Friends is the dopiest, most basic show

[Anonymous]

Ross was a museum curator with child support payments, yet it seemed like he was rocking a new leather jacket in every episode. He had the best wardrobe I’ve ever seen. Where did all his money come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ross was a museum curator with child support payments, yet it seemed like he was rocking a new leather jacket in every episode. He had the best wardrobe I’ve ever seen. Where did all his money come from?

I mean…how did Seinfeld have a big Manhattan apartment as a stand-up comic? It requires a suspension of disbelief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friends was stupid, basic, and not funny even when it first came out and it’s very cringe now.
I was in high school when it was first airing so I should’ve been part of their target audience.

No, the target audience was older. Target demos for broadcast television are rarely minors because advertisers want to target buyers. Based on the stuff that used to get advertised during Friends, I would guess the target demo was something like 25-50 white people with and without kids, mostly suburban or lower density (not urban and not rural). I'm sure some HS students watched it, but largely because it was what the rest of the family was watching.

How long was Friends on? 10 seasons? So people in high school when it started would have been target audience by the time it was done. And should’ve been hooking them in during high school early college years. It’s a bad show.

No, that's not how it works, because the show also ages and the characters generally age too. So viewers age with the characters and the storylines. That's why Friends started out being about somewhat directionless people in their 20s with money problems, all single, many trying to make ends meet and break into careers, and by the time it ended, they'd all experienced career progression and success, several had kids and been married (and/or divorced), their friendships had evolved, they were in very different financial situations, etc. So no, the show is unlikely to hook new viewers because it is no longer the show it was when it first aired, it's about different things and the characters are in a different part of life, and a person in their early to mid 20s won't be able to identify or be as interested. They'll be targeted by other shows.

I think people really forget how different appointment viewing was for the TV. Streaming changes everything becsue anyone can start a show from the pilot whenever they want. So if I decide I want to watch The West Wing tomorrow, I can watch it for the first time starting with the first episode and draw my own conclusions based on who I am today. But in the 90s it didn't work that way. Target demos used to be a much bigger deal because television revolved around advertising, and because in order to get someone to watch a show, you needed to be able to entice them when the show is airing. So airing the right shows at the right time on the right nights to capture the right audience was an art form, called programming, and networks invested a lot of money in it. Friends was engineered to capture a specific audience. You were not part of that audience. It's okay, neither was I. But it ran for 10 years, went into syndication, launched major careers for half a dozen actors, and made a TON of money. It was a successful show regardless of what you think of it.

I didn’t deny that the show was successful-it obviously was. I still think it’s a dumb, not funny at all show. How many people love that show just proves how many people love corny jokes and stupid story lines.

I think Veep and Arrested Development are far funnier and more clever than Friends but I still love Friends for what it is.

These critiques remind me of the time I heard a movie critic panning Wayne's World and comparing it to some Oscar-winning film to prove how bad it was. The thing is, Wayne's World was never supposed to be an Oscar contender. It wasn't a serious film. It was dopey and stupid but also likeable and funny. I feel like people who say Friends wasn't funny, etc., aren't appreciating it for what it was. It wasn't Seinfeld or Frasier, which were wittier and more clever. It was cinnamon toast when you're home sick. Chicken nuggets with fries when you've had a bad day. It was comfort food in the form of a show.

You're still entitled to not like it, of course. But I feel like panning it for being dopey and basic is really missing the point. That's exactly what it was supposed to be!

This was something I really loved about Roger Ebert -- he took movies at face value and evaluated whether they were a good version of whatever they were trying to be. Like I remember he gave the movie Bring it On a really good review, and some people rolled their eyes, but his point was that it was a great comedy about high school cheerleaders, with strong, memorable performances, and the jokes and pacing worked well, plus it looked good. It's not Citizen Kane but it didn't set out to be that, or even to win an Oscar or anything. The wanted to make a really entertaining movie about teenagers and found a great cast and made a good movie.

And that's how I feel about Friends. It's not super clever or deep, but I think a PP has it right that it was like chicken soup -- just comforting and reliable. Yes, it's formulaic and cheesy, but sometimes that's what you want in a sitcom.

They don't make a lot of shows like Friends now, especially with streaming, and my DH and I talk about missing "dumb" tv sometimes. Sometimes you want to watch a basic sitcom with decent acting and reasonably funny jokes and pleasant set and costume design, and just let it wash over you. I like to watch stuff like this while knitting or folding laundry, or as something to smooth out stress from a tough day before going to bed. I don't want to watch Veep or Arrested Development in those situations. They are funnier and smarter, but also more thought provoking and caustic. I don't want to be provoked. I want to be coddled a bit. Friends offered that.

Great points about Roger Ebert! I think more criticism should be like this.

[Anonymous]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN COX AND LEBLANC WERE BAD ACTORS? WATCH IT AGAIN -- YOU CAN *TOTALLY* TELL THEY ARE ACTING!

[Anonymous]

Never watched it. As a black woman, there was nothing in it for me. Plus it was a rip off of Living Single.

Living Single > Friends but Friends is not the show that ripped off Living Single. That would be Sex and the City.

Khadijah, magazine publisher & glue holding the group together = Carrie
Max, career driven lawyer too busy for love = Miranda
Regine, cares most about dating the richest man = Samantha (just switch money to sex)
Synclaire, a little naive and innocent = Charlotte

[Anonymous]

That's why I prefer to watch thunderstorms. Better than any video.

Anyway, they spend all their time sinning.

Isha Yiras Hashem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Never watched it. As a black woman, there was nothing in it for me. Plus it was a rip off of Living Single.

Living Single > Friends but Friends is not the show that ripped off Living Single. That would be Sex and the City.

Khadijah, magazine publisher & glue holding the group together = Carrie
Max, career driven lawyer too busy for love = Miranda
Regine, cares most about dating the richest man = Samantha (just switch money to sex)
Synclaire, a little naive and innocent = Charlotte

Totally agree with this. Living Single was all about the women and dating. Friends had different DNA.

I get not being interested in Friends if you are black, but I do think it's odd that it's become the poster child for the "white sitcom of the 90s" for some reason. There were a lot of very white sitcoms in that era. Heck, Sex and the City is a good example of a comedy set in New York with a weirdly white cast and very limited POC characters. So much media was highly segregated back then because the people who made TV didn't believe audiences would accept multi-racial families or friend groups. It was workplace comedies that were able to integrate more easily, and eventually that expanded as attitudes shifted. But in the 90s, most shows were segregated and focused either on a group of white characters or a group of black characters. It's not like Living Single had one white friend, either. Obviously the broadcast networks (except Fox) focused more on white audiences, which should come in for criticism. But singling Friends out is weird to me because you could say the same about literally every sitcom of that era. Some had a single POC character (like on That 70s Show) and that was somehow worse because they would just make a bunch of racist jokes about that character.

Friends is not uniquely responsible for segregation on TV in the 90s, and isn't even the show that ripped off a very popular black sitcom. I think people criticize it because it was so popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's why I prefer to watch thunderstorms. Better than any video.

Anyway, they spend all their time sinning.

Isha Yiras Hashem

Yeah, thunderstorms are huge sluts like that. Glad you enjoy them.

[Anonymous]

Wow, how original to dissect one of the most popular pieces of pop culture from 30 years ago and call it basic.

[Anonymous]

Also kind of dumb to always harp on and on about how there's no diversity in friend groups. Newsflash: most of the US has no diversity in their friend groups. DCUM folks are in a bubble here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It began 29 years ago.

It was clever at the time. Also a cast that is easy on the eyes.

IMO the gossip girl cast was better looking 😆

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was a simpler time, and we enjoyed the simple sitcom comedy. We didn’t need or want drama or deep meaning.

I still watch it. It’s still funny. So is Seinfeld. Golden Girls and Designing Women.

I didn't enjoy Friends when it was on. I was the same age as the characters. They were all so boring!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, how original to dissect one of the most popular pieces of pop culture from 30 years ago and call it basic.

You seem to think it's basic now, 30 years later. The whole point it that it was basic back then too.
There were The Simpsons, Twin Peaks, My so called life, MTV Alternative Nation too, in contrast, and none of them are basic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, how original to dissect one of the most popular pieces of pop culture from 30 years ago and call it basic.

You seem to think it's basic now, 30 years later. The whole point it that it was basic back then too.
There were The Simpsons, Twin Peaks, My so called life, MTV Alternative Nation too, in contrast, and none of them are basic.

Most people are pretty basic.

Though I watched and liked all the shows you mention except MTV Alternative Nation, too.

It's okay to like different things and to sometimes enjoy basic, cheesy things. I love cooking and eating really good, interesting food, but sometimes on vacation I talk my DH into going to an Olive Garden. It's not good or authentic Italian food, but I enjoy bottomless breadsticks and salad, and a couple of their dishes are actually pretty tasty. It's okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friends was stupid, basic, and not funny even when it first came out and it’s very cringe now.
I was in high school when it was first airing so I should’ve been part of their target audience.

No, the target audience was older. Target demos for broadcast television are rarely minors because advertisers want to target buyers. Based on the stuff that used to get advertised during Friends, I would guess the target demo was something like 25-50 white people with and without kids, mostly suburban or lower density (not urban and not rural). I'm sure some HS students watched it, but largely because it was what the rest of the family was watching.

How long was Friends on? 10 seasons? So people in high school when it started would have been target audience by the time it was done. And should’ve been hooking them in during high school early college years. It’s a bad show.

No, that's not how it works, because the show also ages and the characters generally age too. So viewers age with the characters and the storylines. That's why Friends started out being about somewhat directionless people in their 20s with money problems, all single, many trying to make ends meet and break into careers, and by the time it ended, they'd all experienced career progression and success, several had kids and been married (and/or divorced), their friendships had evolved, they were in very different financial situations, etc. So no, the show is unlikely to hook new viewers because it is no longer the show it was when it first aired, it's about different things and the characters are in a different part of life, and a person in their early to mid 20s won't be able to identify or be as interested. They'll be targeted by other shows.

I think people really forget how different appointment viewing was for the TV. Streaming changes everything becsue anyone can start a show from the pilot whenever they want. So if I decide I want to watch The West Wing tomorrow, I can watch it for the first time starting with the first episode and draw my own conclusions based on who I am today. But in the 90s it didn't work that way. Target demos used to be a much bigger deal because television revolved around advertising, and because in order to get someone to watch a show, you needed to be able to entice them when the show is airing. So airing the right shows at the right time on the right nights to capture the right audience was an art form, called programming, and networks invested a lot of money in it. Friends was engineered to capture a specific audience. You were not part of that audience. It's okay, neither was I. But it ran for 10 years, went into syndication, launched major careers for half a dozen actors, and made a TON of money. It was a successful show regardless of what you think of it.

I didn’t deny that the show was successful-it obviously was. I still think it’s a dumb, not funny at all show. How many people love that show just proves how many people love corny jokes and stupid story lines.

Are you the OP?

No, I’m not. Just another Friends hater