Does "Mulaney" seem like a cheap Seinfeld ripoff to anyone else?

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by The Hud, Sep 17, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bekayne

    bekayne Senior Member

    Remember that cancelled FOX cartoon about that gay (or bi) toddler? Alan something? That's what he reminded me of.
     
  2. bekayne

    bekayne Senior Member

    Nasim Pedrad seemed to be doing a parody of a character in a sitcom.
     
    kevintomb and guy incognito like this.
  3. Coricama

    Coricama Classic Rocker

    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    The amazing thing to me is that highly compensated TV professionals looked at this and said "I think we have a winner!".
     
  4. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    Since this is the only post of mine you didn't want to respond to, I looked back through the thread, and this is the harshest thing I said about the show:

    "But it got dropped by NBC (never a good sign), the 10-minute preview I caught on FOX last week has me concerned, and the early reviews are not great."

    Wow. That IS pretty brutal -- I can totally see why you reacted the way you did. If only I could have been more open-minded about it.......

    "In the case of "Mulaney," I've been looking forward to that show for months -- I like the guy and I want his show to succeed."

    "To me, the point is that you should watch for yourself, and decide if it's a show you want to watch, or even might grow into a show you'd want to watch."

    "I agree with you that if you're interested in a show, you shouldn't let some negative reviews sway you from checking it out yourself."

    "There's nothing wrong with collecting (and discussing) information, but I hope anyone who had been curious about the show gives it a shot. If the talent is there, and it's given time to grow, it could become better than the show that is currently underwhelming those mean ol' critics."

    OK, maybe I didn't "ruthlessly condemn" the show ... perhaps what REALLY offended you was when I suggested that the only people who had seen the show (before yesterday) might be able to give legitimate assessments of it:

    "Critics can get it wrong sometimes, but sometimes they're entirely accurate about the quality of a show's first few episodes."
    Well now I'm just puzzled ... why are viewers who have seen the show qualified to give an opinion of it, but critics who saw SEVERAL episodes of the show weren't?
     
  5. FastForward

    FastForward Forum Resident

    Is that the current "vibe" with the critics?
     
  6. FastForward

    FastForward Forum Resident

    Well, that's easy to answer. Please read my comments concerning critics.
     
  7. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    Best [Seinfeld] ensamble ever. But, the pilot episode of Seinfeld was probably the worst episode.
     
    kevintomb likes this.
  8. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    I did read them. I can understand your disdain for "critics" who don't even watch the entire episode (see the whole movie, read the whole book, listen to the whole album, etc.) and use their "reviews" to mislead an unwitting public. But I specifically asked you why critics who actually SAW several complete episodes shouldn't be trusted, but now ordinary viewers who have seen the pilot "are qualified to give an opinion on it."
     
  9. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    It's no coincidence that in the Seinfeld pilot the Elaine character didn't even exist yet (the waitress was going to be the female lead), and they had no idea what they had in Kramer yet. Probably the best-ever example of why if you like the main talent (Seinfeld, or in this current case Mulaney), you (the viewer, the network exec) should give them several episodes to find their way. "Seinfeld" had some great moments right away (like episode 2, "Male Unbonding"), but didn't have a standout episode (imo) until "The Pony Remark," the seventh episode that aired. The first episode generally regarded as a classic -- "The Chinese Restaurant" -- was Episode 11 (no. 6 of Season 2). "Friends" didn't really hit its stride (again imo) until the end of it's first season.

    Sitcoms need time to figure out what they are, and who their characters are. Sometimes the premise of a show ("Work It!," "¡Rob!") is so flawed, and there is nothing in the writing or casting to redeem it; these shows get cancelled fast because at some point even a network executive (often the same one who put it on the air) can tell there's no hope. But if you believe in your core talent (again, Mulaney), you owe it to them to give them some room to grow. There's a similar situation brewing right now with another show that hasn't aired yet: Jim Gaffigan (a comic I love) got a semi-autobiographical sitcom green-lit by CBS a couple of years ago. But they passed on the pilot (no way to put a positive spin on that), and after months of shopping it around, it landed on a cable network -- I don't remember which one, could be TBS, TNT or FX. I'm invested in Gaffigan as a personality, so I'm going to give it a chance, but I wonder if it will ever even make it onto TV at all.
     
    Jose Jones likes this.
  10. kevintomb

    kevintomb Forum Resident


    Just did not draw me in. Looks like a brightly light, parody of a SNL skit. About as funny as a mediocre one.

    Too derivative and lacking anything I would call drama or emotion. Looks silly and too light.
     
  11. charlie W

    charlie W EMA Level 10

    Location:
    Area Code 254
    I saw 30 minute preview show on the local Fox station. Not being a Seinfeld fan, it had that feel. I won't be watching it.
     
  12. kevintomb

    kevintomb Forum Resident


    Looks as if it would be almost funny doing it in front of a few friends that had a bit to drink....

    But as an actual TV series?
     
  13. kevintomb

    kevintomb Forum Resident


    Not sure I would say "Worst" per se, but they were still getting the characters to gel and feeling them out etc. It was not fully developed to me yet.
     
  14. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    It was not fully developed and it was not that good, to be honest. I never saw Seinfeld until about 1992, at the urging of my then-girlfriend. I am sure that I would have wrote the show off at the time the pilot first aired if I had seen it then. Even the first season (episodes 1-5) were not very good compared to what it turned into. IMO, Jerry's quick improvement as an actor was as big a reason as better scripts and the development of the Kramer character as reasons for its steady improvement at the beginning of its run.
     
    kevintomb likes this.
  15. bekayne

    bekayne Senior Member

    It was closer to Jerry than Seinfeld
     
  16. OldSoul

    OldSoul Don't you hear the wind blowin'?

    Location:
    NYC
    It wasn't horrible, but since it's on FOX, at 9:30 on a Sunday, following Family Guy, I doubt I'll ever watch it.
     
  17. FastForward

    FastForward Forum Resident

    Because television shows are for people, average people who seek entertainment via sitcoms, drama, etc. television shows are not for critics- it's their job to rate/review/ critique them. You don't open a restaurant to draw in food critics, you open it to draw in customers who will like your food. There is no conflict of interest in the average joe who dislikes a TV show, while the critic has many conflicts possible including job security. The point you continue to ignore is that a critics review, whether good or bad, predisposes the average person to a particular point of view on the subject. In simple terms, if you hear something sucks, it registers with you, and has bearing on the formulation of your "opinion" whereas the person who has no knowledge of a subject is free to judge without conflict, predisposition, or unknowingly trying to belong to the group i.e "fit in".
    It's science, I learned it in college, it's factual, and nothing you will say can convince me that reading a review of anything is better procedure than judging the product on it's own merits on your own terms, without bias.
     
  18. peteham

    peteham Senior Member

    Location:
    Simcoe County
    Isn't he writing the material? Having asked that, based on my own experiences, the biggest impediment to comedy working in television is not the writers but the producers.
     
  19. BurgerKing

    BurgerKing Forum Resident

    The previews were awful but I watched last night anyway, because of the spirited discussion in this thread. The biggest problem I see with Mulaney is Mulaney. He's a horrible actor, exponentially worse than Seinfeld was at the same point in his TV career. You can hear in his delivery every frenzied acting lesson shoved down his throat in the past year. Lines that would be funny if you read them off the page are rendered DOA as recited by him. Even the standup bits have no life, no element of reality or spontaneity. I actually like everyone else (Martin Short could sleep and make me laugh). And Dave Becky is behind this somewhere, so I will continue to watch and hope.

    And does it remind me of Seinfeld? Well, there's a Jerry and a Kramer and an Elaine and a Newman, so yeah. Maybe a George is what it will take to pull the whole thing together.
     
    Lonson likes this.
  20. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    Thanks for the science lesson, and thanks soooo much for explaining it in "simple terms" so I could understand your advanced knowledge. Of course, I never actually tried to "convince" you or anyone else that reading a review is "better procedure" than watching for oneself -- exactly the opposite, actually. I wish you would stop misrepresenting my opinions in order to promote your own.
     
  21. FastForward

    FastForward Forum Resident

    Yes, misrepresenting opinions would be unfair. Unfortunately, you advocate reading reviews because they "have value." I'm not sure I understand why I would need to read reviews if I am capable of forming my own opinion on a subject- because I believe MY opinion has real value, unlike that of an anonymous critic getting paid to draw attention to themselves.
     
  22. anthontherun

    anthontherun Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago
    FWIW, even though most critics (justifiably) criticized the pilot, a lot have also pointed out that the show gets much better (if that means anything to you). Mulaney's acting chops certainly leave a lot to be desired, but his writing and the rest of the cast make it difficult for me to write this off after a below-average pilot.

    Almost everything about the pilot just reeked of unnecessary network interference. This show's had a long and rocky road in getting on the air, and I bet the pilot John Mulaney came up with back when the project was initially conceived was a lot stronger than what we saw last night.
     
    Sean Murdock likes this.
  23. Sean Murdock

    Sean Murdock Forum Intruder

    Location:
    Bergenfield, NJ
    Thinking that reviews "have value" is not even remotely the same thing as trying to "convince [anyone] that reading a review of anything is BETTER PROCEDURE [my emphasis] than judging the product on it's own merits on your own terms, without bias." Sentient people can read a review and still watch a TV sitcom objectively. But I don't expect you to admit to that, so I'm done here.
     
  24. FastForward

    FastForward Forum Resident

    Why would I admit something that is factually incorrect? Something that has been proven by ten thousand marketing surveys and studies? You grossly underestimate the important of bias when it comes to perception. Making the assumption, against scientific fact, that the average television watcher will judge a show fairly, without bias, after reading a negative review of the show, is 100% completely false. All I'm saying is that while you dwell on PROCEDURE, I'm attempting to help you see that posting and reading of a critics negative review of a soon to be televised show enters bias into the equation. You feel the opposite, that the two can coincide without any bias, when clearly, research has found they cannot.

    http://marketingland.com/survey-cus...tomer-service-issue-than-the-resolution-38756

    http://searchengineland.com/2013-st...ws-as-much-as-personal-recommendations-164565

    http://hbr.org/2014/01/what-marketers-misunderstand-about-online-reviews

    http://conversionxl.com/9-things-to-know-about-influencing-purchasing-decisions/#.

    http://wweb.uta.edu/management/Dr.C...derated Multiple Regression/moderation ...pdf
     
  25. Jack White

    Jack White Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    Caught the last few minutes of an episode while channel surfing the other night [the episode where the main character seemed to be a joke writer for a game show host played by Martin Short and he was wasn't being paid - although he was convinced to keep working for $20?!]. Admittedly only saw a few minutes but it was terrible, really bad - nothing to induce me to tune in again. Rather than a copy of 'Seinfeld', is this show suppose to be a [not well executed] parody of '80s or '90s sit-coms? It has the worst fake laugh-track ever, but I couldn't decide if that was on purpose for stylistic reasons - that maybe someone thought it would funny. It isn't. The show as a whole - at least what I saw - wasn't funny at all. The show also has a 'cheap' look and feel to it. BTW, it's a Lorne Michaels production - so I guess that explains the involvement of Martin Short and Nasim Pedrad.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine