Hadn't seen 'Friends' for several months. So what happened to Rachel's baby??

I caught the last 45 minutes of the 'Friends' finale and just realized at the end that Rachel was boarding that plane 'without' her baby. And wasn't Ross the father of her baby? So what the heck happened to her baby?

 

Seemed like they conveniently "forgot" about her baby, didn't they?

Evan

 

Did they mention in previous episodes that the baby is with a Nanny or something? That might make some kind of sense. But as someone who has followed it 'pretty well' over the past few years, I hate when the writers screw with continuity. You'd think that there would be dialog at the end between Ross and Rachel saying something like, 'Now we can be a real family,' or something to that effect. No mention of the baby is just weird.

 

On SNL weekend update, Tina Fey had a blurb saying "parents charged with child neglect" with a picture of Ross & Rachel

 

The baby was flying to Paris with Rachel's mother. They spent about a minute talking about in the coffee shop.

 

What Gabe said. They covered the baby issue in the show. Swept it under the rug, perhaps, but they did cover it...

 

As a parent of a one year old, the most annoying (and implausible) thing about the "Rachel moving to Paris" plotline was that her daughter's emotional welfare did not seem to be a factor AT ALL in her decision whether or not to move. She thought about career fulfillment, she thought about her relationship with Ross, she even agonized over being away from her close friends. But it didn't even seem to cross her mind that maybe moving their daughter somewhere thousands of miles away from Ross might not be a good thing, and that maybe her daughter's welfare might come before her own career fulfillment. Bah.

For that matter, as someone who has seem substantially less of my friends over this first year of parenthood, I found it laughable how having an infant had seemingly no impact whatsoever on Ross and Rachel's ability/free time to just hang out with the other friends.

I know, I know, it's just a TV show...

 

As I understand it, the dingoes got 'er baby...

 

Nearly choked on my bagel when I read that. You were this close to a wrongful death lawsuit, dude!

 

In a later episode of ALF, the Tanners let Alf babysit their new baby, who promptly goes missing.

Alf: "How was I to know the kid would take the first dingo south..?"

 

It's starting to feel a little Dan Quayle-ish in here. It's a f**king sitcom! They lived in a $5,000/month apartment, and no-one ever questions that. The baby was a plot device a few seasons ago and it would have been inconvenient for this arc to consider the baby's needs.

Sorry, I'm a little crabby this morning! Jet lag...

 

According to my Dictionary, the plural of dingo is dingoes. Just what are you trying to say? Maybe the dingoes ate your baby too?

 

Ooooh, you're talking about that Murphy Brown thing, aren't you? When you invoke the name of Dan Quayle, one can never tell. Never mind...

 

Yes I am! And I am definitely NOT trying to initiate a political discussion!

 

Is it too political a comment to say I feel defensive about being likened to Mr. Quayle? Hope not. In my defense, I wasn't trying to criticize the morality of Ross and Rachel (like Mr. Quayle with Murphy Brown). I was just saying it seems implausible that they wouldn't consider the welfare of the child, and it makes Rachel seem a much more self-absorbed and unsympathetic character than she had previously been established as. Hence, it was bad writing in my opinion. But I know it's just a TV show.

 

EXACTLY!!! The whole point of my starting this thread. Blowing off this story element is bad writing. Especially for those like me who haven't seen the show in probably a year. The last episode I watched in first run, the baby was the complete focus. And in the finale just a year later....little or no mention?

 

I've been somewhat flippant in this thread, but agree 100%. We can only assume that, as mother, Rachel was taking care of business. Meanwhile, her oh so shallow friends were so concerned about themselves or how her departure would effect Ross that none of them ever gave a passing mention to the baby. My thought when Ross was freaking out about Rachel failing to tell him goodbye was, so what? I would assume that if the mother of my child were planning to leave the country with her, I'd be in frequent contact with mom, including likely multiple visits to Paris to see the child. Either that, or there'd be a knock down drag out battle over custody to stop the child from leaving the U.S. One can only assume the writers of the show don't have children of their own to overlook this key element of the plot. In TV, as in comic books, continuity is important to the viewer. Otherwise, you get cases like the mysterious missing big brother on Happy Days. What ever happened to him, anyway?

 

That´s a quote from Seinfeld right? Elaine maybe?

 

Well, Elaine copped it from an old Meryl Streep film, A Cry in the Dark, about some Australian mother whose child disappeared. It was much funnier when Elaine said it, however...

 

Doesn't it seem that the fastest way to "Jump The Shark" is to introduce a baby into a what was up to then a successful sitcom.

The minute I hear a show is adding a baby...its turn off the lights time to any sort of reality.

Another reason I prefer sitcom's with children...I've gotta give "Everybody Loves Raymond" props on that one....though his sitcom has kids...there not the main plot device.

This may be why I love Seinfeld/ Frasier/ Curb Your Enthusiasm/ The Office etc...