Print Page | Close Window

Seinfeld Poll - most despicable main character?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=71444
Printed Date: January 20 2022 at 17:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Seinfeld Poll - most despicable main character?
Posted By: Zitro
Subject: Seinfeld Poll - most despicable main character?
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 20:47
The poll is simple, who of the four main characters of the show appear to be the worse human being? 

You first got Jerry whose questionable behavior includes breaking up with no remorse with women over the slightest flaws and his consistent indifference (or even enjoyment) over his friends' misery (like George). Also very obsessive, quite selfish. 

George's negative traits that make him hilarious include selfishness (mainly with money), laziness, outrageous dishonesty ("come on ... my father's gay), and extreme impulsiveness. 

Elaine Benes: Extremely superficial (e.g. dating a guy solely for his good-looks then dumping him because he scarred his face), laughs at friends, selfish tendencies, fakes it, etc

Cosmo Kramer: sometimes shallow, occasionally breaks the law, uses Jerry's apartment without consent, brutal honesty issues, 





Replies:
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 20:51
Jerry, by far actually



Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 21:40
Jerry's not so bad.  He bought his Dad a Caddie. 

And that's the only thing I could think of.  You're right.  Jerry.


-------------



Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 21:43
Love that show!

Honestly, it's Jerry.
None of them (except Kramer perhaps) are really likable, as real people, but Jerry is the most despicable!


Posted By: hobocamp
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 21:48
My first impulse upon reading the topic title was George. But then I read your accurate assessments of the characters, and I had to think a minute. They're all horrible people. George is handicapped as a short, stocky, bald man; Cosmo is mentally imbalanced; and Jerry has some good qualities (despises stealing, for example). But Elaine doesn't really have a good reason to be so despicable. 


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 21:52
it's funny cause for the first several episodes Jerry is a fairly normal, lonely, decent guy




Posted By: DisgruntledPorcupine
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 22:19
Elaine by far...


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 22:26
^ Yep but more importantly I don't think she's remotely funny and merely serves
to 'rip my knitting' grievously.

-------------


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 22:27
Elaine is bad, she'd be my second choice (almost voted for her.. devil woman!)




Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 02:21

Newman



-------------


Posted By: caretaker
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 10:42
Gotta be George for the fire at the birthday party incident where he knocked over women and kids trying to escape. But he's still my favorite.


Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 10:55
George but at least has a reason to be despicable, he's short, he has shy hair, not very succesfull and suffers from terrible parents.

-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT


Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 11:48
When speaking of actors it's easily Michael Richards. Love the show but can't watch it the same way after his horrible racist f**k-up.


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 17:50
George, it's actually horrible. And it's actually the funniest. 

I love he show. I own all seasons on DVD and have watched every single episode... The peak of comedy in TV... 

... followed by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin of course... TongueDead


-------------


Posted By: rpe9p
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 23:39
When I saw the topic I thought "george of course," but after reading your post and thinking about it I'm not so sure.  They all do some terrible things but also have redeeming moments


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 08:43
George. Ok Jerry is bad too, and Elaine. But George pretending to be handicapped and the thing with the foundation for his dead fiance. Hilariously horrible.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 11:41
Let's remember when someone yelled fire and he pushed the old lady aside as he was running away from danger.. 

-------------


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 11:48
I love George. No way I can vote for him. I'll vote for Jerry, because he enjoys watching horrible things happen to his friends and laughing at them.

George gave a security guard a chair because he felt bad for him having to stand up all day. You know that deep down he must have a good heart.


-------------


Posted By: The Tourist
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 15:33
Definitely George.
 
Somebody should make the same poll for It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia! LOL


Posted By: June
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 18:43
Say Vandelay!

George for me. Come on, dude, if only he'd put as much energy into finding a job than into faking a job.

And trying to get a date right after his fiancée died?

And because of that Tongue




Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 19:35

Elaine, but that's to be expected; she is an attractive woman.Wink

George is just doing what a short, stocky, slow-witted, bald man has to do to survive.

-------------


Time always wins.


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 20:10
Originally posted by King By-Tor King By-Tor wrote:

When speaking of actors it's easily Michael Richards. Love the show but can't watch it the same way after his horrible racist f**k-up.

But you know we're not talking about the actors, here. We're talking about the characters. 


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 20:15
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by King By-Tor King By-Tor wrote:

When speaking of actors it's easily Michael Richards. Love the show but can't watch it the same way after his horrible racist f**k-up.

But you know we're not talking about the actors, here. We're talking about the characters. 

Exactly. 

If we were to judge movies or tv shows or anything like it by the conducts of their real life actors and performers, we would have to dislike pretty much everything. 


-------------


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 20:19
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by King By-Tor King By-Tor wrote:

When speaking of actors it's easily Michael Richards. Love the show but can't watch it the same way after his horrible racist f**k-up.

But you know we're not talking about the actors, here. We're talking about the characters. 

Exactly. 

If we were to judge movies or tv shows or anything like it by the conducts of their real life actors and performers, we would have to dislike pretty much everything. 

Like I've said before; everybody is an a****le about something. We have to separate the artist from the art. 

Anyway, I have always disliked Elaine. I mean, I 'love to hate' her, but she'd be the last person I would ever want to hang out with. Much too much of a hypocrite about things, considering how shallow and narrow-minded she is in her own life.


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 20:29
And I really don't believe Richards is a true card-carrying racist.  Yeah, I know what he said.  He was angry and he made a big mistake in anger and haste, to some people who were pushing his buttons.  He f##cked up, but his friends came out right away and said he's not like that, he swore he's not like that when he apologized, and I take him at his word.  I hardly think people like Dreyfuss and Larry David (a flaming liberal) would be hanging out with a guy they felt was truly racist. 

Just my opinion, could be wrong, maybe he does burn crosses every other Wednesday.  Wink




-------------



Posted By: TheClosing
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 20:40
George obviously! LOL


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 20:42
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

And I really don't believe Richards is a true card-carrying racist.  Yeah, I know what he said.  He was angry and he made a big mistake in anger and haste, to some people who were pushing his buttons.  He f##cked up, but his friends came out right away and said he's not like that, he swore he's not like that when he apologized, and I take him at his word.  I hardly think people like Dreyfuss and Larry David (a flaming liberal) would be hanging out with a guy they felt was truly racist. 

Just my opinion, could be wrong, maybe he does burn crosses every other Wednesday.  Wink



Well, he did a little more than simply explode on some guys. He went out of his way to say very cruel things regarding their ethnicity, and nothing else. The stuff he said . . . damn, even if I got as mad as he did, I don't even think I could come up with anything that specific and mean in the midst of a rage. He spoke like someone who has felt those ways already and had those thoughts for a long time, but kept them buried. I am not trying to sound self-righteous or anything, but I swear I don't think I would say anything racist to someone who made me angry. Because I honestly don't see the difference. If someone makes me mad, I get angry at them, not their skin color.

Anyway, you shouldn't judge whether someone is a racist or not based on how he acts around his friends. it's how he behaves toward strangers that shows what he's really about. And burning crosses isn't required, last time I checked, to be a 'closet' racist of sorts. Like I suspect Mr. Richards may be. 


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 21:13
I don't know....I'd have to see a pattern of behavior beyond ONE incident before I could be judge and jury that someone is a racist. 

Give you a hypothetical.  If Richards were a gay man, and the guys at the show whom he exploded at screamed back at him "F you, F___t !!!!" or something like that, would that automatically make you classify them as certified homophobic bigots?   Or could they have just been trying to really agitate and provoke in that particular exchange, in the heat of the moment?  Had that happened, I would say both parties were trying to hurt the other with awful words, but I think to label either with something so lasting and harsh over one exchange is perhaps inaccurate. 

I don't think a true racist, particularly one in the public eye for decades, could go through his whole life with just one incident.  There would be much more smoke, and comments from people who know him that....yeah this guy doesn't like blacks...other stories would have surfaced....but to my knowledge there is nothing else. 




-------------



Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 21:44
Look, you have your opinion, I have mine, that's all. All I can do is base it on what I might do in similar situations. I couldn't see myself using a person's ethnic background as a way of hurting him. And I certainly wouldn't make references to unjustified murders committed against his race in the past. Would you? No matter how mad you were, would you fight back by attacking a man's skin color or making light of his culture's dark past?

I get the feeling you didn't really pay much attention to everything that was said that night. Richards did much more than call them n****rs. 

I still love his character on Seinfeld, and think he is a very funny, talented guy. But to act as if it's stretching things to assume him a racist is a little naive, in my opinion. I'm not calling him one for certain, since I can't see into his mind, but I am saying it's a very high possibility. I could be wrong, but asking for someone to do something wrong twice in order for it to actually be wrong seems very odd to me. What he did was wrong the first time, and I'm not going to brush it under the rug and assume he's a swell guy just because he hasn't done it since. Who knows how many times Richards may have said similar things in private, when there wasn't a camera to capture it? If you see footage of an abuser causing harm to his child or spouse, you don't assume he was having a bad day, do you? You call him what he is. 


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 21:51
You didn't even read the hypothetical because you messed up in your response.   I won't hijack this poor guys poll any further.....you're free to your definitions.  

-------------



Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 21:58
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

You didn't even read the hypothetical because you messed up in your response.   I won't hijack this poor guys poll any further.....you're free to your definitions.  

Whoops, my bad. I'll address it correctly, now.

The short answer: yes. The long answer: it's complicated.

If Richards still made it personal first in your example, and if he were gay, it's possible the guys would have merely been trying to hurt him back as a reaction. It still wouldn't be right of them, but it would a bit more understandable. But by all logic, if Richards were gay, he wouldn't be spouting off racial slurs of any kind, because he himself would already be part of one of a minory and most likely knows how it feels. It would stop him, perhaps. But let's say that did happen . . . even if it would have been as a reaction, anybody who calls someone else a name based on that person's ethnicity, sexual orientation, mental defect, etc. is being a bigot. Of course, they could be joking, but in this situation, they wouldn't be, clearly. 

In the actual case with Richards, it's not complicated at all. We know all the variables and we know exactly what was said and for what reason. Richards was being heckled, so he decided to say something racist and cruel-hearted in return. Apparently he thought that was the appropriate, even-handed response. The first thing he jumped on was the color of their skin, which as far as I can see has nothing to do with how they were behaving. Had they been white hecklers, Richards probably would have still gotten angry, but he would have called them 'idiots' or some other name that is non-race-specific. Why? Because he is white, too. It is painfully clear that Richards said what he did because he is white, and they were black. Their heckling no longer became the issue, and he made it about race. He did. Not them. Why should I assume anything other than what is glaring obvious about this man?

That's all I'm saying. He's  a funny guy, but he did something very disgusting in my eyes. But you know what? He has the right to say or think whatever he wants about what any type of people he wants. And I'll support his right to say racist things, no matter how hurtful they might be. Because they ARE just words, not actions. It's also The Laugh Factory's right to keep him from coming back there if they want. And I think they are right for doing so.


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 22:08
Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

You didn't even read the hypothetical because you messed up in your response.   I won't hijack this poor guys poll any further.....you're free to your definitions.  

Whoops, my bad. I'll address it correctly, now.

The short answer: yes. The long answer: it's complicated.

If Richards still made it personal first in your example, and if he were gay, it's possible the guys would have merely been trying to hurt him back as a reaction. It still wouldn't be right of them, but it would a bit more understandable. But by all logic, if Richards were gay, he wouldn't be spouting off racial slurs of any kind, because he himself would already be part of one of a minory and most likely knows how it feels. It would stop him, perhaps. But let's say that did happen . . . even if it would have been as a reaction, anybody who calls someone else a name based on that person's ethnicity, sexual orientation, mental defect, etc. is being a bigot. Of course, they could be joking, but in this situation, they wouldn't be, clearly. 

In the actual case with Richards, it's not complicated at all. We know all the variables and we know exactly what was said and for what reason. Richards was being heckled, so he decided to say something racist and cruel-hearted in return. Apparently he thought that was the appropriate, even-handed response. The first thing he jumped on was the color of their skin, which as far as I can see has nothing to do with how they were behaving. Had they been white hecklers, Richards probably would have still gotten angry, but he would have called them 'idiots' or some other name that is non-race-specific. Why? Because he is white, too. It is painfully clear that Richards said what he did because he is white, and they were black. Their heckling no longer became the issue, and he made it about race. He did. Not them. Why should I assume anything other than what is glaring obvious about this man?

That's all I'm saying. He's  a funny guy, but he did something very disgusting in my eyes. But you know what? He has the right to say or think whatever he wants about what any type of people he wants. And I'll support his right to say racist things, no matter how hurtful they might be. Because they ARE just words, not actions. It's also The Laugh Factory's right to keep him from coming back there if they want. And I think they are right for doing so.


Minority groups are not racist against other minority groups? Hahahahahahahaha!LOL


-------------


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 20 2010 at 22:13
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by JLocke JLocke wrote:

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

You didn't even read the hypothetical because you messed up in your response.   I won't hijack this poor guys poll any further.....you're free to your definitions.  

Whoops, my bad. I'll address it correctly, now.

The short answer: yes. The long answer: it's complicated.

If Richards still made it personal first in your example, and if he were gay, it's possible the guys would have merely been trying to hurt him back as a reaction. It still wouldn't be right of them, but it would a bit more understandable. But by all logic, if Richards were gay, he wouldn't be spouting off racial slurs of any kind, because he himself would already be part of one of a minory and most likely knows how it feels. It would stop him, perhaps. But let's say that did happen . . . even if it would have been as a reaction, anybody who calls someone else a name based on that person's ethnicity, sexual orientation, mental defect, etc. is being a bigot. Of course, they could be joking, but in this situation, they wouldn't be, clearly. 

In the actual case with Richards, it's not complicated at all. We know all the variables and we know exactly what was said and for what reason. Richards was being heckled, so he decided to say something racist and cruel-hearted in return. Apparently he thought that was the appropriate, even-handed response. The first thing he jumped on was the color of their skin, which as far as I can see has nothing to do with how they were behaving. Had they been white hecklers, Richards probably would have still gotten angry, but he would have called them 'idiots' or some other name that is non-race-specific. Why? Because he is white, too. It is painfully clear that Richards said what he did because he is white, and they were black. Their heckling no longer became the issue, and he made it about race. He did. Not them. Why should I assume anything other than what is glaring obvious about this man?

That's all I'm saying. He's  a funny guy, but he did something very disgusting in my eyes. But you know what? He has the right to say or think whatever he wants about what any type of people he wants. And I'll support his right to say racist things, no matter how hurtful they might be. Because they ARE just words, not actions. It's also The Laugh Factory's right to keep him from coming back there if they want. And I think they are right for doing so.


Minority groups are not racist against other minority groups? Hahahahahahahaha!LOL

Never in my life have I ever said anything as idiotic as ''minority groups are not racist against other minority groups.'' 

Plenty of black people keep gay folks down all the time. But is that logical? Nope. 

What I said: ''But by all logic, if Richards were gay, he wouldn't be spouting off racial slurs of any kind, because he himself would already be part of one of a minory and most likely knows how it feels.'' I did not say it was impossible, and I still considered the possibility of it happening and went on with my post. 

And from what I've seen, not a single gay person has ever spoken against black people in this way. Not once have I seen that. I'm sure it has happened, but not enough to be all that common. But the reverse seems to happen very often. Plenty of black christians push to keep gay marriage unrecognized. I'm not about go into THAT, however. Talk about hijacking a thread. LOL


Posted By: Mr Greeen Genes
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 00:03
Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

 
George is just doing what a short, stocky, slow-witted, bald man has to do to survive.
 
LOL


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 00:09
George is winning in a landslide?  Really?  Ermm


Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 00:42
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

George is winning in a landslide?  Really?  Ermm

I don't get it, either. I've always liked George. 


Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 06:02
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Let's remember when someone yelled fire and he pushed the old lady aside as he was running away from danger.. 


Who did that? I can't remember LOL

I voted George btw


Posted By: Deleuze
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 23:13
George, but only cause it's tough love between us LOL


-------------


Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 23:05
Originally posted by June June wrote:

Say Vandelay!

George for me. Come on, dude, if only he'd put as much energy into finding a job than into faking a job.

And trying to get a date right after his fiancée died?

And because of that Tongue




Oh for crying out loud. Every time my wife and I go furniture shopping I can't try out a couch without her saying, "oh my god! stop it george!"


-------------
https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">
https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp


Posted By: Stooge
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 16:58
If I knew those characters in real life, I'd probably be bothered the most by Kramer.  His character is a good guy at heart, but I couldn't stand having someone popping in and out of my home and taking whatever he wants out of my fridge or misplacing my belongings.  I'm a fairly organized guy, and I appreciate my privacy.  I'd say Jerry was right for taking his keys back, although it made things complicated.

I have a twin brother, and Kramer would be one of those people who could know us both for years and still mix us up regularly.  He kept calling Susan "Lilly".  "Poor Lilly ...." LOL

Kramer obviously makes me laugh, but I relate more to the other 3 characters.

I won't vote for Kramer though, because he's technically not the worst human being of the 4.  Tough call.  Let me think about it.





Posted By: MFP
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 17:25
Georgie-boy.


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 17:34
The few times I watched the show, I didn't find any of the characters particularly appealing.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 17:35
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

The few times I watched the show, I didn't find any of the characters particularly appealing.
I'm glad I am not the only one.

-------------


Posted By: Synchestra
Date Posted: October 03 2010 at 04:50
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

The few times I watched the show, I didn't find any of the characters particularly appealing.
That's sort of the point Wink the fact the show was that successful in spite of (or perhaps because of) the characters all being played in a way where you won't pity them at all is what made the show so great. And Curb Your Enthusiasm was just as good IMO (and I can't remember entirely, but I think they actually referanced the racism thing in an episode, something about Kramer wearing a hat... )

-------------
'Yeah, thats.. Whatever you're talking about for ya' - Zapp brannigan


Posted By: Chela
Date Posted: October 12 2010 at 16:12
Believe it or not, George isn't at home.
Please leave a message at the beep.
I must be out, or I'd pick up the phone.
Where could I be???
Believe it or not, I'm not home!
 
Although that was cute...
 
George gets it Thumbs Up, or... Thumbs Down?


Posted By: cyclysm748
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 00:14
George wins this for me.  Every episode is about him trying to get out of his mistakes in the sneakiest most disgraceful way possible.


Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 00:44
I'm telling you people: Elaine is pure evil

-------------


Time always wins.


Posted By: Theriver
Date Posted: October 26 2010 at 15:28

Went for George even tough he makes me laugh so much.



Posted By: DisgruntledPorcupine
Date Posted: October 26 2010 at 20:48
Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

I'm telling you people: Elaine is pure evil



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk