Unclear Description: Seinfeld Is Unfunny

I made this several times before, but I think i'll revise it.

I have always had significant issues with Seinfeld Is Unfunny, which have not yet been resolved, and they fall under both unclear definition and misused.

The first problem is with the definition. The trope defines itself as something that was once innovative no longer being seen as so, as the things it introduced become commonplace. However, it also frequently talks about how the examples are no longer enjoyable because of the fact that they are no longer innovative.

This is wrong for four reasons. For one, this definition is unclear, as it doesn't seem to know whether it's talking about things being no longer innovative or no longer popular. For two, by definition, any work that is influential can fall under this trope. That's what influential means! Something that inspired other things. No "original" works stay "original" forever.

Third, the definition is really a mishmash. The "inventing a new thing" part is covered by Trope Maker, Trope Codifier, Genre Turning Point, and others, the "work becomes copied" part is covered by Follow the Leader, and the "not well-liked anymore" part is covered by Deader Than Disco.

Finally, the part about how the things are no longer popular because they are no longer innovative is not only overlapping with Deader Than Disco, but it's just simply not true. "No longer Popular" and "no longer innovative" are separate things. Something can be popular but not innovative, something can be popular but no longer original and new, and something can be influential but unpopular. People don't just like something because it's innovative, and people don't stop liking something because it isn't. People usually aren't that fickle.

When people say a work they once liked "didn't age well" or "didn't hold up well", they usually mean that they once liked it, but now they didn't, not that the work itself has become less enjoyable due to time. That's not really how it works. There are a few exceptions (E.G, when something which was once Fair for Its Day is now seen as offensive, or when something is heavily based in topical humor that will be lost on modern viewers) But usually, watching/listening/reading/whatever something in 2016 should be no different than in 1986.

There's also the issue of misuse. Lots of the examples are very much still well-loved. You can't look me straight in the eye and say that Ren And Stimpy, The Simpsons and Sonic The Hedgehog are no longer loved, as they are all still very much well-loved.

So what should be done about all this? Well, to me, it seems like a lost cause, as the definition is fundamentally flawed. Here's my possible solutions:

- Cut examples, move to whatever trope they fit under - Cut examples, redirect to Follow the Leader

Of course, all this complaining could be just me, so what do you think?

edited 21st Apr '16 5:51:52 AM by WhatArtThee

Just another day in the life of Jimmy Nutrin

Anyone care to chip in?

Just another day in the life of Jimmy Nutrin

I'm not at all convinced by the OP's argument that the popularity of a given work tends to remain constant over time. "People usually aren't that fickle" seems like a wilful underestimation of the magnitude of Popularity Polynomials.

No, what I mean is that media doesn't age. People change, but works of media don't.

Just another day in the life of Jimmy Nutrin

I think this trope is good in concept but the execution is a pain. There are plenty of works of fiction out there that have so relentlessly copied, they are no longer as inventive as they originally were, like the novel Bridge to Terabithia, which has the whole Leslie death thing, which has been copied by many other children's writers in an attempt to win a Newbery. So the average reader (particlaurly an adult) reading it, if they've read a Newbery before (and given that Newberys are always taught in schools, they have), they're going to find it boring, cliche, and trite, even though it was shocking, refreshingly honest, and inventive back in 1977.

But that's already covered by Follow the Leader.

Just another day in the life of Jimmy Nutrin

Hmm. I think I understand what the issue OP sees with the trope, but correct me if I"m wrong.

A is an innovative work which uses B -> B becomes commonplace -> A is no longer seen as innovative. That's all and good, but the trope then makes the assertion that A is not enjoyed because it uses B. If I'm understanding it correctly, that's an additional subjective step beyond what the trope requires.

Actually, writing this made me realize something. I think there's a distinction to make between "innovative" and "unique/differentiated." Innovative means something new is brought to the table.Being unique is in relation to others, but does not necessarily require innovation. I think the core trope is while a work was innovative, it is no longer unique because its innovations were adopted by the mainstream. But, the trope does seem to confuse the two from what OP is saying.

edited 1st May '16 2:57:23 PM by pokedude10

Yes, that is not only an additional subjective step, it's simply not true! Also, if something's innovative, doesn't that automatically mean, by definition, that it isn't new anymore?

edited 1st May '16 3:00:01 PM by WhatArtThee

Just another day in the life of Jimmy Nutrin

No, I don't think so. "New" is very subjective and context dependent. The timeframe for "new" is relative. For example, a new Troper is considered "new" for a certain period of time after account creation. An employee could be considered new if they were just hired, but also 10 years in if everyone else has stayed there 50+ years. Either way, "new" is a different problem than what we're dealing with. And in the way you're using it, "new" refers to how different it is than other existing works. I believe that wraps around to my distinction on "unique."

Follow the Leader is more about general media trends than whether an once original work has now become trite.

edited 2nd May '16 3:36:30 AM by YasminPerry

The identity crisis is my biggest problem. It keeps using COMPLETELY separate terms interchangeably. "original" and "good", "No longer original" with "no longer enjoyable", and worst of all, "Not new anymore" with the single most misused phrase regarding media, "Didn't age well". (Until now, just cut those from the page).

I really want a redirect to Follow the Leader.

Just another day in the life of Jimmy Nutrin

There's also the fact that, by definition, something that is innovative isn't unique.

Just another day in the life of Jimmy Nutrin

WAT, I don't really get your idea that Seinfeld Is Unfunny & Follow the Leader are somehow the same as each other. It's possible for a FTL work to have nothing to do with SIU. For example, Coconut Fred is an obvious FTL of Spongebob. But that doesn't somehow mean that SBSP is no longer enjoyable just because CFFSI exists.

edited 2nd May '16 12:10:43 PM by YasminPerry

But that's the thing. Things don't stop being enjoyable just because they aren't original and unique anymore.

And another issue with the trope. It keeps talking about how these things are no longer enjoyable, as if they are objectively no longer enjoyable.

Just another day in the life of Jimmy Nutrin

What I get from this is more the unrefined Ur-Example or Genre Starter is well... 'Unrefined' when compared future works in that genre thus seen as not as good but without them the subsequent series would never exist.

It might have some holdovers from the genre it shot off from and all that that might be a turn off for those who watched the refined works as well.

edited 2nd May '16 12:22:32 PM by Memers

Agreed. That's another aspect of the trope as well. Not the core aspect I don't think, but it is there.

Looking at the redirects does help clarify its current definition: "Seinfeld Is Cliche, Original At The Time, Original Idea At The Time, It Wasnt Cliche At The Time." Hopping over to the Cliché page does show this trope as a subtrope. From that lens, I think the trope might be valid after all. All cliches have a touch of subjectivity in them. There is rarely a definite point which a trope becomes overused, discredited, or cliche. Moving forward, I think this just needs a bit of retouching to clarify rather than full cutlisting.

Also to #14, this is a YMMV trope, it was not meant to be objective. As a subtrope/sister trope to Cliché, it is making a subjective statement about works.

edited 2nd May '16 1:11:03 PM by pokedude10

About the YMMV thing, saying something is scary, or is sad, or awesome, or whatever, is one thing, but saying something can no longer be enjoyed is TOO subjective, IMO. About the cliche thing, maybe this trope could be redefined as "a once-original trope becomes cliche" or something like that, instead of all this "This work was once enjoyable, but it hasn't aged well because it's not unique anymore" nonsense.

Just another day in the life of Jimmy Nutrin

Eh, YMMV is broad. The index Audience Reactions, which this trope is within, definitely discusses the works and well... audience reactions. An excerpt from the page itself:

• This is an index of Audience Reactions. An Audience Reaction is objectively not present in the work at all. It's something fans emotionally go through from experiencing the work.

Audience Reactions absolutely covers this trope. It is not meant to degrade the work, nor is it petty complaining.

Also, the trope is not about used tropes themselves, rather it is about the works. The YMMV and Audience reaction section can make subjective claims about works within reason. Readers know this is not the same level of "fact" (given There Is No Such Thing As Notability) than a normal trope. And really, the trope is not making as strong a claim as you say it is. I don't see anything in the description that these works become inherently unenjoyable. Description itself leans more towards saying the innovative works became cliche/overdone rather than bad/unenjoyable.

edited 2nd May '16 5:21:55 PM by pokedude10

IMHO, most of the examples of this trope are interesting & informative. Just a thought.

I see that claim a LOT.

Some samples from the Video Game section.

"Nowadays, the first Mega Man Battle Network can barely pass as a bare-bones mobile game"

"It's hard for some fans to pick up old text adventures these days"

"It can be hard for people to like The 7th Guest"

"Ape Escape was once revolutionary, but it hasn't aged well due to bad camera and Damn You, Muscle Memory!"

"The first Virtua Fighter is now horribly bland"

"Many today compare Battle Arena Toshiden unfavorably to other games, despite how groundbreaking it was"

"The Baulder's Gate games are considered masterpiece RP Gs, but try telling that to newer gamers"

"SOCOM is now considered a foot-note in the history of the PS 2"

And so on and so forth.

And even if they might be interesting, it doesn't hide that they're not true.

edited 2nd May '16 5:42:32 PM by WhatArtThee

Just another day in the life of Jimmy Nutrin

I'm sorry... I hate picking apart posts, I really don't like doing that. But you should really show the context of those examples you just gave. With context, they are not inappropriate/untrue examples. I just looked straight from the page you quoted.

• The Ape Escape example gives context to the controller innovations
• Mega Man example gives explanation to the evolution of the sequels. That quote appears mid-way down the hefty explanation.
• 7th guest example doesn't even say that what you quoted. Word used was "appreciate" rather than "like." It gives deep explanation about being one of the first CD format games and live action scenes.

And etc.

Specifically, what claim are you referring to and how is it and the examples untrue? I'm not trying to be mean or argumentative, but I want to understand your reasoning?

edited 2nd May '16 7:06:34 PM by pokedude10

A problem I always have when seeing this trope is how a lot of it is treated objectively.

For example, Seinfeld itself.

The only thing that's come close to its style of humor (not talking about quality) for me is Flight Of The Conchords. Sure, Seinfeld was popular and a lot of people tried to copy it, but I feel it ended up with the typical bad sort of Follow the Leader.

Observational humor tends to be really... derpy in imitators (I can't think of a better way to put it). Seinfeld didn't just go for stock Acceptable Targets for its observational humor and the Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonists were still real people. They were based on real people and I know people like them, they weren't just stock character archetypes like many imitators use. Most Seinfeld imitators feel like they're cargo culting to me (the full definition, not the trope).

I'm not describing myself very well, but my point is that there's a difference that isn't strictly YMMV. The imitators aren't always doing the same things, especially when you have the same kind of thing happening that creates a Shallow Parody.

Similarly, I swear I saw Lucky Star listed under this before since a lot of anime since have tried to follow its trend of making a lot of references to real nerdy things. I'll admit I haven't seen a lot of anime with that theme, but the ones I've seen have a more surface-level "we're name dropping this thing!" Lucky Star actually showed that knowledge, and didn't just tell it. My favorite moment is when Konata is giving an excuse for why she's late, and explains she finished a quest in an MMO, but stayed in the group the help the other person finish instead of leaving. I first had that experience over a decade ago, and it's something not often talked about with MMOs. I've seen actual MMO forums that sound less like they've played an MMO, let alone a tv show.

There's a thing here, but I feel like too much of it is worded in a way that implies that certain things have exactly been done to death, instead of maybe just that Follow the Leader has led to people being so overexposed that they don't bother to consider the differences.

edited 2nd May '16 7:37:16 PM by Jokubas

Jokubas, I'm confused as to what the point of your post is.

Well, since the discussion has stalled for a few days with no progress, I make a motion to close.

I think the concept does fall close to being mere complaining, but because of its limitations and definition it looks to be a valid YMMV / Audience Reaction trope. Many of the examples on the trope page and work pages do seem to be legitimate examples rather than complaining. Any examples that are pure complaining that don't follow the trope definition (or are zce's) are misuse of the trope, and should be fixed or cut. Further, the misuse doesn't seem prevalent enough to warrant fixing the definition or trope yet.