Friends is the dopiest, most basic show

[Anonymous]

It is the Cheesecake Factory of TV shows. How on earth is it, or was it ever, popular? Truly.
Phoebe had no character beyond being a ditz and a flake. NOBODY acts like this in real life.
Shrewish Monica was unlikable and Cox couldn't act her way out of a paper sack.
Aniston was boring, blah, and basic.
Joey was one-note and LeBlanc was a painfully weak actor.
Schwimmer/Ross was punchable.
And poor Matthew Perry/Chandler Bing - he was actually a talented comic but was lost in this sad muddle of a cheezeball show.

Oh, and this was supposed to take place in NY? More like Disney.

[Anonymous]

I love the Chandler and Phoebe characters.
As a research scientist, I find Ross SO ANNOYING. He gives all academics a bad name! Ugh! Can’t stand that character.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Seinfeld and GG were brilliant. Friends was like sipping lukewarm chowder.

[Anonymous]

It began 29 years ago.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It began 29 years ago.

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

I feel old now, thanks.

[Anonymous]

It was an ensemble cast, where no one actor was the "star." This was before streaming services. The way the ensemble stayed together, negotiated their salaries together, and they didn't have any one person behave like a diva, was quite impressive.

Other comedy shows, like "Three's Company," the man was automatically the star and paid more. Then one of the women, in this case Suzanne Sommers, would say, "hey, I'm on this show, too. I deserve compensation equal to the man." Then the network would FIRE HER!

That is also why a lot of audiences found the show Friends so refreshing and entertaining. Characters weren't causing drama in real life. The show stayed strong to the end. It may have been vanilla to some, but it didn't "jump the shark." That phrase refers to when the show Happy Days had Fonzi on skis jumping over a shark while wearing his leather jacket. LoL.

Leave Friends Alone! Stop sounding so jealous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was an ensemble cast, where no one actor was the "star." This was before streaming services. The way the ensemble stayed together, negotiated their salaries together, and they didn't have any one person behave like a diva, was quite impressive.

Other comedy shows, like "Three's Company," the man was automatically the star and paid more. Then one of the women, in this case Suzanne Sommers, would say, "hey, I'm on this show, too. I deserve compensation equal to the man." Then the network would FIRE HER!

That is also why a lot of audiences found the show Friends so refreshing and entertaining. Characters weren't causing drama in real life. The show stayed strong to the end. It may have been vanilla to some, but it didn't "jump the shark." That phrase refers to when the show Happy Days had Fonzi on skis jumping over a shark while wearing his leather jacket. LoL.

Leave Friends Alone! Stop sounding so jealous.

Jealous? Of a ... sitcom? Oh, my.

[Anonymous]

After season 5 I stopped watching it except for the big storylines. I never likes Mondler getting married or staying together. First part of relationship was funny but that was it. Chandler wasn’t as funny once with Monica.

Didn’t like Ross dating a student. Added nothing to the show. Nor Charlie’s storyline.

Friends was supposed to end season 8. Pretty sure Rachel have the baby and Ross and her get married. Season 9 and 10 were not that good. Too many forced storylines. But who could say no to the money?

And in Big Bang could get their couples together and stay together and still be funny, why couldn’t Friends do the same for Ross and Rachel? Jen and David’s on screen chemistry was outstanding.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, but Cosby was a pervert so Friends has held up well.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

It’s easy. It’s a lot of good looking people and it really was funny. Back in the day at least. I’m not sure how clever you want a comedy to be? It’s a show anyone with friends can identify with. They also stayed together for the series which usually does not happen.

[Anonymous]

This was before "prestige TV." Before Sopranos and Arrested Development and Mad Men and Veep and all of it. Television used to be called the boob tube. You didn't stream it, you couldn't even record it unless you have a VCR and many people didn't, or didn't know how to program them, or couldn't be bothered to buy the blank tapes to record shows.

So you just sat down to watch TV at the appointed time listed in the newspaper or TV guid (yes, newspapers used to print weekly or nightly TV schedules). There were four broadcast networks, so you had 4 choices.

Shows that came on in the first hour of prime time (8pm EST, 7pm Mtn and Pacific) had to be palatable to an entire family, from a 5 year old to an 80 year old. So you got a lot of family sitcoms this way -- Family Matters, Cosby, Growing Pains, etc. After that, the youngest would often go to bed, so then you could put on shows like Friends or Seinfeld, with more adult themes (people had sex, though not on camera, they had more caustic humor, but never used bad words). It was actually controversial and there would be debates about whether these shows were appropriate even for teenagers because they shows things like premarital sexual relationships, people drinking and smoking cigarettes, people being rude to strangers or even breaking the law. Seinfeld was particularly controversial in this regard. Then the final hours of television would be given to more adult programming, but the sitcoms would give way to 1 hour dramas like ER or thirtysomething.

Fox upended a lot of this. It put a show like the Simpsons, which was billed as a family show but had a lot of more adult and transgressive themes, on at 7pm. A lot of it's dramas were aimed at HS students, like Beverly Hills 90210 and Dawson's Creek (Melrose Place was also very controversial). Fox had a reputation for pushing the limits and what themes you could put on evening television and there was a LOT of hand wringing about it.

In that context, Friends was actually pretty sophisticated for the era. It showed young people dating and having sex outside of marriage, pursuing various careers in sometimes non-traditional ways (like Phoebe being a masseuse or Chandler leaving his corporate job to go into advertising -- things people did in real life but that were considered outside the norm by middle America). And it did this in a comedy sitcom, not a "serious" drama. So Friends actually felt really fresh and cutting edge at the time. It had more DNA in common with Laverne & Shirley, Taxi, or Mary Tyler Moore than with the family sitcoms that populated most of 80s television. Even though it was filmed on a soundstage in LA, merely setting it in downtown Manhattan felt gritty in comparison. Similar with Seinfeld, also not filmed in NYC.

Friends is not a 2023 sitcom. Of course it feels old-fashioned and silly to you now. Things change.

[Anonymous]

Yep, it's comfort food. Not everything has to have deep meaning or messages.
Even in it's time, it wasn't critically regarded as great.
I disagree with you about the acting--i think all of the cast did a great job with weak material. They managed to be funny and warm in a way that has clearly stood the passage of time.

[Anonymous]

Still love it. Not sorry or embarrassed.