Buy Seinfeld DVD!

Seinfeld Script Search:

Seinfeld DVD's !?

Season 7 on DVD

Save 30%

Pay only:


1 | 2 | Next >>
Author Message

PostPosted: November 19, 2005 2:08 PM 

is everybody content about the DVd's? Did you expectet better or worse? Do you mis anything on the DVD set?

Bob Sakamano

Posts: no

Reply: 1

PostPosted: November 19, 2005 6:01 PM 

it had all that i wanted, the episodes. Wink


Posts: 5447

Reply: 2

PostPosted: November 20, 2005 12:08 AM 

I want this, that, and the other.

Bob Sakamano

Posts: no

Reply: 3

PostPosted: November 20, 2005 7:54 PM 

I liked you two when you weren't a couple.

Hipster Dufus

Posts: 41

Reply: 4

PostPosted: November 21, 2005 12:17 PM 

All good except for some of the commentaries. But they're still better than nothing!

Bob Sakamano

Posts: 23

Reply: 5

PostPosted: November 27, 2005 2:04 PM 

I have issues with the lack of Larry David on the set...he's in some of the Inside Looks, but no commentaries? Why not save the writer & director commentaries for seasons 8 & 9 when Larry wasn't there and use him when he was at his best? Seriously, no Larry David commentary on the "Contest" episode was a REAL bummer...

cousin jeffrey
Magnificent Bastard

Posts: 2117

Reply: 6

PostPosted: November 29, 2005 2:17 AM 

maestro, I love these DVD's. They were literally the first DVD's i've ever bought, and now nothing else can cut it anymore. It's the same way I can't commit to a sitcom anymore because Seinfeld was too good. now it's the same with DVD's.

Sakamano, I agree. Although he does do commentary on the Opposite, I particularly enjoy when he and Jerry do commentary. They should do more of that, but maybe he's busy or too lazy, i don't know. Tom Gamill (sp?) has the weirdest voice i've ever heard. I'm surprised they never did an episode on that. I haven't turned on the Julia, Jason and Michael as much as Gendison has, but i'm continually dissapointed by their commentaries. The general theme to all of their commentaries are "can you believe we got away with this at 9:00 thursday nights?". It makes sense though why the writers and producers have more insightful commentary because they were much more involved with the script.

Bob Sakamano

Posts: no

Reply: 7

PostPosted: November 29, 2005 5:49 AM 

I agree with comments above. L.D. and Jerry really make for the most enjoyable commentary. I thought Jerry and Andy Ackerman were pretty good on 'The Race' too. Jerry alone on 'The contest' and the 'Junior Mint', 2 key episodes was pretty weak IMO.

Bob Sakamano

Posts: 23

Reply: 8

PostPosted: November 30, 2005 7:46 PM 

Anyone else think that Jason Alexander & Michael Richards get ticked off or too personal with themselves?

For example, Jason got pissed at Larry because in Season 3 he was not in the "Pen" episode and basically threatened to quit if that ever happened again. He then disliked the "Bris" episode because the moyle (sp?) seemed to dislike children. Upon reading the "Notes About Nothing" during the "Raincoats" episodes, it states Jason Alexander began to become not so interested in the eiposde in Season 5 & 6 because they went away from being analyses about small topics into "weird unlikely" stories. To me, he got "Seinfeld" confused with a dramatic Broadway performance...

And then Mmichael Richards gets pissed TWICE at Julia for her laughing during his scenes with her (threatening her even jokingly). One scene was when he and her were going to try and get a jacket back and the other is in the "Meat Slicer" episode when he's trying to stick the paper clip into the socket.

Sometimes I feel they take themselves too seriously; it really puts a damper in my eyes on those two...

Bob Sakamano

Posts: no

Reply: 9

PostPosted: December 1, 2005 4:11 AM 

Comedy is a SERIOUS business. As long as it looks effortless on screen, it doesn't matter what goes on behind it. Some of the best comedic actors in front of the camera have been known to be quite different behind the camera. Steve Martin comes to mind.

But let's also not forget from a production standpoint that a flub-up or laugh on shoot day not only could ruin a pitch-perfect performance by the actor opposite the "laugher," but also costs a lot of dough for each successive take.

Besides, if Jason and Michael weren't such serious cats in real life, how the heck could they get through a single take of that show without losing it, period?

Bob Sakamano

Posts: no

Reply: 10

PostPosted: December 2, 2005 4:26 PM 

The DVDs are by far the finest of any television series out there. So much work went into each and every volume from the funny menus containing clips to the inside looks and blooper reels. I also enjoy the featurettes on each volume. The commentaries are a bit weak I will agree. Especially the ones involving Jason, Julia and Michael. I don't think this overshadows any of it though. The packaging is awesome and it isnt that pain-in-the-ass fold-out and new stupid head design that the Simpsons boasts. The only thing I would change about the Seinfeld stuff if I could would be to change up the commentaries slightly. Perhaps have Jerry and Jason work together on some, Larry David and Michael Richards and so-on. Other than that, supremely awesome sets!

Llyod Braun

Posts: 20

Reply: 11

PostPosted: December 2, 2005 6:23 PM 

I too believe that these dvd's are of the finest available with bonus features and what not. this has been brought up before (myself included) but i would change the artwork on the covers. my hope is that after all the dvd's are released (8 volumes) they come out with a box that holds all the sets with one picture across it.
i refer to the 10 season box set of friends, i am not the biggest fan of the show myself, but i must say the 10-season box is fabulous.

Bob Sakamano

Posts: no

Reply: 12

PostPosted: December 3, 2005 12:46 PM 

I agree with Jason Alexander's comments about seasons five and six to an extent. The style changed and is more evident in seasons 6 & 7. They were very wacky and lost their touch in season 7. Seasons 8 & 9 were a disaster.

Llyod Braun

Posts: 20

Reply: 13

PostPosted: December 3, 2005 2:39 PM 

on that note, the show definetely changed from observational comedy to "wacky". like in the beginning they had a whole episode of jerry making a pony remark and how that effected everything, now you have kramer accidently dropping junior mints into a guys open wound during surgery. but i still find them all hilarious so i am not complaining

Queen of Confrontation

Posts: 3535

Reply: 14

PostPosted: December 16, 2005 1:44 PM 

A couple of observations.....

The commentaries by Gamill and Pross are the best on these DVDs. The most bang for your buck. They're uniquely generous with sharing credit for the laughs, the success of a line or scene. Never a negative moment. On top of which, they're as informative as you'd expect writers to be about where their ideas came from and how they translated them into storylines, living up to the standard set by Larry Charles in earlier DVDs.

Second, Larry David comes off as more of a control freak than ever. I'd gotten that impression from earlier DVDs, but now this control seems egomaniacal. Creatively, it worked. It's clear that there was a Supreme Being governing the Seinfeld universe, Someone with a grand design, Someone who always knew what the show was about and made sure it stayed on track. But there's more here than meets the eye.

I always wondered about LD's problem with Michael Richards. Earlier, we'd learned that LD specifically told studio audiences not to laugh and applaud when Kramer made his entrance. The rationale we were given: such a laugh/applause would throw-off the rhythm of the show. Ohhhhhhh-kayyyyyyy.

But then on these DVDs I noticed that LD never shares credit, or gives full credit, to anyone for any laugh. He never compliments the other actors for their readings, for their inflections, for their facial expressions, for their body English. And when I put that together with his problem with Kramer/Michael, it all makes sense. We're back to the egomaniacal control. Maybe LD was even jeolous when someone got a laugh and his fingerprints weren't on it. When Kramer/Michael gets a standing-O before he utters a line, LD's fingerprints aren't on it; it's all Kramer/Michael. When someone creates a laugh or adds to it with a movement or a clever reading, LD's effort becomes indistiguishable from, or is overtaken by, the actor's.

cousin jeffrey
Magnificent Bastard

Posts: 2117

Reply: 15

PostPosted: December 16, 2005 9:28 PM 

But, Michael and the others, acknowledged during their commentaries that the applauding did throw them off, especially Michael. And Larry's reasoning behind abolishing the entrance applaud is not that far-fetched. That kind of stuff, as trivial as it may seem, does kind of remind me of Dick Van Dyke or Family Matters. And I guess that's not what Larry had in mind when it came to his show. And it was his show.

But like you said, creatively it worked. Why mess with a strange man that could put on such a great show. NBC learned that pretty quickly.

But that jealousy theory does certainly remain consistent with all that we've heard about Larry David (not to mention what he's admitted). If he could let a Big Salad get to him, then it's very possible that a joke could do the same. But then again, all the things he's written about are usually very big exaggerations of what actually happened.

I actually haven't watched the DVD's in a while. But all the writers do great commentaries. And Larry David with Jerry is also a lot of fun to watch. I do kind of miss Larry Charles though. the commentary on the Lip Reader was also pretty good.

Queen of Confrontation

Posts: 3535

Reply: 16

PostPosted: December 16, 2005 10:51 PM 

I agree with you, cousin, that interrupting the rhythm is a plausible explanation for telling the audience not to clap or laugh when Kramer entered.

Do you think LD told audiences before each show that they shouldn't laugh too much or applaud at the dialogue? Something like this: "Whenever you hear something extremely funny, try not to laugh too much and don't applaud at all. It interrupts the flow of the show. Thanks for your cooperation." I haven't heard anyone say he did that, and I doubt LD would've. And yet why is sustained applause/laughter bad when Michael Richards gets it for something nonverbal and not bad (or at least not bad enough to forbid) when a line of dialogue causes it?

Bob Sakamano

Posts: no

Reply: 17

PostPosted: December 17, 2005 6:25 AM 

Here's a thought.

The reason Larry asked the audience not to applaud when Kramer entered is because it's something CORNY television shows do. I cringe everytime it happens and would like to thank Larry for singlehandedly putting a stop to it.

Egomaniac he is, but this had nothing to do with it.


Posts: 5447

Reply: 18

PostPosted: December 17, 2005 1:39 PM 

Jackie Gleason and Art Carney were masters at handling extended applause when they entered thier sets. They'd improvise until it died down. They'd walk to the fridge, put things in drawers, pull out chairs to sit down, walk around pretending they were looking for something... whatever it took to kill time without standing there waiting like idiots.

I've never seen any actors do that since... not even the Seinfeld cast.

Cockeyed Optimist

Posts: 525

Reply: 19

PostPosted: December 17, 2005 5:02 PM 

Excellent observation; well said. Incidentally, to the anonymous poster in Reply 17, in re CORNY television shows, I wonder what Larry David's stance on laugh tracks was?

cousin jeffrey
Magnificent Bastard

Posts: 2117

Reply: 20

PostPosted: December 17, 2005 5:15 PM 

Well, he obviously doesn't use them in Curb Your Enthusiasm, so I'd guess that he always felt a little strange about using them in Seinfeld. Probably because when the show started, he didn't have all the control he wanted and by the time he did, it was too late to change it.

1 | 2 | Next >>

Join the discussion:

Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys
Check to Subscribe to this Comment:
(email field must be filled in)

Subscribe Without Commenting

Copyright ©2003, Mark Carey.