> Well, firstly, here’s what we DON’T want to make. We don’t want to just create a fan service game that repeats jokes or plots that people already are familiar with.
> Elaine reminds him that the publicist was supposed to get them all tickets to the opening night of the new movie “Rochelle, Rochelle 2”
You can't have both!
Jerry Seinfeld et. al. might not care about a game made with their property, but that doesn't mean they won't protect their rights against copyright infringement if it happens without their approval. Star Trek fan films have to follow a strict set of guidelines set by Paramount, but there are no such guidelines for Seinfeld.
Though I think it's just gonna be a rolling show of Seinfeld references and that will disappoint me.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Having said that ...
> We don’t want to just create a fan service game that repeats jokes or plots that people already are familiar with. We will write a brand new story revolving around the Seinfeld characters designed to work in this medium, remaining faithful to the tone and themes of the show.
> Jerry gets paranoid about his girlfriend’s past when her iPhone automatically connects to the wi-fi at Newman’s apartment.
That is just the plot of an existing episode with a slight modern twist on the inciting incident. This highlights how difficult a project like this can be. There is a fine line between writing in someone else's voice and just copying that voice while making a few tweaks.
I am also quite sure that “maybe some of the folks from the show’s writer room will be interested!” is one of their dreamed-of scenarios.
Some people can respect an original work well enough that it becomes canon, I witnessed this in the Sonic Retro community by watching an incredible C-based Sonic the Hedgehog eventually become the best official Sonic game in years, Sonic Mania.
SEGA’s treatment of the fan developer community, listening to them and apparently even hiring from them is diametrically opposed to, say, Nintendo’s approach of ‘Cease and Desist’.
Besides, it's a show about nothing, how hard could it be? ;)
I doubt they will sign off on it though, or will care if it disappoints people that they won't. I'm a HUGE Seinfeld (and Curb) fan, and would play the hell out of this, but having heard and read about the two comic geniuses, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
edit : now that i think about it, i wonder how they'll manage to get multiple variation of the story unfold depending on your choices. it's already hard enough to write one linear... i suppose they'll just block you until you click on things in the right order. Wonder how interesting or funny this could be in that context. Maybe a lot ? Like, making the absurd choice and bad decisions the character usually make and see the consequences unfold... this could be fun.
"Turns out Seinfeld is actually still an incredibly relevant show whose relatability is timeless, with the show’s streaming rights bought by Netflix recently for half a billion dollars."
My favourites, in no particular order: monkey island 1 and 2, Indiana Jones, the dig, Sam & max, day of the tentacle.
There’s a project called ScummVM that allows you to play the games on Linux, windows and Mac.
Because I imagine what lawyers worry about is (at worst) whether letting you go on with this website shows that they did not assert their rights in the face of a derivative work, or (at best) whether the trouble of negotiating with you on the terms you want for the development you've already done is more trouble than just taking the idea and doing it themselves?
I would guess you have a bit of a ticking clock to spread as much word about this and try to reach the person in the first category (through contacts, "phone-a-friend-who-might-know-xyz", etc), before inevitably the 2nd category catches wind of it.
Good luck with it though!
BUT: I've spend a few minutes on the site and it is totally unclear how I can support the team / get the game / sign up for anything.
In fact, there doesn't seem to be anything other than an email?
> We need an official contract providing us the rights to create a game based on the IP. Even a “Yeah cool” from Jerry or Larry would help. Without it, even releasing a “free fan game” can get us into deep waters if they so choose to target us.
The goal here is to get a warm introduction so they can make that pitch.
It's not a South Park situation with the last games here.
The execution was promising though.
Epistemological issues aside, the case unfortunately seems to come down pretty heavily in favour of the Seinfeld rightsholder.
What do you need me to do?! It’s such a long pitch with barely any call to action at the end!
They really did well with the graphical style!
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia on FXX, Hulu, Netflix
Mythic Quest on Apple TV+ - created by people who work on It's always Sunny
Veep on HBO - staring Julia Louis-Dreyfus!
Avenue 5 on HBO - same producers as Veep
They're even self aware about it in the episode "The Gang Does a Clip Show" where they mistake a bit from Seinfeld as one of their own memories - https://youtu.be/fCwI3KDGtRk
How did you like Mythic Quest? I'm really glad to see Rob and Charlie involved but it's definitely a bit more tame. I really like Danny Pudi playing a Dennis-esque character and the actress who plays Poppy is hilarious.
I loved F. Murray Abraham's character. Quite the departure from Dar Adal in Homeland. Overall the whole cast on MQ was very good though.
I am now on season 8(!) and there hasn't been a single episode I have not thoroughly enjoyed.
It is a superb show with some excellently executed jokes. Probably some of the best I have seen on TV. Some of the jokes are so superbly setup as well that you don't realise until the punchline drops that the build up has been several episodes.
I also watched Mythic Quest earlier in the year which was a lot of fun. We mostly watched it because my wife is a video game producer so we had a good time laughing at how real some of the craziness can be in the video game production world.
Avenue 5 took a while to find its pace but by the end of the season it was quite fun. Different but well done. I am looking forward to season 2.
I plan to sit down and watch Always Sunny, Veep and Seinfeld now :)
Only 1 season ever made, and it's on Yahoo! Entertainment for free:
Seinfeld also contains a stand up comedian playing himself. In that respect shows like Louis and Master of None are also quite similar.
Louis in particular is a fantastic show if you can ignore Louis CK's recent scandal.
Disclaimer; I am a pretty big fan of Seinfeld. But, I don’t think anything comes close to what the writers and actors achieved with Seinfeld. Luckily if you’re anything like me you can continue to watch Seinfeld for over a decade and still not get tired of it.
Ah! Triggered! /s
I agree that the "jerks" trope is at play here. But I don't think the characters are boring or without their observations on the world. The characters have plenty of observations about arising cultural moments, political issues, etc. Many episodes are essentially "The Gang Takes Opposing Views on X". Then we get to see these characters take each side to weird extremes while learning very little from the experience.
Like the "show about nothing" It's Always Sunny is in its prime during meta commentary episodes like "The Gang Tries Desperately to Win an Award".
Having said that, tropes are usually a little more specific or identifiable than just the concept of "mean characters", so it probably wasn't the best use of the word.
Google ngram search for the word: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Trope&year_sta...
I agree. Most people who I tell this opinion to who are also Seinfeld fans disagree though.
The social norms violation thing is also why Curb You Enthusiasm comes so close; it is mostly about Larry David’s opaque social norms being constantly violated.
Being regrettably engaged is a relatable situation, and miraculously being relieved of that engagement thru a freak accident is definitely Seinfeld’s darkest moment but is still fairly innocent. It’s actually one of the reasons season 7 is so unique and funny but I would hardly put it next to Peep Show in terms of darkness.
What actually happens is Jez accidentally runs over his "girlsfriend"'s dog (hard to really car her a girlfriend when they had only just met) while backing up the car, then hides the body in a messenger bag to conceal the incident. Later in the episode, he tries to burn the corpse but fails at that. Toward the end, they're on the girl's father's boat, and the girlfriend asks what's in the bag. Jez replies that it's barbeque chicken(?) and reluctantly takes a bite. Shortly after, they find the dog's collar in the bag and discover the horrible conclusion.
Jez may be a lot of things (selfish, lazy, etc.) but he's no murderer.
The premise of the episode can be boiled down to the following:
1. Jez meets attractive girl.
2. Jez wants to date this girl (they get along well).
3. Jez accidentally does something that would prevent #2 from happening.
4. Jez tries his darndest to hide his mistake.
5. The truth gets found out and girl casts Jez away.
The entire ordeal is comical because Jez makes repeated efforts to hide the dog's corpse and fails at every turn. The only really "dark" thing about the episode is that the dog was pregnant, which was only briefly mentioned (and easily forgotten).
Never used the word "murdered" not sure where you got that from? He did in fact kill the dog.
> then purposely fed it to her.
I did misremember this part. I still stand by the idea that eating a dog in front of their owner is really, really dark.
> The premise of the episode can be boiled down to the following:
> 1. Jez meets attractive girl. 2. Jez wants to date this girl (they get along well). 3. Jez accidentally does something that would prevent #2 from happening. 4. Jez tries his darndest to hide his mistake. 5. The truth gets found out and girl casts Jez away.
If you ignore the part of the script where Jez KILLS the girls dog and then EATS IT IN FRONT OF HER then yeah it is pretty innocent.
> The only really "dark" thing about the episode is that the dog was pregnant, which was only briefly mentioned (and easily forgotten).
If you think that is the only really dark thing about the episode then I think you and I might really disagree on what constitutes dark and this argument is pointless.
> one of the two main characters kills a dog and then feeds it to his girlfriend- the owner of the dog
The way you framed it implies murder. Yes, he kills the dog but it is entirely accidental, which is the relevant part that you conveniently omitted for the sake of your own argument.
> If you ignore the part of the script where Jez KILLS the girls dog and then EATS IT IN FRONT OF HER then yeah it is pretty innocent.
Again, you're intentionally framing it in a misrepresentative way. He only takes a bite out of a piece of the burnt corpse out of desperation because the group of people present are inquiring about what is in the bag. He says it's BBQ chicken and takes a bite to try to convince the others that's it completely innocuous. He's not doing it out of malice; he's doing it out of panic. And he's definitely not enjoying it either as he's visibly uncomfortable with doing it.
Anyone who watches the episode will clearly see that the way you're framing the whole episode is completely skewed and disingenuous.
> this argument is pointless
Finally something we can agree on.
The scene where the dog is accidentally killed: https://youtu.be/E6WYvAWIowU?t=135
The scene where Jez takes a bite: https://youtu.be/cKaqzvzlgKU?t=50
And just for the record I like peep show, and I think the holiday episode is funny if a bit disturbing.
People Just Do Nothing, two pirate radio DJs and crew trying to hack it
Detectorists, two small town “smartest guys in the room” try to rediscover their friendship through their shared love of metal detector operation
And for a Japanese kick:
FLCL, a coming of age story about nothing, but writ LARGE
Steins;Gate, hard to generalize and hard not to spoil anything but it feels like if Back to the Future were made as a modern anime
Steins;Gate's protagonist's alter-ego Hououin Kyouma is a larger-than-life egotistical (comedy) genius which is analogous to Jerry when he's on-stage in the monologue segments of the show. But that same SG protagonist as his "normie" self Rintaro Okabe is crippled by self-doubt, upstaged by his own alter-ego, and would do anything for his friends, much like the version of Jerry we see outside the monologue segments. If you've seen the last episode of Seinfeld, the parallels between the two are a bit more clear. In Seinfeld, the past catches up with Jerry and the crew, and they cool their heels in jail as a kind of karmic payback or comeuppance for their years of prior shenanigans. In Steins;Gate, at a certain point the comedic backdrop lifts, the folly of Rintaro's ego and hubris is laid bare and elevated, and the karmic debt seeks its due via time and space.
It's still a hell of a thing worth watching, I should really get around to watching the sequels sometime.
This is just one quote, but it captures the vibe of the show IMO. Events happen and reactions to those events happen, but the sameness itself is the source of conflict in the plot, without getting into spoilers or character motivations or backstory.
I need to watch the sequels too, as my thoughts are based on the original 6 episodes comprising S01.
Parks and recreation
The office (UK)
This is pretty surprising to me, considering the leadership of Breibart media:
1. Larry Solov. Co-owner. Raised in a Jewish family.
2. The Brietbart family, which is Jewish.
3. Alex Marlow, the editor in Chief, whose mother is Jewish. Thus is ethnically Jewish himself.
Their editorial team also heavily leans towards Jewish ancestry, due to their leadership hiring out of their professional and personal circles.
To be clear I personally don't know of any statements from Bannon himself regarding a specific case for antisemitism, and I'm not looking to make a case either way on that point specifically. As far as Breitbart News goes their history about other hateful things is pretty apparent, personally I'm not really sure it matters if it is antisemitism, or racism or whatever, and I'm not sure the folks running the show there cared either way.
Getting hung up on anything he said or didn't is probably missing the forest through the trees ;)
I'd taken it as a matter of fact that Trump is deeply racist. The message was loud and clear for years, and the level of conviction displayed by those who repeated it was pretty intense. I didn't initially question it.
Later, I thought about it. He'd beaten Clinton. That means that 50%+ of voters voted for him. His racism seemed to be widely known, which implied that those voting for him would need to be at least tolerant of racism, if not also racist. It occurred to me that I've known literally thousands of people. Out of all of them, there is one I could say for sure was a racist. It didn't add up, even considering selection bias.
Moreover, labeling someone as a racist gives others a moral imperative to harm them. Perhaps passively by not allowing your children to play with theirs, or actively by attacking them in public. Since the label is so powerful, I felt that really, before I repeat that he is racist, I should at least convince myself. So I started looking for it.
I had forgotten this, but I recall now, Trump ran for President in 2000. He got pretty far into his campaign, up to the point of pursuing a vice president running mate. His person of choice was Oprah Winfrey. She declined, and he pressed on for a bit. But then he got endorsed by David Duke. At that point, and he stated for that reason, he suspended his campaign.
There was a point in the 90s when Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow/PUSH lost their lease for their meeting space in New York. Trump provided them a large room in one of his Wall Street buildings at no charge. There is a YouTube video of Trump at one of their meetings, with Jackson thanking him and recognizing Trump's support.
More recently, Trump reinstated the federal death penalty. The first person in line for execution is an avowed white supremacist (double homicide, if I recall correctly).
Trump pushed for prison reform. The reform sought to release inmates who had been given long sentences for minor third strike offenses. So far, more than 3,000 inmates have been released under the program, 90% of whom are black.
I found more in the same vein.
I heard the primary evidence supporting his racism from Joe Biden when he announced his campaign. He said that Trump had called racists fine people. That didn't line up with the information countering it, so I went to the actual video of Trump saying it. It's actually very clear that Trump said the opposite of what Biden claimed.
So... I'm open to any statement or claim, but in cases that it's harmful to others, I like to see the actual evidence that the sentiment is based on.
First Trump was not elected by a population majority, so one can’t use that as evidence for his racism being supported by others. Additionally, view that Trump is racist is mostly supported by Democrats and not Republicans.
Secondly, one can be racist without defining it in ways that harm black people. For instance, one can merely be anti Latino, or anti Polish, or anti Asian. Trump may merely hate traditional white supremcists as they would be against his children and wife, for their Eastern European ancestors.
Historically you can find many examples of this. Such as during the 1800s, some would think that native Americans were a noble people, but blacks mere savages or vice versa.
He didn't happen to be in a car with one... that isn't similar at all.
"There are dozens and dozens of investors and people that you never meet or know about. These are giant, multi-national corporations of, you know, NBC, which then became Turner, and then got bought by Comcast, so I mean, I don't know."
Pick anything you are a fan of. You probably really don't want to know how the sausage is made.
> During the New Yorker’s investigation into the veracity of the claims, reporter Connie Bruck was unable to find records of payments to Bannon. However, it’s possible his deal was capped and paid out between Seinfeld’s syndication in fall 1995 and Turner Broadcasting’s merger with Time Warner in late 1995. Following the deal, Turner’s Castle Rock came under the Warner Bros. umbrella and the company started sending out all of profit-participation statements. Prior records from the earlier months of syndication are not readily available.
> On the other hand, when Bannon submitted an “income and expense declaration” during a contentious court battle with his ex-wife, any Seinfeld profit participations should’ve shown up. The New Yorker surmises either the profits weren’t substantial or Bannon failed to disclose them in a sworn statement.
I bet he made a few bucks in the 90s and and used the allure of the show to impress people since then. Seinfeld is still generating massive amounts of money so someone should know if they're sending any of it to Bannon.