Reassessing 'Friends'

Except that the cast in Friends acted like bad carricatures of people and even worse: empty shells devoid of any depth. Granted, it is not the worst sitcom, but there is an obnoxious self-righteousness to it that kills the show for me.

 

I think it's funny in a silly way, which is what Friends was trying to be.

 

It was an OK show for its time, but not my thing. Too plain vanilla for me. Seinfeld was more my kind of comedy.

 

I never really liked these series -I'd rather watch Frasier over Monica and Chandler. Having said this, I think the series have aged very well. I've seen today's teens and twenty-somethings identify with the series, the characters and the situations portrayed in the show. The best example is my sister in law, who is in her twenties, she's watching Friends all the time (seriously) she has a TV and a DVD set installed in her kitchen and Friends is playing non-stop in that TV. One morning is season 1 and the next day is season 9, and while she cooks, eats or washes dishes she's always listening to those shows or watching them.

These days I think she streams out of an apple TV (rather than play DVD discs) and I think that as of recently Friends has to compete for screen time with The Big Bang Theory.

My niece who is under 20, she also likes the show, so it has aged very well despite the passing of time.

 

The first episode I ever watched had Jon Lovitz as a guest star, I think as a chef. I thought it was really funny and thought I'd been missing something. But all the other episodes I watched didn't seem half as funny, and I quickly stopped watching permanently.

 

I liked Friends at the time but I don't think I've seen an ep in over 10yrs.

Seinfeld is just horrifically bad.

 

I voted "always hated it."
Lisa Kudrow was the only one I thought was good looking. I think Jennifer Anistonopolous is actually better looking today than she was back then.

I could never stand David Schwimmer, especially that thing he did during the credits where he was pretending to run in slow motion.

 

It doesn't apply to Seinfeld at all. Senfeld's apartment had an open kitchen/living room format with no dining room, and one of those matchbox sized bedrooms that could fit a bed and almost nothing else. If anything it was unrealistically small, since the show indicated that the Seinfeld character was well off financially.

Friends was a total joke insofar as how it depicted NYC In fact, it was probably the least NYC-like show I've ever seen that was set there.

 

If I want realism, I'll watch a documentary!

 

I voted always loved it, still do. Yes it's not as good as Frasier or Seinfeld but whenever a repeat is on, I'll watch it.

 

Joey and Chandler had a good chemistry. The more psycho Monica got the better. Ross and Rachel were the weakest link.

 

It certainly does apply to Seinfeld. Monica's was a two bedroom apartment, so it's no surprise that it's bigger than Jerry's, but it's still not that much bigger. People who criticise tv shows (or films) because of the unrealistic size of the characters' apartments, are the same people who pull John Lennon up for singing "imagine no possessions" whilst being fabulously wealthy.

 

I'd say it wouldn't be too hard to level similar accusations at Seindeld. Were those realistic people?

 

Absolutly not, but the characters had depth or rather they symbolized something about modern life and its pitfalls. Friends revealed how self-absorbed people can be. And Seinfeld was funny and memorable, some episodes have become part of popular culture.

 

Heh. You don't think the Seinfeld characters were the ultimate in self-absorption?

In many ways, the shows are similar. They're both 90s sitcoms, it's just that the parameters are differently configured: Seinfeld is more cynical, for example. But they're both just frameworks within which comedy is played out - a lot of it boils down to the quality of the jokes, the performances, and the interactions. A lot of the time, the one liners on Friends are just as good as on Seinfeld, the performances (again, tonally different) equally good, the chemistry on Friends superior. Really all Seinfeld has to suggest superiority is that some people - myself included - prefer that 'type' of humour, and are more attuned to that sensibility.

One difference I've noticed a lot so far is that Friends unashamedly sets out to have an emotional dimension, and this sometimes comes across as mawkish. I reckon this is a key element in putting a lot of people off. There are a few cringe-worthy scenes. But in the long run, it does make you connect more with the characters. I wouldn't go so far as to say I 'care about them' - this ain't Charles Dickens here - but I sort of get used to them, and feel some sort of residual affection for them. Who'd want to know Seinfeld's characters in real life? They're borderline sociopaths. Great fun to watch, though.

Same goes for Friends, only more so, because it's a mainstream show, globally. I know Seinfeld was a (surprise) big hit in the US - and all credit to US audiences for that - but in the UK it was a cult favourite and in Europe it was almost completely unknown.

 

You know... there was a time when Ellen DeGeneres's 'sit-com' was called "These Friends Of Mine". They even all sat in a couch in the opening credits. Of course, the show turned into "Ellen" and her massive 'coming-out' episode made history. But, if I remember, it was basic 'cookie-cutter' 'sit-com' fare. I don't know if most of you remember, or even watched it, but.... it made "Friends" look good by comparison.

I also remember seeing recently, on John Oliver's HBO show, that the "Friends" are SUPER-POPULAR in CHINA.... for some reason!

 

Really? How about "like funny comedies" ? That's how I view it. I like funny. Contrived with laugh track? Not so much.

 

I've been raving about Arrested Development today but I still like Friends. Sure its mainstream and not edgy but I like both types of shows- the mainstream and the quirky.

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Unfriend

 

The show's enduring popularity suggests in this case, "it's not me, it's you."

 

Wait a minute. You wrote something about 'snooty snobs' then post the above? Whatever.

IMO the writing between the two shows could not be more different: one funny, one not.

When you write the trite, "it's not me, it's you," in actual fact, it's me and everyone I know who still watches television and ageing TV sitcoms.
One is liked, one is not. One is appreciated for sharp, comedic writing, one is derided for dull, unfunny MOR, typical American laugh track droll basically undiferentiated from any of dozens of
of similarly unfunny 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s laugh track edge lacking comedies.

Do you like The Brady Bunch? Check it out.

 

The gap between Friends and Seinfeld is not as wide as you think, I would suggest. Friends is not 'derided', it's one of the most popular and successful sitcoms of all time.

 

...and is acknowledged as on of the best written as well.

 

Yep Friends fails because it's characters are not realistic and their apartments are too big unlike the realistic characters of Seinfeld, or the authenticity and professionalism of the characters in M.A.S.H or how realistic every cop, law and medical show is... clearly Friends falls short of these shows.

 

Love it.