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

As I said above, I'm done. Thanks for your help, but I think I will continue to recklessly read reviews and watch the shows I'm interested in regardless of what they say.

 

Didn't almost a full year pass by between episodes 1 and 2 of Seinfeld? Meaning that the Pilot wasn't well received and they had time to rethink and tweak things.

 

Yes -- the pilot aired in July 1989, and the first "season" -- only 4 episodes, the smallest pick-up order in TV history -- aired starting in May 1990. The pilot had a horrible test screening, but actually got decent enough ratings when it aired -- second in its slot behind "Jake and the Fat Man." NBC actually had to cancel a Bob Hope special planned for 1990 in order to free up the money to make those 4 Seinfeld episodes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seinfeld

 

Did anyone "enjoy" last night's episode?

 

I did, thanks for asking.

 

I'm finding the show to be pretty dire so far, and I take no pleasure in saying that. I like John Mulaney; he's obviously very funny, but this show isn't doing him any favors. Maybe someday we will find out that his original pilot was wry and funny and offbeat, and that the network meat grinder turned it into this. Or maybe it was never very good, and this was the best they could turn it into. All I know is that anyone with his comedy chops -- and a stated desire to make a post-Seinfeld "Seinfeld" -- should be able to recognize how hack-y and "sitcommy" this sitcom is. The whole cast is annoying (Nasim is OK), and Mulaney just looks bewildered. Martin Short is doing his thing, but his charm can't overcome the terrible material he's been given so far. And I don't know how Elliott Gould has pulled it off, but somehow he's hypnotized the entire world into thinking he can act for the past two decades (at least). He was tolerable on "Friends," but that's because he only popped up once or twice a season. I had high hopes for this show, and I love the sitcom as a genre, so this is all making me sad.

 

Last night's episode was directed by Seinfeld alum Andy Ackerman. But even given that and the "standup" intro to the episode, the show is much more of a standard sitcom and, in my opinion, not a particularly funny one at that.

 

I'm not ready to say the show is great but I think it is far better than what most are saying here. I think it is probably better at this point than Seinfeld was after Episode 2. I agree Elliot Gould is totally unnecessary. But, I think the rest of the cast could gel in future episodes. I have genuinely laughed a few times so it has not been a waste of time for me.

 

I've laughed a few times during the first two episodes, but I think it's a stretch to say it's better than "Seinfeld" at the same point. I am already annoyed by most of the "Mulaney" cast, and would gladly get rid of Motif, the drug dealer, Elliot Gould AND Martin Short. There's not much left after that, is there? Meanwhile, by either one of "Seinfeld"s second episodes (the second one produced, or the second one aired), the cast was beginning to gel and they were finding their comedy voice. The Elaine character was introduced, we've already seen the first appearance of "Art Vandelay," Jerry's parents, and Kramer's "make your own pizza" idea, and gender roles and polite society's unpleasant requirements are already being toyed with when Jerry has to "break up" with an old childhood friend. What do we have so far on "Mulaney"? The female character is ca-RAY-zy, the best friend is an annoying hipster, the random weirdo has none of the odd charm of the early Kramer, Nick Cannon likes chewing scenery, the wacky neighbor can't act, and John has gotten a prostate exam and fallen into a tub of afterbirth. They have a long way to go, imo, before they can claim to be as good as even the embryonic "Seinfeld" episodes.

 

"Annoyed by the cast, not funny, get rid of characters, can't act, hacky, sitcommy, terrible material, making me sad".....yet he continues to watch.....because he's "interested"...

 

Well, I am ... although it's straddling the fine line between "I hope it gets better" and "so bad it's fun" trainwreck TV. I'll watch a few more episodes because I'm genuinely curious to see how it evolves, but currently it's not good enough to stay as-is, and it's not bad enough to be a trash classic. "Friends" is Exhibit A of how a not-very-funny, trying-too-hard sitcom can become great if you give it some time, and the talent is there.

 

Holy crap, don't EVER link to anything like this again! Martin Short and Elliott Gould deserve better. Wow was that terrible.

Jeff

 

Episode 4 but don't let facts get in your way.

And since Mulaney does not have a one year break to sit around and come up with Episode 4 I will forgive it if not being as good.

Also Seinfeld's Dad is not even the same actor in his first appearance on the show so it is not like they had everything figured out.

 

Episode 4 ("Male Unbonding") was the SECOND episode produced, and the fourth one aired. "The Stake Out" was the third episode produced and the second one aired -- that's why I said that "Seinfeld" had two "second" episodes -- but don't let reading comprehension get in your way.

Originally you said it was "better at this point" than "Seinfeld"; now you're saying it's not as good -- you should decide how you really feel about it before you get mad at me.

I never said that "Seinfeld" had "everything figured out" at this point -- what I said was that they were "beginning to gel and they were finding their comedy voice." If you have to distort my views in order to "refute" them, you're not in a strong position.

 

I'm sure these negative "review" posts of each episode will spur more people here to watch and help ratings, to give it a chance to "get better"...because word of mouth almost never plays a role in TV success...

 

Not even close. I never cringed at how awfully the material was executed in Seinfeld, early eps or not. This show is just terrible on many fronts.

 

I never knew so many writers for "Mulaney" were audiophiles.

 

I really wanted to like it. The birth of the air conditioner scene would have been classic with Kramner and Jerry, but here it just doesn't work. I like Martin Shorts parts, but that's about it. Reminds me of an old show with Alan Thicke playing a similar role to Short, but don't remember the name

 

I don't know what your point is, and I highly doubt that this little conversation will affect anything, but in fact the ratings for "Mulaney" DID tick up a bit in its second week -- from a 1.0 rating to a 1.1. Still terrible, but any increase is better than the alternative.

 

Sure, because you've never been influenced by something you read, right?

 

Oh, you're back on the evils of TV critics. Got it. While I'm sure that there are plenty of people who will blindly accept reviews and act on them -- a tendency that would HELP a show if the reviews are positive -- I like to be INFORMED (rather than influenced) about shows I'm interested in, and make up my own mind. Which is what you've been saying all along, right?

 

So other than that, it's pretty good.

 

FastForward was talking about me, not himself. And yes, I'm still "interested" -- but only because I like John Mulaney as a stand-up. My interest in his sitcom won't last much longer if it doesn't get a lot better.

As for what's "pretty good" about the show -- not surprisingly, for me, it's the stand-up bits. But those only comprise a few minutes of each show.

 

It was about two women working on the show, can't recall the name, don't want to look it up.

 

Actually, no. What I've been saying "all along" is that reviews are unnecessary, and can have an influence upon the readers opinion, and lessens his ability to be impartial about the subject. Whether it's a critics review, or one of the many truly ridiculous "reviews" in this thread, they bias the individual and his opinion-forming capabilities. You feel that even after reading your critiques, heavy handed as they are, that others can disassociate them (the posts/reviews/opinions) from their thinking process, which contrary to all of my posts in this thread. Regardless of whether a review/post/public opinion is positive or negative, it wields an undue amount of influence upon any person that comes across it. Being "informed" would, in this case, consist of watching the show develop over the course of a season, however long that is, then forming an educated opinion for yourself, and then keeping it to yourself. Insisting on forcing your opinion of a show on others is unneeded, unnecessary, and clearly not a job for those who care about others self-development.
We've now seen two episodes of a new show, the equivalent of hearing two songs off of a new album from a new band. Would I opine that the album sucks after hearing just two songs? Nope. Would I condemn the band forever after hearing only two songs? Nope. Would I give the album a complete listen, and then maybe listen again, then decide whether I like it or not? Sure, I do it all the time. Would I take the time to think that bands need time to develop a sound, a style, better songs, and experience before judging them based on one performance of two songs? Nope. Would I open my mind to spending time on watching a band/show/movie that I might end up disliking? Sure, do it all the time. But one thing I don't do is be negative about something artistic that is in its larva stage of development in a public forum and then defend my opinion as the gold standard of all opinions because I like to be "informed"....