History Headscratchers / Seinfeld

*** Also a lot of Christians in real life do have extramarital sex. They do know is a sin but a) they don't think they're going to hell for it (specially if they're from a branch that allows to just repent) because they see it as a "minor" sin, b) they believe they can reduce the "sinfulness" of it by different means or c) they don't care and really thing God will bath an eye specially if is not something "big" like homosexuality or abortion. Also notice how Puddy is Catholic and is surprise to here that he will "go to hell" when the priest tells him, so he probably was in the a or b (as Catholics believe in alternatives like cofessing your sins to be forgiven or going to the purgatory for a while).

*** Is implied that in-universe George just causes a lot of people to naturally and without discernible reason dislike/hate him and try to make things as difficult as possible to him just out of spite. Kramer on the other hands seems to have mostly the opposite effect, so bottomline the ticket taker just wanted to annoy George but liked Kramer for no real reason.

** I don't think the episode ever implies that he doesn't enjoys to be with her. Quite the opposite. He's unemployed and yet manage to have a beautiful girlfriend which is difficult and he knows it, and considering how neurotic George is it's also a matter of not wanting to look cheap/unsensitive even if they break-up. In general he does want the relationship to survive even if only for selfish reasons.

* In the season 7 two-parter George is assigned a mysterious task by his supervisor: Mr. Wilhelm, but it's never revealed what the task is and the episode does later imply there's something mentally wrong with Mr. Wilhelm that if he doesn't take his medication regularly his mind slips. Okay, funny I love that makes the episode funny and I love the twist, but what actually was the assignment? Wasn't it revealed there was some assignment? The head boss received something from an unhinged Mr. Wilhelm, but what was it? Apparently, it was so bad that when the boss thought it was George he straight up had him committed (which involuntary committing someone is legal). Then the reveal is George in the ward which leads to my second headscratcher which is funny to think about, but... how did George convince the head psychiatrist he was mentally fine enough to be released? George is a great character, but also insane in his own way. I know most wards can keep a patient there for two weeks, but I feel like George needed a few more months especially to get away from Susan. No, but seriously what was the assignment?

* If Jerry hating reading so much, why did he always have books in his apartment? He not only had a whole case of them in his living room, he would also have a couple on the night stand next to his bed. Or, were they meant to be like the bicycle he always had hanging up on his wall: just for show?

** The thing is it was one of the first sitcoms without a wacky hook like a sarcastic butler or a talking cat or a genie or a large wacky family or incompatible neighbors. [[SeinfeldIsUnfunny It was a totally original concept at the time but by now has become passé]]. That's why by our standards it doesn't feel like a show about "nothing". They lampshade this with "Jerry", which is just ''Seinfeld'' with the wacky hook about a sarcastic butler being thrown in.

* In the episode where George runs over the squirrel (We had a deal!) he goes to great lengths to spend money on the medical care of the squirrel in order to appease his girlfriend. Why?? Why doesn't George just break up with her? He's obviously not in love with her and we as the audience already know that they won't even be together by the next episode anyway. He doesn't stay with her because the sex is great because if that was the case he surely would have mentioned it to Jerry. So...why stay with this woman ( who treated George pretty badly in this episode by the way) and cater to her like that?

** Out-of-universe, Cranston could also have been required to wear particular styles or facial hair for other roles that he had; actors are sometimes contractually obliged to develop or keep a particular look for a character (if they're doing a nightly theatre production, or a feature film where they might be called to set at irregular intervals over a period of months, and so on) that they'll have to wear in other, smaller roles that they might also get during the production -- as a somewhat infamous illustrating example, the poor CGI on Superman's face in the initial release of ''Film/JusticeLeague'' is largely because Henry Cavill was contractually required to wear a moustache for his role in ''Film/MissionImpossibleFallout'' and wasn't able to shave it off when the prior film needed reshoots. So on some occasions Cranston might have had another role which, say, required him to have a beard and the ''Seinfeld'' producers were okay with him keeping it since, hey, who cares if Jerry's dentist has a beard this time? In-universe, as above, Tim's probably just one of those people who's constantly trying out a new look.

** As noted above under a similar entry, the joke / point is that the gang have such an appalling track record of being utter jackasses to other people that the prosecution are able to utterly swamp the court with witnesses to testify against them. In the "real life" trial, Jackie Chiles would get to crossexamine them, but since this isn't an episode of ''Series/LawAndOrder'' we don't need to see it to get the idea that they're utterly boned, and that the numerous petty sins they ''are'' guilty of committing are coming back to bite them.

* Also, it's not like he was some weak-looking, svelte old man like Uncle Leo. He was a Korean war veteran, carried himself with confidence and was physically intimidating.

** Yes..the marble rye would be tough to explain...but other things could be challenged. The virgin for example...Jackie Chiles could say something like "You were so appalled by this so called "contest" but you had no problem jumping into bed with JFK JR. within five minutes of meeting him."

* One thing that has always bothered me about the finale. Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer are never given the opportunity to go on the stand to offer a rebuttal to any of the testimony against them. Jackie Chiles never cross examined any of these character witnesses either. Their word is just ta
ken as gospel and never questioned. As we know many of these incidents were really not the result of malicious behavior on the main characters' parts and if given the chance to explain this could very easily be made clear.

Yes..the marble rye would be tough to explain...but other things could be challenged. The virgin for example...Jackie Chiles could say something like "You were so appalled by this so called "contest" but you had no problem jumping into bed with JFK JR. within five minutes of meeting him."

* One thing that has always bothered me about the finale. Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer are never given the opportunity to go on the stand to offer a rebuttal to any of the testimony against them. Jackie Chiles never cross examined any of these character witnesses either. Their word is just taken as gospel and never questioned. As we know many of these incidents were really not the result of malicious behavior on the main characters' parts and if given the chance to explain this could very easily be made clear.

** I think even if they had been allowed on the stand to explain themselves, [[CassandraTruth nobody would believe what they had to say anyway.]] Also, some of the testimonials would be difficult to explain anyway, such as the incident when Jerry stole the rye from the elderly woman. No amount of context makes that look good.

** Yes, it's very much a KangarooCourt. Just one reason why the finale is disliked by many.

One thing that has always bothered me about the finale. Jerry,George,Elaine and Kramer are never given the opportunity to go on the stand to offer a rebuttal to any of the testimony against them. Jackie Chiles never cross examined any of these character witnesses either. Their word is just taken as gospel and never questioned. As we know many of these incidents were really not the result of malicious behavior on the main characters' parts and if given the chance to explain this could very easily be made clear.

----One thing that has always bothered me about the finale. Jerry,George,Elaine and Kramer are never given the opportunity to go on the stand to offer a rebuttal to any of the testimony against them. Jackie Chiles never cross examined any of these character witnesses either. Their word is just taken as gospel and never questioned. As we know many of these incidents were really not the result of malicious behavior on the main characters' parts and if given the chance to explain this could very easily be made clear.