are rarely the A story, or when they are, they're counter to the typical 'feel' of the show. Likewise, instances where he plays a necessary part in others' stories, that part could often just as easily be filled by newman/puddy/etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
You think Newman or Puddy could help Japanese tourists spend their yens on such an incredible trip around New York? Or show a lonely librarian some love?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:You think Newman or Puddy could help Japanese tourists spend their yens on such an incredible trip around New York? Or show a lonely librarian some love? Alternatively, both of those could be cut. If you interpret it to mean 'all ____'s stories are eliminated', losing Kramer hurts the show the least. (This isn't to say I don't love the character, and in fact, I think he's the one who'd most alter the show if it was, 'who would you recast?')
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
the very pants I was about to return...
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
Bobby Malone posted:the very pants I was about to return... What about the panties your mother laid out for you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
It's great that this show is on television over in the UK at the moment. Sure, I watched the whole lot on DVD last summer, but it's nice that it's on there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:What about the panties your mother laid out for you? Every molecule is so strained that they can barely retain the properties of a solid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Bobby Malone posted:Every molecule is so strained that they can barely retain the properties of a solid. I was standing by an open window and the breeze disintegrated my underwear, so it's time for a new pair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
Seinfeld should have cashed in on the success of the Cheers-Frasier spinoff, instead of the Friends-Joey nightmare. I'd have watched America's favorite spinoff: "The Continuing Adventures of J. Peterman." The catchphrase for the series would have been "NOT ON MY WATCH!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
WoG posted:If you mean actually remove, not just 'recast and rename', like some of these responses seem to indicate, it has to be Kramer. His plots are rarely the A story, or when they are, they're counter to the typical 'feel' of the show. Likewise, instances where he plays a necessary part in others' stories, that part could often just as easily be filled by newman/puddy/etc. Removing any of the four is going to make the show suck. But for as blasphemous and counter-intuitive as it sounds, I think the show sucks the least removing the best character: George. You need the side-show of Kramer to balance to sheer awfulness of the rest of the characters. The necessity of Jerry is fairly self-evident. Thus is comes down to George and Elaine. Elaine is the gateway to the largest portion of the show's greatest side characters (Peterman, Puddy, even one-offs like the Soup Nazi), and her parade of loser/weirdo/creepy boyfriends provide the set-up for great Seinfeldisms. Thus George, despite being the best character, is the most expendable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
You're all way off. Despite the title of the show Jerry Seinfeld is by far the most unnecessary character. They were barely into season 2 (The Busboy) when the writers realized that Jerry didn't have to be central to every plot point, and they never looked back. He only exists for the other personalities to work off of. I guess without Jerry there wouldn't be nearly as many beautiful women over the 9 seasons but that's not really the main draw of the show. He's the weakest actor with the most nondescript personality. Jerry's apartment though, can't get rid of that. Without Jerry's apartment, there is no show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
Sash! posted:The catchphrase for the series would have been "NOT ON MY WATCH!" Now I have the image of a (reality?) show where John O'Hurley goes into drug addicts' homes and forces them to give up drugs and turn their lives around, citing that the addicts' children are living in "a den of iniquity."
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
I like the idea (showcased a little in the Seinfeld season of Curb Your Enthusiasm) that Jerry is just as bad as George/Larry but he goads them on to be the more upfront of the two in regards to being a terrible person, and Jerry looks better as a result. Like taking an ugly friend out to a bar so you'll look better by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
Caught the episode that inspired the thread title tonight, I forgot how great it is. One of Kramer's best moments: "Your Nana is missing because she's been passing those bum checks all over town, and she's finally pissed off the wrong people!"
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
The bank? IT BURNED. IT'S GONE. Now what you wanna do is go down to 49th Street. That's the main customer service branch. Ask for Mr. Fleming. He'll help you 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Hows her handshake feel? Firm? Maybe a little too firm?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Chexoid posted:Hows her handshake feel? Firm? Maybe a little too firm? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Caught the episode that inspired the thread title tonight, I forgot how great it is. YOU HUNG UP ON MY NANA?!?!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
esperantinc posted:YOU HUNG UP ON MY NANA?!?!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:That wasn't a twist off... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
myron_cope posted:YOU TOLD NANA TO DROP DEAD!?! She can't do that, she's on a very fixed income! Stop the show!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Middle finger straight up! At me! At us!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
safety dan posted:Middle finger straight up! At me! At us!  We're following him
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 05:51
|
|
