Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 02:38:25 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Another Friends Thread [split topic]

Started by gilbertharding, June 12, 2019, 05:01:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ballad of Ballard Berkley

Quote from: Delete Delete Delete on June 13, 2019, 06:48:10 PM
It is though.

Is it bollocks. Friends was good but it couldn't hold a candle to Seinfeld in terms of inventiveness, subversion, plotting and sheer relentless funniness.

Seinfeld
, as we all know, is a sitcom about a bunch of weird, selfish, neurotic fuck-ups obsessed with scoring tiny, pointless victories. That, for me, is a richer and more relatable source of comedy than a bunch of attractive, likeable - albeit mildly neurotic and dysfunctional - people who all basically like each other.

I like Friends, it's a funny show, but I'll always prefer the acerbic, pedantic, 'not arsed, mate, cigs' wit and cartoon silliness of Seinfeld.


BlodwynPig

Quote from: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on June 13, 2019, 08:21:37 PM
Is it bollocks. Friends was good but it couldn't hold a candle to Seinfeld in terms of inventiveness, subversion, plotting and sheer relentless funniness.

Seinfeld
, as we all know, is a sitcom about a bunch of weird, selfish, neurotic fuck-ups obsessed with scoring tiny, pointless victories. That, for me, is a richer and more relatable source of comedy than a bunch of attractive, likeable - albeit mildly neurotic and dysfunctional - people who all basically like each other.

I like Friends, it's a funny show, but I'll always prefer the acerbic, pedantic, 'not arsed, mate, cigs' wit and cartoon silliness of Seinfeld.

+4

Quote from: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on June 13, 2019, 08:21:37 PM
Is it bollocks. Friends was good but it couldn't hold a candle to Seinfeld in terms of inventiveness, subversion, plotting and sheer relentless funniness.

Seinfeld
, as we all know, is a sitcom about a bunch of weird, selfish, neurotic fuck-ups obsessed with scoring tiny, pointless victories. That, for me, is a richer and more relatable source of comedy than a bunch of attractive, likeable - albeit mildly neurotic and dysfunctional - people who all basically like each other.

I like Friends, it's a funny show, but I'll always prefer the acerbic, pedantic, 'not arsed, mate, cigs' wit and cartoon silliness of Seinfeld.
Seinfeld suffers from each episode feeling very samey. I would argue that Friends has much more variety and the Cast relationships do changed over the Seasons. Whilst in Seinfeld that dosn't really happen. I have come off spending 60 odd weeks on (spam) watching the first 4 season week to week and by the ned of the 4th season quite a few people had got sick to death with it.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Delete Delete Delete on June 13, 2019, 09:47:18 PM
Seinfeld suffers from each episode feeling very samey. I would argue that Friends has much more variety and the Cast relationships do changed over the Seasons. Whilst in Seinfeld that dosn't really happen. I have come off spending 60 odd weeks on (spam) watching the first 4 season week to week and by the ned of the 4th season quite a few people had got sick to death with it.

-6

DrGreggles

I'd say that Friends was closer in quality to Saved By The Bell than it is to Seinfeld.


checkoutgirl

Quote from: Delete Delete Delete on June 13, 2019, 09:47:18 PM
Seinfeld suffers from each episode feeling very samey. I would argue that Friends has much more variety and the Cast relationships do changed over the Seasons. Whilst in Seinfeld that dosn't really happen. I have come off spending 60 odd weeks on (spam) watching the first 4 season week to week and by the ned of the 4th season quite a few people had got sick to death with it.

Well I watched 9 series of Seinfeld in a few weeks and never got sick of it. Therefore I am correct.

I just hate the characters in Friends. I just hate them. So quippy and witty and pretty. I hate them. How people don't lump Friends in with Chuck Lorre fodder is beyond me.

mr. logic

It's weird though because people always compare the looks of the casts, as in 'Friends was unrealistic because they're good looking.' I guess...but Elaine is a stone cold looker, objectively more attractive than any of the Friends. And George was constantly dating beautiful women, which is way less realistic than the pretty cast members of Friends getting off with the pretty cast members of Friends. I'm not sure there's really a point here. Perhaps that Seinfeld gets more credit for subverting sitcoms than it truly deserves?

It's funnier than Friends though.

checkoutgirl

Jerry had about 90 girlfriends and two of them were Jane Leeves and Teri Hatcher so I won't argue with that. It's one of the little annoyances of the show for me. The sheer number of young, attractive women who not only give George and Jerry a second look but actual sex them. Rather than thank god they get all these women they reverse it and nitpick about them! It takes me out of the suspension of disbelief. But that's endemic in American TV and film. Look at Emma Stone with Jonah Hill in Superbad or Katherine Heigle and whathisname in Knocked up. Seth Rogan.

Men just have to be funny. Women 95% of the time have to be all that and stunning looking.

Rebel Wilson and Melissa McCarthy are two exceptions I can think of but they're relatively rare.

Icehaven

Quote from: checkoutgirl on June 14, 2019, 09:40:47 AM
Jerry had about 90 girlfriends and two of them were Jane Leeves and Teri Hatcher so I won't argue with that. It's one of the little annoyances of the show for me. The sheer number of young, attractive women who not only give George and Jerry a second look but actual sex them. Rather than thank god they get all these women they reverse it and nitpick about them! It takes me out of the suspension of disbelief. But that's endemic in American TV and film. Look at Emma Stone with Jonah Hill in Superbad or Katherine Heigle and whathisname in Knocked up. Seth Rogan.

Men just have to be funny. Women 95% of the time have to be all that and stunning looking.

Rebel Wilson and Melissa McCarthy are two exceptions I can think of but they're relatively rare.

See also Frasier.


Endicott

Hmmm. The idea that an unattractive man cannot successfully date an attractive woman is a myth propagated by insecure lonely men, who just happen to be bad at dating, and is the foundation of the INCEL movement.

Perhaps if you'd said dull man I'd be going along with you, but neither George, Jerry or Frasier are dull men.

Icehaven

Quote from: Endicott on June 14, 2019, 10:58:20 AM
Hmmm. The idea that an unattractive man cannot successfully date an attractive woman is a myth propagated by insecure lonely men, who just happen to be bad at dating, and is the foundation of the INCEL movement.

Perhaps if you'd said dull man I'd be going along with you, but neither George, Jerry or Frasier are dull men.

It's not that they can't, of course they can, it's just in these sitcoms it happens an improbable amount.
There's a picture of Kelsey Grammer when he was about 20 and he was absolutely stunning, so I dunno what went wrong (other than his hair). He seriously grew out of his looks. 

Lisa Jesusandmarychain

Quote from: Endicott on June 14, 2019, 10:58:20 AM


Perhaps if you'd said dull man I'd be going along with you, but neither George, Jerry or Frasier are dull men.

you make a valid point that women are not so shallow as to place shitloads of importance on judging potential partners on the basis of their looks, and it's character and personality that are more important concerns for them, but George has a completely crap personality, as well. He's neurotic, needy and a bit of a nutcase.

St_Eddie

Quote from: checkoutgirl on June 14, 2019, 06:57:50 AM
I just hate the characters in Friends. I just hate them. So quippy and witty and pretty...

♫ ...and gay. ♫

St_Eddie

Quote from: Lisa Jesusandmarychain on June 14, 2019, 01:25:31 PM
you make a valid point that women are not so shallow as to place shitloads of importance on judging potential partners on the basis of their looks, and it's character and personality that are more important concerns for them...

I feel that it's important to point out that this is a generalisation.  Not all women are the same.  Some are so shallow as to place shitloads of importance on looks.  The same applies to certain men.

Lisa Jesusandmarychain

#47
Quote from: St_Eddie on June 14, 2019, 02:08:59 PM
I feel that it's important to point out that this is a generalisation.  Not all women are the same.  Some are so shallow as to place shitloads of importance on looks.  The same applies to all men.

FTFY.

Edit: Never Mind.

Chollis


Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: DrGreggles on June 13, 2019, 09:51:10 PM
I'd say that Friends was closer in quality to Saved By The Bell than it is to Seinfeld.

That's an insult to SBTB really.

Bently Sheds

I've not watched a complete episode of Friends since it was first broadcast on Channel 4, but I vaguely remember that there seemed to be a specific point where Phoebe went from a kooky, loveable, ditzy oddball to a horribly vindictive and unpleasant character.

Am I misremembering, current Friends watchers?

a duncandisorderly

the actors in real-life could have afforded to live in manhattan. the characters, no. not with their no-mark jobs. that's partly why I stopped watching it. the main reason was that they were such dickheads.

perry was much more watchable playing (pretty much) himself in 'studio 60'. the rest of them can fuck off though. seinfeld was a better show, but I only used to endure that because it was on before the magnificent larry sanders.

Barry Admin

They responded to criticisms of the characters not being able to afford such apartments in the finale, explaining that rent control made Monica's place a "frigging steal."

Icehaven

#53
Quote from: a duncandisorderly on June 14, 2019, 04:07:59 PM
the actors in real-life could have afforded to live in manhattan. the characters, no. not with their no-mark jobs.

At the start maybe (although famously in the last episode Chandler mentions rent control making Monica's apartment 'a freakin steal') however by part way through the series Chandler and Rachel have been promoted quite highly in their jobs, Joey's a successful TV actor*, and Monica's a head chef in a posh restaurant and a food critic. Ross is an academic, which obviously isn't always well paid, however in one of the early episodes when the group is split over some of them having more money, he's in the wealthier three even then so maybe he's supposed to be one of the better paid academics. As a jobbing masseuse, Phoebe's the only one that'd really have struggled to have afforded to live in the same kind of place as the others right through the series, however she doesn't live in the same building, or over the road like Ross, and afaik it's never actually specified where her flat is (although granted it won't be far away.) 


* Early on when Joey is often unemployed it's often referred to that Chandler bails him.out a lot, pays their rent and for Joey's acting classes and so on. Chandler's parents are wealthy too so if we're really speculating it's possible they give him money too.

mojo filters

Quote from: a duncandisorderly on June 14, 2019, 04:07:59 PM
the actors in real-life could have afforded to live in manhattan. the characters, no. not with their no-mark jobs. that's partly why I stopped watching it. the main reason was that they were such dickheads.

perry was much more watchable playing (pretty much) himself in 'studio 60'. the rest of them can fuck off though. seinfeld was a better show, but I only used to endure that because it was on before the magnificent larry sanders.

i) I noted immediately how unrealistic Ross getting his apartment via muffins and nudity was. To be fair, I recall the main writers noting they got that wrong on the commentaries. I'd have also liked them to acknowledge that uptown coffee shops can't afford to waste space with huge luxurious couches - save that for Brooklyn hipster venues!

ii) Perry was great on Sorkin's Studio 60, as was Bradley Whitford. I never understood the critique that the sketches weren't funny. To me it rhymed perfectly with real life SNL - I get tired of pointing out to Americans that the vast majority of SNL content is hacky, cheap and ineffective attempts at comedy. That show can't even get a premium guest like Larry David on without making him look bad (though to be fair LD's idea of straight stand-up is fucking dire)

As for Friends, I think you have to take it as you find it. It's no Seinfeld (but what is?) but in later seasons I thought there was some really smart writing in places. If anything, it's the predictable sentimentality that's most annoying!

At least they got Monica's apartment right from the off, via her pretending it was still her grandmother's - and all the subsequent peril involved where needed for plotting.

If I was going to be picky, I'd point out off-off-Broadway actors like Joey never live uptown. In addition, the way his career highs and lows were portrayed never sat right. Phoebe seemed much better realised on screen. I hate the overtly cheap "kooky" portrayals, but her character had a solid though-line that resonated.

The least of my concerns is the discontinuity of Matthew Perry. If I could afford to abuse all those substances, I'd probably give that opportunity full beans - then die tragically yet happy middle aged.

If I was going to attempt a predicated realistic NYC sitcom, I'd have even the most (supposedly) successful characters still living in Queens or Long Island - lots of fodder for humour with the daily commute etc.

The brilliance of Seinfeld was the placement of Jerry and Kramer living in the dirty and downmarket strictly rent-controlled Ed Koch era of pre-Guilianni NYC. The fact that was Larry David's lived experience helped a lot.

Furthermore I suspect we are now revisiting Friends due to the renewed popularity the show gained, after Amazon recently put the whole televisual property on their streaming platform.

Icehaven

Quote from: mojo filters on June 14, 2019, 05:20:54 PM

Furthermore I suspect we are now revisiting Friends due to the renewed popularity the show gained, after Amazon recently put the whole televisual property on their streaming platform.

It's on Netflix too.

mojo filters

Quote from: icehaven on June 14, 2019, 05:26:00 PM
It's on Netflix too.

Oh, I might have just got that wrong!

I recall a fascinating article in The Guardian about how putting the full show on streaming services had reinvigorated an industry in merchandising...err...cheap tat for millennials.

To be fair, I've yet to see some dumb youngster wearing a t-shirt with some "We Were On A Break!" logo...but I suspect it's coming!

St_Eddie

Quote from: Chollis on June 14, 2019, 02:59:34 PM
both about the same actually

I can only presume what Lisa Jesusandmarychain's post said pre-edit but yes, there's an equal number of women and men who are shallow, such was my point.

dr_christian_troy

This story always intrigued me. On a different network, Friends could have gone down a much darker path, apparently.

Icehaven

Quote from: mojo filters on June 14, 2019, 05:33:52 PM

To be fair, I've yet to see some dumb youngster wearing a t-shirt with some "We Were On A Break!" logo...but I suspect it's coming!

I've seen Facebook ads for exactly that T shirt. There's F•R•I•E•N•D•S shirts in Primark too, and probably many other places.