EW article

S E A S O N

7

S P O I L E R

S P A C E

Old Acquaintance

''Friends'' is in danger of becoming Must Avoid TV. The talented stars of NBC's long running sitcom have outgrown their roles, says Ken Tucker

Did you watch those back to back new episodes of ''Friends'' last Thursday? Did it seem as if the air had been let out of this sitcom? I've laughed long and occasionally hard at this show since ''Friends'' premiered in 1994, but boy, do these kids and their situations suddenly seem old.

The premiere acknowledged this by having Matt LeBlanc's Joey, an actor, auditioning for a role as a 19 year old and being reduced to babbling ''Whassup?'' and ''That's wack,'' but the jokes rang too true to be very amusing. This series was originally predicated upon the notion of a group of moderately indigent young chums hanging out and finding their futures in New York City.

But in the fall 2000, the ''Friends'' cast are seasoned pros who look it -- Jennifer Aniston, for example, is less her nuttily neurotic Rachel character than she is the sort of classily coiffed, mature siren who can knock the socks off the likes of Brad Pitt. It ain't Aniston's fault -- she's just outgrown her role.

Ditto Lisa Kudrow, whose feature film career has made the now predictable dumb jokes and goofy songs she must deliver as Phoebe seem like an obligation rather than a fully inhabited character. As for Matthew Perry -- give this intelligent, wittily dry man a break: He can't keep on doing the de riguer double takes Chandler is assigned; in fact, he now looks like the sort of prosperous fellow who'd be collecting Chandler Bing's rent.

Maybe my abrupt disaffection for ''Friends'' won't endure as the season progresses, but the plot mechanisms that are keeping this show moving sure are getting rusty. Once Chandler and Courteney Cox Arquette's Monica get hitched during May sweeps, and Phoebe moves in with David Schwimmer's Ross (as platonic -- but wacky -- roommates), I fear ''Friends'' will ossify into the sort of sitcom it never used to be: predictable, pat, piffle. I think I may start watching the best network competition -- the WB's nifty ''Gilmore Girls'' -- before I lose respect for my ''Friends.''

--Doc

DocDoc2222 wrote:

I thought this was a thoughtful and intelligent review but was confused by some of the justifications he used to explain his reasoning. Why, for instance, should the fact that the cast are now "seasoned pro's" make the plots any less credible? Granted, they're not as young as they used to be but what does he expect? He seems to be saying that because, in reality, they're now older and wiser they can no longer play their roles with conviction. No attempt is made to acknowledge how much the characters have grown and moved on from the naive twenty something's they once were to the more sophisticated, confidant individuals we see today. The point about Kudrow's career was just silly and even insulting. Even if it's true that her big screen persona is such, poor Phoebe pales in comparison, the answer is obvious- don't watch any more Lisa Kudrow movies. I know what I would rather give up.

One thing he said which I did agree with. I don't know anything about season 7 and don't want to know but his remarks about Joey struck a chord. I really think the writer's can start to give him some meatier story lines and let LeBlanc show us what he can do. As always, changing a character is a delicate balancing act between keeping those elements which the fans love and view as essential against developing other facets of the character that logic dictates must happen at some point. I think this is where the writer's got it wrong in season six with Phoebe but that's a whole other debate.

I also have to say that I found his conclusion not unreasonable. I too believe Friends is in danger of becoming dull and predictable unless action is taken in season 7 to ensure no there is no repeat of the malaise that hung over season six for so long.

Anthony

Anthony Cleary wrote:

I'm not sure which character you think has grown and moved on. You could make the case for Rachel, maybe, and Chandler has at least outgrown his commitment issues, but Ross and Monica have actually regressed and Joey and Phoebe have not grown at all. Growth has actually made Rachel and Chandler duller.

Claire Abraham wrote:

Well spotted Clare. I knew I was on decidedly thin ice when referring to character development. It's a little tricky to explain what I was getting at but here goes. For the record, I totally agree that Ross and Monica have regressed (from season 5 not season 1), dispute that Joey & Phoebe haven't grown at all and the point about Rachel & Chandler, though true, is unfortunate but irrelevant.

The guy's review seemed to suggest that the Friends were still trying (and failing) to play precisely the same people they were in 94'. I do not accept this. It's like saying, all the show has ever been about is the gags per episode quota and nothing more. Friends, IMHO, more then any other show is character driven and we've all been witness to their emotionally charged slide along the learning curve over the last six years. It seems obvious to me that they can't possibly be attempting to play the same people due to the accumulated and shared history each of them has gained since it began.

It's not about being able to point to a particular incident and saying- well if he or she has grown why on earth did they do that although season six does have a lot to answer for in this respect. I guess it's more to do with having watched them grow together in the face of their joint adversities.

Still haven't explained that very well but it's the best I can do.

Anthony

some of

should the

credible?

He seems

can no

how much

they once

point about

her big

obvious-

up.

I agree that Lisa Kudrow's film career is nothing like as popular as is made out here. However, to say that Joey hasn't really matured would be true. To say that Chandlers Chandlerisms now look forced, would be fair. To say that Monica has grown up more rather than become even more childish, would be wrong.

I disagree the most about Rachel. I think she has been "skipped ahead" for the sake of her actresses ability. Rachel is playing a very different character to the naive waitress she portrayed 3-4 years back. Few people doubt Jennifer Aniston is actually an excellent actress now, but i'm unsure as to whether that would be the case if she was still stuck in the old Rachel rut. As for Pheobeisms, they don't come across as forced like Chandlerisms now do. I don't think this is just her, but also writing. I think before everyone observed what it was Chandler was doing a lot of the time, it looked natural. Now it doesn't. People haven't observed to the same extent that Pheobe is also a one liner character, and so the writers aren't forcing her into endless one liners. This in my opinion, is why she is still working well.

believe

taken in

season six

Perception plays too big a part unfortunately. The negativity introduced in season 4 has become stronger every year since. Season 5 got a nice boost due to C+M, but season 6 is still dogged by the falling factor. Season 7 will be the same. They could produce another season 2 and still receive this negativity. Its true of many shows, none more obvious than The Simpsons. I refer not to the new episodes which may very well be terrible, but to almost anything after season 2. The fans reviews in those episode capsules really look bad. For those of us that only became major fans later, episodes from middle seasons are by far our favorites. Very poorly written paragraph generally here, so in summation, the point is, its like a negativity virus without a cure. Clear? No? Good :)

Tom Hawley wrote:

Hi Tom. The guy wrote a decent review and you have to acknowledge the validity of some of his claims. His comments were prompted by the obvious disappointment he experienced after watching the first two episodes of season 7. Admittedly I haven't seen the episodes in question but, even so, his assertion that Friends may become "must avoid TV" is a little hard to take.

It gives me no happy feelings whatsoever to be critical of Friends. Season 6 was not so good for me but I loved season 4 so I have to contest your negativity virus theory. Still, as you indicated- perception is everything. If I'm being honest there were many fine moments in season 6 but, overall, it failed to live up to my high expectations. This is part of the problem when you care about a show so much. For me, an average Friends episode, is still more enjoyable then most other TV. A slight dip in quality, therefore, is felt more keenly and, perhaps, expressed more vigorously then it might otherwise have been.

Anthony

made

To

that

validity

disappointment

Admittedly I

Friends

Did you actually read a single word in the text you quoted above. In what part of all that did you think I was disagreeing with the article. I was the first person to say it made good points further up the thread. The text you quoted above was me supporting the article and trying to explain parts of it. What you write above bears no relation to it. Still, moving on, the rest was coherant.. :)

for

unsure

the

same

aren't

still

as i've said on many occasions, thats not true. I didn't, don't, and won't have any hopes and expectations for the characters. I'm in it for the sitcom, and the extent of my involvement in the choices made extends only as far as whether couplings have made the show worse. There are many people like this, but most of them are amongst the millions of people that just watch it and don't talk about it in here :)

in

due

will be

I

almost

really

from

virus

6 was

negativity

I'm not saying everyone will be affected. I'm saying in general there are probably a number of people that like to generalise a downward slope to the point where they convince themselves the newer seasons are getting worse. I'm still not finding season 6 any less enjoyable than season 5.

live

about a

then

and,

Which contributes to the negativity virus and the downward slope see :)

Tom Hawley wrote:

Tom, I never thought for one moment you disagreed with the article. I do understand your confusion though as my previous post was misleading. Referring to the line:

The guy wrote a decent review and you have to acknowledge the validity of some of his claims-

The "and you" part of that line was meant to indicate that it was my own opinion I was expressing- NOT yours. I should have wrote- and I. There was no intention on my part to misrepresent your views and I certainly didn't misunderstand them.

Talking about character development in a dispassionate tone is almost impossible and automatically puts you in a no win situation. We all have varying hopes and expectations for the gang and you can't please all the time

That's a fair point and something I hadn't really considered before. Speaking for myself, it's impossible to be as clinical as you seem to be when discussing a show such as Friends. Also, what does being "in it for the sitcom" mean? Are you saying, providing the quota of decent gags remains high, Rachel could hook up with Gunther, Chandler with Janice, Ross with Emily etc. and it wouldn't make any difference? Personally I'd be absolutely mortified if events took such a turn and honestly feel the vast majority of fans would agree with me.

Still, as you indicated- perception is everything. If I'm being honest there were many fine moments in season 6 but, overall, it failed to live up to my high expectations. This is part of the problem when you care about a show so much. For me, an average Friends episode, is still more enjoyable then most other TV. A slight dip in quality, therefore, is felt more keenly and, perhaps, expressed more vigorously then it might otherwise have been.

Were you tapping your feet on the table when writing that line? :�) Sorry Tom but I see no evidence of a negativity virus. I thought seasons 1-5 were excellent. Each of them had high and low points but overall everything seemed on track. I believe season 6 was a blip nothing more, and confidently expect season 7 to see Friends back on top form.

Anthony

what

the

you

of

rest

Referring

some

opinion

intention

them.

I see what you did now. Sorry for the bashing. However maybe you could stop the HTML posting cos its against the rules and makes it a bit harder to form a response.

impossible

hopes and

won't

sitcom,

as

this,

and

Speaking

discussing

Are

hook

wouldn't make

I'm not saying it wouldn't make any difference. I think Rachel and Gunther could provide some good comedy as long as it was only very short term. As for Chandler and Janice, their relationship has always been hilarious, so good, in short bursts. Ross and Emily is too impractical at this stage. The point being, I don't really care if its wrong for the "person" in the character if its funny. Most situations can be recovered from easily enough.

a

Once again, define fans. This group is just a small cluster. Last year I watched season 6 in a room full of people. None of them could care less where the storylines went. They just liked the comedy value. Theres a hell of a lot of people that do look at the show that way. I don't think you should just assume most people see things the way you do. I'm almost certain that if I polled this group i'd lose by a lot, and thats ok, because while I preach this, I do end up discussing the characters sometimes. It doesn't mean I mind if the writers screw with them though. If a larger fan base were to be polled, I think you'd find a big difference. Its very important to remember that most people don't take television as seriously as we often do.

there

my high

much.

other TV.

expressed

Tom

:)

seemed on

season

Okay. Since you cut what I said and claimed I didn't address what I said, here it is again :)

"I'm not saying everyone will be affected. I'm saying in general there are probably a number of people that like to generalise a downward slope to the point where they convince themselves the newer seasons are getting worse. I'm still not finding season 6 any less enjoyable than season 5."

Clarification - i'm not talking about everyone, i'm talking about some people, escpecially critics.

Tom Hawley wrote:

No problem and apologies. No more Html.

I'm not saying it wouldn't make any difference. I think Rachel and Gunther could provide some good comedy as long as it was only very short term. As for Chandler and Janice, their relationship has always been hilarious, so good, in short bursts. Ross and Emily is too impractical at this stage. The point being, I don't really care if its wrong for the "person" in the character if its funny. Most situations can be recovered from easily enough.

I think we understand each other. For you, comedy is paramount and that couldn't be clearer. Providing a degree of logic is maintained, you would be quite content to sacrifice a character's emotional integrity (or screw with them- as you put it) to garner some extra guffaws. That's a very reasonable point of view and incredibly hard to argue with. I, on the other hand, rather enjoy the tension and drama that the creative people behind Friends occasionally throw into the mix, e.g., the cliff-hanger episode at the end of season 4. A story like that would just not have been possible if all that mattered was the reading on the joke meter. They just wouldn't have bothered with the amount of setting up that situation required when, without doubt, they could have spent the time writing some more funny lines.

You seem to have made a few assumptions of your own. Your expectation that a poll of a larger fan base would prove you right is one. How did you arrive at that conclusion? You also surmised that I take TV seriously. I don't think you should assume that. Then again, if we both hadn't done so much reckless assuming we wouldn't be having this discussion. It has been my experience that most followers of Friends, whatever their level of interest in the show, have some preference as to how they would like to see characters/relationships develop. Your comments, based on what you have learned, provide some evidence to contrary but my view, for now, remains the same. Enough said!

Anthony

"Never ASSUME- For when you ASSUME- You make an ASS of U and ME"

Quote from some long forgotten TV show.

Anthony Cleary wrote:

The Odd Couple. :)

Laurie

throw

story

reading

setting

time

I agree that the London situation was good in some ways. I didn't take the view that so many others did, that it was offensive to English people. The whole riding the tube thing for a start was a great joke escpecially for the Gellar elders. I admit, the Emily storyline was required to reach here, and I don't begrudge people that storyline. I just didn't think much of the whole "will you marry me scene." Then again as "will you marry me" scenes go that ones never going to go down in history.

a

at

I was careful not to. I'm just using it to dispel you're assumption that the majority of fans take your view, in that you don't know any better than I do what the general feeling is.

you

assuming

some

develop.

We've practically gone full circle here. I've already told you I have no interest in how characters/relationships develop in about 5 different ways, and i've already told you that your experience, or mine for that matter, doesn't come close to being conclusive. We quite literally have no way of knowing, and as such, you should stop with your "i think most would agree" style lines which I am always cafeful and happy not to use.

<snip everything>

I hate to say it, but this article doesn't seem to be standard Friends bashing. It makes valid points.

I totally agree with you there, but this is only on the basis that I have only READ the transcribed scripts, and being in the UK, haven't actually seen the episodes he was talking about, except for series 6 or something like that

Tom Hawley wrote:

When you consider the source, it becomes even more sobering. For years, the staff of EW have fawned so hard on Friends I was convinced Time-Warner was paying them to give glowing reviews. For them to say it's fallen off indicates a real fall from grace.

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Claire Abraham doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

JOOI, Claire, what have they been saying about Ally McBeal lately? My interest in that's been revived after seeing last night's UK ep (which really makes me wish I'd been following it more closely this season - yes, it was *that* one). :)

years,

Time-Warner

off

I thought that didn't quite live up to the extensive spoilers I read. I was expecting two scenes to be gut wrenching that weren't - Richard informing John and Richard confronting Billy about "it". Thankfully Richards expression during the funeral song more than made up for that. That guy is definitely good.

In article , "Tom Hawley" wrote:

Tom, would it be possible to rewrite the article, omitting any actual plot spoilers? TIA

Tennant

Okay. I only had to remove 2-3 references. Thats definitely spoilerless.

Old Acquaintance

''Friends'' is in danger of becoming Must Avoid TV. The talented stars of NBC's long running sitcom have outgrown their roles, says Ken Tucker

Did you watch those back to back new episodes of ''Friends'' last Thursday? Did it seem as if the air had been let out of this sitcom? I've laughed long and occasionally hard at this show since ''Friends'' premiered in 1994, but boy, do these kids and their situations suddenly seem old.

This series was originally predicated upon the notion of a group of moderately indigent young chums hanging out and finding their futures in New York City.

But in the fall 2000, the ''Friends'' cast are seasoned pros who look it -- Jennifer Aniston, for example, is less her nuttily neurotic Rachel character than she is the sort of classily coiffed, mature siren who can knock the socks off the likes of Brad Pitt. It ain't Aniston's fault -- she's just outgrown her role.

Ditto Lisa Kudrow, whose feature film career has made the now predictable dumb jokes and goofy songs she must deliver as Phoebe seem like an obligation rather than a fully inhabited character. As for Matthew Perry -- give this intelligent, wittily dry man a break: He can't keep on doing the de riguer double takes Chandler is assigned; in fact, he now looks like the sort of prosperous fellow who'd be collecting Chandler Bing's rent.

Maybe my abrupt disaffection for ''Friends'' won't endure as the season progresses, but the plot mechanisms that are keeping this show moving sure are getting rusty. Once *speculative spoilers occur* I fear ''Friends'' will ossify into the sort of sitcom it never used to be: predictable, pat, piffle. I think I may start watching the best network competition -- the WB's nifty ''Gilmore Girls'' -- before I lose respect for my ''Friends.''

In article , "Tom Hawley" wrote:

Thankyou very much, Tom. :)

Wow, the article makes the new season sound absolutely dreadful, yet I've just seen Chris Bastian heaping praise on 703. What gives?

Tennant

I don't generally believe anyones praise or �praise (that means not praise, couldn't find a word). I definitely don't always agree with you and Paul, but i've said many times I don't go half as deep into caring about characters as most people seem to. So, when I like Friends, its usually the comedy element more than the characters. This paper article is mainly talking about the joke no longer working as well, and to a lesser extent the characters being "unlikely". I get the feeling that some people would be perfectly happy if they did a drama only episode like This Life or something. Not me. Not you either cos you seem to like a balance. I don't get as upset when the characters are disrespectful of each other. Its just perception in the end. Nothing will make my mind up for me until I read the script, which I know sounds strange, but i CAN form my opinion from that. When I do i'll tell you what I think in a spoilerless fashion.

In article , "Tom Hawley" wrote:

The thesaurus gives condemn, denounce, insult & revile. :)

Fair enough.

Yeah - the dangers of success.

Exactly so. There's no reason why one story out of the three can't be more serious. Some Chandler & Joey scenes have been very bleak for example, and "Roseanne" was at its best when its comedy had a hard edge: "Darlene, here is some money, go to the store to buy milk. Oh, and on the way back, could you swing by the jail and bail your father out?"

By that do you mean reading the script *after* seeing the show?

Thankyou so much, Tom. :)

Tennant