Reassessing 'Friends'

Please explain how it applies to Seinfeld. I just explained how Jerry lived in a tiny apartment. Kramer's was tiny as well. Elaine had a roomate for a few years, and only moved into a larger one by herself when she started making a lot of money.

I also actually live in Manhattan - have for 12 years - and know what I'm talking about. The fact is that Seinfeld was accurate and Friends was woefully inaccurate.

 

I think all the folks fixating on apartment size might be missing the bigger picture.

 

I've only seen a half dozen episodes of Friends and couldn't get the fuss at all. I didn't find it at all funny. I'll take Coupling over Friends any day.

 

Great fun to read all the passionate opinions (here and in the Arrested Development thread) about the Top 40 of the visual arts world. It's like arguing over whether ABBA was better than Three Dog Night - even if you win you're admitting you spend way too much time listening to ABBA or Three Dog Night.

(ABBA was way better)

 

Never watched it when it ran, but I liked it for awhile when it was rerun. Don't care for it now though.

 

I thought I did explain that. What I maybe didn't fully make clear was that Seinfeld and Friends are sitcoms, not documentaries.

Well, but, you also said that the Seinfeld character was well off financially. So why such a tiny apartment? Would a rich guy be living across the hall from Kramer, who appears to have no job and so presumably subsists on benefits (plus freeloading)? Look, you're reading far, far too much into this. Neither show was realistic, nor were they intended to be. You don't look for logic in these things.

Wow! So you must be, like, some sort of real estate guru, I guess? Tsk. Do you think only Manhattanites are aware that space is at a premium, or that accommodation is expensive in New York?

 

Well, again, you aren't addressing my points. And in any case, the whole 'big apartment' line is a dead end.

Let's agree to differ.

 

"Friends" premiered 20-years ago this week. Holy smokes.

This article in Slate appreciates "Friends" for what it was: The show ended just a decade ago, and when it did it was a kind of shorthand for that which is popular, likeable, and unchallenging: pure TV pop.
Yup. Couldn't agree more. It never pretended to be anything else than fun, lighthearted escapism. I love edgy, smart TV. I also appreciate safe, happy TV when it's done well. "Friends" did it very well.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...niversary_the_nbc_sitcom_was_truly_great.html

dan c

 

Yeah. If 'Friends' was a band, it would maybe be Queen: never cool, occasionally naff, but globally popular and of unusually high quality.

 

I'll buy that.

 

Interestingly, it's ER's 20th anniversary too!

 

It illustrates the disparity between two hit sows. One we sort of vaguely remember (and which gave us Clooney), the other became a pop-cultural phenomenon (love it or hate it).

 

As someone who has listened to hundreds of episodes, I cannot stand it.