Friends is the dopiest, most basic show

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How old are you OP? You need to understand the time when this took place. It was also a time when you didn't need TV to make a statement, or demand something of you when you watch. It was simple, fun, and easy to absorb. It was pretty groundbreaking at the time due to the "ensemble" cast set up. It was awesome and I still enjoy an episode from time to time.

Try to have a little perspective OP. I promise you in 25-30 years people will look back at some show you enjoyed and declare it a pile a crap....

OP again--as i said above, I'm 45. Probably older than you and remember more shows

You still lack perspective. I posted upthread about what the appeal of Friends was when it aired. I’m your age and remember watching it sometimes in HS but was never a huge fan. But it seems obvious to me why it was a hit. Most very popular tv, movies, and music are very middle of the road and basic.

I find it surprising that you have a degree in media studies and wouldn’t get this. You don’t have to love it, but it should be easy to identify why it was made and had longevity (which was as much about its appeal to advertisers as audience, and Friends offered access to a broad and upwardly mobile swath of American, plus spurred their interest in consumer products like clothes, coffee, and furniture).

Hard disagree. (Furniture?!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How old are you, OP? What other TV shows are you aware from that era?

I'm 45 and majored in media studies. Loved Seinfeld, Mad About You, Frasier, Brooklyn Bridge, Wonder Years, Living Single.

I found Seinfeld to be completely ridiculous at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How old are you OP? You need to understand the time when this took place. It was also a time when you didn't need TV to make a statement, or demand something of you when you watch. It was simple, fun, and easy to absorb. It was pretty groundbreaking at the time due to the "ensemble" cast set up. It was awesome and I still enjoy an episode from time to time.

Try to have a little perspective OP. I promise you in 25-30 years people will look back at some show you enjoyed and declare it a pile a crap....

OP again--as i said above, I'm 45. Probably older than you and remember more shows

You still lack perspective. I posted upthread about what the appeal of Friends was when it aired. I’m your age and remember watching it sometimes in HS but was never a huge fan. But it seems obvious to me why it was a hit. Most very popular tv, movies, and music are very middle of the road and basic.

I find it surprising that you have a degree in media studies and wouldn’t get this. You don’t have to love it, but it should be easy to identify why it was made and had longevity (which was as much about its appeal to advertisers as audience, and Friends offered access to a broad and upwardly mobile swath of American, plus spurred their interest in consumer products like clothes, coffee, and furniture).

Hard disagree. (Furniture?!)

Pottery Barn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How old are you OP? You need to understand the time when this took place. It was also a time when you didn't need TV to make a statement, or demand something of you when you watch. It was simple, fun, and easy to absorb. It was pretty groundbreaking at the time due to the "ensemble" cast set up. It was awesome and I still enjoy an episode from time to time.

Try to have a little perspective OP. I promise you in 25-30 years people will look back at some show you enjoyed and declare it a pile a crap....

OP again--as i said above, I'm 45. Probably older than you and remember more shows

You still lack perspective. I posted upthread about what the appeal of Friends was when it aired. I’m your age and remember watching it sometimes in HS but was never a huge fan. But it seems obvious to me why it was a hit. Most very popular tv, movies, and music are very middle of the road and basic.

I find it surprising that you have a degree in media studies and wouldn’t get this. You don’t have to love it, but it should be easy to identify why it was made and had longevity (which was as much about its appeal to advertisers as audience, and Friends offered access to a broad and upwardly mobile swath of American, plus spurred their interest in consumer products like clothes, coffee, and furniture).

Hard disagree. (Furniture?!)

With what exactly? That the show had a wide appeal with a coveted advertiser demographic? That’s not really a matter of opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

None of the characters were relatable or even believable as legitimate friends. Oh yes, my circle includes a guy with a romance novelist mom, a ditzy masseur, a chef who somehow seems to never work, a barista with a bottomless budget, and a soap actor. Oh yes. Def.

Monica and Ross were siblings. It is believable they would be friends.

Ross and Chandler were college roommates and both have professional, white collar jobs. It makes sense that they would still be friends and that Chandler would wind up in Monica's apartment building (that's how post-college networks often work).

Rachel was Monica's best friend growing up. They grew apart during college (which was culinary school for Monica) but in the first episode, Rachel has just stood up her fiancé at the altar and winds up in a coffee shop where Monica and Ross are (I can't remember if this is intentional or an accident -- it's intended to be over the top ridiculous so I will grant them this license). Monica and Ross (who holds a candle for Rachel dating to high school) both help her because they know her and feel bad for her. Monica has a spare room (she lives in her grandmother's rent controlled apartment) and offers to let her stay until she's on her feet. None of those relationships are crazy.

Joey and Phoebe are the wildcards. Joey is easily explained though -- Chandler needed a roommate (NYC rents) and Joey is an actor in need of a cheap apartment. They become friends because they are roommates, and they become friends with Monica and then Rachel because they are similarly aged neighbors and are connected via Ross.

Phoebe is the biggest outlier, but it is explained that she previously lived with Monica. As a chef in NYC (working in restaurants at night creates some weird relationships), and as a bit of an odd duck herself despite growing up on Long Island, it's not that weird to me that Monica would have collected Phoebe as a friend, either by renting a room to her or through random people she met in her industry. It is weird that Phoebe would focus her social life around Monica and the others, but again, it's a TV show. It can take some artistic liberties. She is there to stir the pot and enhance the humor. Like Urkel on Family Matters or Kramer on Seinfeld. It's a common comedy trope -- the weird interloper who does nutty things and then all the more standard characters react.

Yep, excellent recap. And, on Phoebe being an outlier, she also seemed to be the only one who regular referenced friends outside the group, also a very oddball group of people.

I loved Friends back in the day. I was in exactly the same place in my life and actually got married at the same time as Monica and Chandler and had my first baby when the series ended/they adopted their twins. I think it's hard for anyone to really get a show that was such a piece of its time. Also, I think it works better when you don't binge it. One episode and then you have to wait a week, like in the old days.

[Anonymous]

The media studies PP nailed it. We didn’t have streaming, binging was very expensive, as you had to get the tapes (or later the dvds), so you either watched tv at the appointed time, or vcr’d it. You got your one dose a week. TV shows had to fill long schedules, so many of the 23 episodes were filler.

I had stopped watching Friends right around 2000, but after 9/11 I started watching it again, and it was the right show to counterbalance the horror on the news. It was harmless, living in a NY that still was in the Before Times (9/11 never happened there), and just what I needed.

[Anonymous]

I think the issue is they weren't evenly matched in terms of skill. You had Schwimmer, Kudrow, and Perry matched with ex-models Cox and LeBlanc. Aniston grew into the role--but it's the only role she ever plays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

People will say the same thing 30 years from now, about shows that are popular now.

I agree about Phoebe and Joey. I wasn't a fan of either character.

This is television, it wasn't supposed to be real. The only show I can think of off hand where the living situation shadowed real life financially is Theee's Company. They were often short on rent money, or broke until payday.

My family kind of lived “The Middle” life

Roseanne and Dan barely made ends meet. Until the stupid lottery season…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The show is over, and it has been since May 6 2004. Why don't you find something else to do? Do you pick on all the old shows? Are you going to question why Breaking Bad was popular? Golden Girls? Game of thrones? Good grief. Sounds like you are just jealous that the actors werte successful and people liked the show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is they weren't evenly matched in terms of skill. You had Schwimmer, Kudrow, and Perry matched with ex-models Cox and LeBlanc. Aniston grew into the role--but it's the only role she ever plays.

She plays it a lot but has acted a broader range over the last decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The show is over, and it has been since May 6 2004. Why don't you find something else to do? Do you pick on all the old shows? Are you going to question why Breaking Bad was popular? Golden Girls? Game of thrones? Good grief. Sounds like you are just jealous that the actors werte successful and people liked the show.

Or -- more plausibly -- this is an Entertainment forum, where people muse about, well, entertainment. Impressive you know the finale date, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A few years ago when Netflix added Frasier, that became my favorite 90s sitcom. David Hyde Pierce is just incredible. John Mahoney is also great. As a nerd, I love the literary, musical and other various cultural references and jokes. The endless social climbing and rivalry between Frasier and Niles kills ne. And then Martin or Roz putting them in their place to provide balance.

Friends hasn’t been the same for me since.

Yes, Frasier was my 90’s go to. Loved it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How old are you, OP? What other TV shows are you aware from that era?

I'm 45 and majored in media studies. Loved Seinfeld, Mad About You, Frasier, Brooklyn Bridge, Wonder Years, Living Single.

I loved Mad About You and thought it was funny they brought Lisa Kudrow's ditzy Ursula to friends as twins. Funnier when Jamie and Fran stopped at Central Perk and thought Phoebe was Ursula.

[Anonymous]

I don’t disagree, although when it came out it was a very different time. No streaming or on-demand services, it was the height of the sitcom era, and there were just way less shows in general as compared to now.

[Anonymous]

Just absolutely still love it like a warm bowl of chicken soup.

Comforting, warm and just straight up funny. The dialogue in the early seasons and the physical comedy. And characters that genuinely seemed to care for each other.t

It was a less cynical time. This was an NYC show that straddled 9/11. Ppl weren't always tearing everything apart then (no twitter, etc). Just watching, laughing, talking about it with their own friends.