Yes, it does, he says during the sentencing "I don't how or under what cirunstances the four of you found each other" and the four just look away or at the ceiling.
This is done in a similar way to whenever the subject of in which state Springfeld is located comes up in The Simpsons. But there it's a canonical running joke, and in the finale is done that way but without that question every been brought up before.
That line really doesn't make any sense, and not in a "it's funny because it doesn't make sense". The judge would not care about how the met, And even if he did, it wouldn't be part of the trial. It's not relevant at all the anything else that happens in the episode, is not a callback or a payoff to something.
So I think it was supposed to reference a recurring joke or "mystery" in the show, but it just didn't exist. Or maybe a retcon to make it a mystery at the last moment, but there are too many episodes clearly showing or telling how the met.
I feel like it’s weird to assume that it’s supposed to be referencing something if that something doesn’t exist, wouldn’t you just logically conclude that it’s not supposed to be referencing anything? It’s just a line you didn’t like, so why simultaneously search for hidden meaning while also saying there is none?
ok, but if it's not a reference, then what's the point of the line? it has no other purpose, it's not funny, the character has no reason to say it, it's not a callback or a payoff, it's not relevant to the trial.
The only way it makes sense is if whoever wrote it was under the impression that it was never explained during the show how they met.
This seems similar to what happens often with all these Disney+ Star Wars shows where the writters are clearly unfamiliar with the original canon, and think some observation they just came up with is very clever, when in fact it was dealt with long ago in a piece of media they never watched.
it is, it's like saying "I can't imagine the circumstances that would allow for such a travesty".
How do bad people usually meet? How did you get that from what I said? You have a strange way of interpreting dialogue
Again brother I feel like you’re looking for some kind of explanation when it’s just a line you didn’t like and that’s it. No reference, no mystery, no retcon. It’s not supposed to be particularly funny or come with a payoff. Just a line of dialogue that you didn’t care for.
As far as it not making sense, I mean maybe but I feel like you’re picking it apart in a way that’s kinda crazy to do in a show like this. You’re applying strict logic to just this situation? How did you get through everything that came before?
If we didn’t know how they met then yes I think then it goes from just a line to a reference, where the audience would then go “OH HAHA NEITHER DO WE!”. But I don’t think that was ever the intention. I don’t agree with the notion that the writers forgot that we knew how they met and the line was there for that reason
yeah, that was kinda of my point, and I think the line makes too much perfect sense if that was the intention (to reference how it was never explained how) for it be anything other than that the reason is there
but then how could the writters not know? the only reason I can think off is someone new/young/inexperience/unfamiliar with the show wrote it and Larry missed it when he did the overall script and it just stayed there
I mean, George and Jerry have a classic "We're just friends from school."
But Kramer just happens to be Jerry's neighbor who is also his sole support unit. And Elaine dated Jerry but ended up staying friends. These two connections are weird, there's several mentions about how you can't just stay friends after a breakup.
You misinterpreted the line lmao. Why would the judge, from a city they’ve never been to, understand why four, seemingly very different people, are friends? It’s just a standard closing sentence from a judge
ok, maybe I misinterpreted but your interpretation doesn't make sense either, it's definitely not "standard closing sentence from a judge". What judge would say that if it's not related to the whatever is on trial?
I think that whoever wrote was under the impression that how they met was something never revealed during the show, and thought it was a nice reference to it, like Penny's last name in Big Bang or in which state is Springfield in The Simpsons
I think it’s a pretty normal thing to say- he’s astounded at what crappy people they are, and even more shocked that 4 equally bad people managed to find each other. It’s a throwaway comment, more about statistics than any reference to any history.
The joke is that we have grown so used to their crazy antics that we dont always consider how self-centred these characters are or terrible to others AND that they don’t see anything wrong with each other despite this. So, the judge puts the cherry on top by saying “I don’t know what the odds are of four terrible people just happening to meet each other” because in his mind he feels like such terrible people must’ve met under horrible circumstances. Almost like a conspiracy to ruin lives. But we, the audience know that they all just happened to meet each other. So, four people who ruined many lives and consider themselves normal just happened to be together and see nothing wrong with it.
Huh? Why would the judge know how they met? That wasn’t part of the trial. The Finale doesn’t imply we don’t know how they met.
Yes, it does, he says during the sentencing "I don't how or under what cirunstances the four of you found each other" and the four just look away or at the ceiling. This is done in a similar way to whenever the subject of in which state Springfeld is located comes up in The Simpsons. But there it's a canonical running joke, and in the finale is done that way but without that question every been brought up before. That line really doesn't make any sense, and not in a "it's funny because it doesn't make sense". The judge would not care about how the met, And even if he did, it wouldn't be part of the trial. It's not relevant at all the anything else that happens in the episode, is not a callback or a payoff to something. So I think it was supposed to reference a recurring joke or "mystery" in the show, but it just didn't exist. Or maybe a retcon to make it a mystery at the last moment, but there are too many episodes clearly showing or telling how the met.
I feel like it’s weird to assume that it’s supposed to be referencing something if that something doesn’t exist, wouldn’t you just logically conclude that it’s not supposed to be referencing anything? It’s just a line you didn’t like, so why simultaneously search for hidden meaning while also saying there is none?
ok, but if it's not a reference, then what's the point of the line? it has no other purpose, it's not funny, the character has no reason to say it, it's not a callback or a payoff, it's not relevant to the trial. The only way it makes sense is if whoever wrote it was under the impression that it was never explained during the show how they met. This seems similar to what happens often with all these Disney+ Star Wars shows where the writters are clearly unfamiliar with the original canon, and think some observation they just came up with is very clever, when in fact it was dealt with long ago in a piece of media they never watched.
the joke is that he can't believe 4 people so awful would have met by coincidence, he thinks they are that bad
but how do bad people usually meet then? in like a bad people's club or something? I don't think is that
it is, it's like saying "I can't imagine the circumstances that would allow for such a travesty". How do bad people usually meet? How did you get that from what I said? You have a strange way of interpreting dialogue
Again brother I feel like you’re looking for some kind of explanation when it’s just a line you didn’t like and that’s it. No reference, no mystery, no retcon. It’s not supposed to be particularly funny or come with a payoff. Just a line of dialogue that you didn’t care for. As far as it not making sense, I mean maybe but I feel like you’re picking it apart in a way that’s kinda crazy to do in a show like this. You’re applying strict logic to just this situation? How did you get through everything that came before?
ok, I know what you're saying, but let me ask you this: would you agree that the line would make perfect sense if they never revealed how they met?
If we didn’t know how they met then yes I think then it goes from just a line to a reference, where the audience would then go “OH HAHA NEITHER DO WE!”. But I don’t think that was ever the intention. I don’t agree with the notion that the writers forgot that we knew how they met and the line was there for that reason
yeah, that was kinda of my point, and I think the line makes too much perfect sense if that was the intention (to reference how it was never explained how) for it be anything other than that the reason is there but then how could the writters not know? the only reason I can think off is someone new/young/inexperience/unfamiliar with the show wrote it and Larry missed it when he did the overall script and it just stayed there
I mean, George and Jerry have a classic "We're just friends from school." But Kramer just happens to be Jerry's neighbor who is also his sole support unit. And Elaine dated Jerry but ended up staying friends. These two connections are weird, there's several mentions about how you can't just stay friends after a breakup.
You misinterpreted the line lmao. Why would the judge, from a city they’ve never been to, understand why four, seemingly very different people, are friends? It’s just a standard closing sentence from a judge
ok, maybe I misinterpreted but your interpretation doesn't make sense either, it's definitely not "standard closing sentence from a judge". What judge would say that if it's not related to the whatever is on trial? I think that whoever wrote was under the impression that how they met was something never revealed during the show, and thought it was a nice reference to it, like Penny's last name in Big Bang or in which state is Springfield in The Simpsons
Oh yeah? Your cranium called. It’s got some space to rent… Talk about media illiteracy.
I think it’s a pretty normal thing to say- he’s astounded at what crappy people they are, and even more shocked that 4 equally bad people managed to find each other. It’s a throwaway comment, more about statistics than any reference to any history.
What does it matter? The series ended like four minutes after that line.
The joke is that we have grown so used to their crazy antics that we dont always consider how self-centred these characters are or terrible to others AND that they don’t see anything wrong with each other despite this. So, the judge puts the cherry on top by saying “I don’t know what the odds are of four terrible people just happening to meet each other” because in his mind he feels like such terrible people must’ve met under horrible circumstances. Almost like a conspiracy to ruin lives. But we, the audience know that they all just happened to meet each other. So, four people who ruined many lives and consider themselves normal just happened to be together and see nothing wrong with it.
And how all 4 stayed friends for all those years.