Striaght from the horse's mouth...

USA Today held an online chat with producer Kevin Bright on Tuesday. You can find it at http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20020423005/tscript.htm

I know I feel a lot better after reading this... :D

Thanks for that link. :)

Tana

On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:50:26 -0500, "Tana" wrote:

So do I. :)

Priya

In article , p r i y a wrote:

Without being spoilerish, what does it say?

Is it safe for a spoiler virgin to read?

Tennant

Tennant Stuart :

There are a lot mays in it, no wills: who might return and who not and that you shouldn't be too sure about plot endings or maybe yet you should. I found the fact interesting that the authors foreshadow a lot which then won't be used, but don't foreshadow other things actually happening.

I think anyone who's watched 818 already may do so. But just in case, here's a hint: turn off your long-term memory on first read, if your brain tells you afterwards there were no spoilers, turn it on again and read the interview a second time. ;-)

Christoph

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 04:00:24 +0200, Christoph P�per wrote:

Lately, we've been getting R&R foreshadowing and no J&R. hmmm...

Since it was a question and answer format, I was reading to hit the close button if the question got spoilerish.

BTW, if you read a spoiler by mistake, then that it's it. You're spoiled, unless you suffer from some short term memory loss problem.

Priya

In article , Christoph =?ISO-8859-1?Q?P=E4per?= wrote:

Ah-hah... :)

Okay.

Eep, that's not really possible; but I've already been reassured by email, so thanks to all those kind people who took the trouble to write.

Tennant

On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:55:47 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

You've seen upto 819, so it's perfectly alright to read it. It doesn't reveal any spoilers.

Yes. I was thinking of telling you to read the minute I finished reading it. :)

Priya

In article , p r i y a wrote:

Ta fish.

<pout> Well, why didn't you? </pout> :)

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:...

Lol.

Well, when I read this I only had time to reply to your 818 thread and I didn't think it was approriate to mention in there. By the time I replied to your 819 thread, you had read this post and the interview. :)

Priya

In article , [email] (p r i y a) wrote:

<grin type="evil"> So many people won't understand that. </grin>

Oh, fairy nuff, sweetie. :)

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:...

Lol. If I'd known you'd find it so amusing, I would have told you sooner. :)

Okay

Priya

In article , [email] (p r i y a) wrote:

Well yes, especially since I told you all about "ta".

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:...

Lol, I guess I was too engrossed with ta that I didn't notice the fish next to it. :) Also, actual transliterations would spell that word as Machli but the pronounciation is like muchly, so... :)

Priya

In article , [email] (p r i y a) wrote:

Grin.

Oh, please don't take the magic away...

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:...

I wouldn't do that. Besides it's only transliteration. As long as it sounds like the actual word in the original language, it's fine. Right fish? :)

And you wouldn't pronounce machli like muchly anyway.

Priya

In article , [email] (p r i y a) wrote:

Good. :)

Yeah, baby!

Oh, now you've gone & spoilt it again!

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:...

How so? I think that an American or English guy would pronounce 'machli' like in Macho or Machine. Am I right? So that doesn't sound like 'muchly' which is exactly how the word sounds in Hindi.

Priya

In article , [email] (p r i y a) wrote:

Sorry, I got confused.

So 'muchly' *does* sound like the Hindi for 'fish', yes?

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:...

Yes, that is what I mean. BTW, in Tamil (Another Indian language. It's my mother tongue) 'mean' means Fish! ;)

Priya

In article , [email] (p r i y a) wrote:

Lol, in any Indian language is there a word that sounds like 'chips'?

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:...

lol. Chips is usually referred to in English in many of our languages. So, chips would just be chips. However, 'chip' in Hindi means hidden or hide.

Priya

In article , [email] (p r i y a) wrote:

Thanks, but I got it the wrong way round. I don't want an Indian word that sounds like 'chip', but an Indian word which means chip and sounds like some other English word.

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

He left some issues open by saying, in essence, that the next season hasn't been written. So, the writers can go where they please with storylines past and present. I don't think the way I put it constitutes a spoiler since I think everyone would assume this. BUT, based on the way *he* answered specific questions--and one in particular--there are words in the white spaces.

(I apologize for changing the title, but I couldn't help myself.)

"David Buehrle" wrote in message news:...

He was just doing the usual "Watch and find out" bit but it's sounds promising.

I didn't notice the typo in the original post's subject until now. Weren't you advocating not pointing out spelling mistakes in another thread? :)

Anyway, you changed the subject and your post has gone unanswered, until now. This is what when you don't listen to good advice.

Priya

Tuesday.

hasn't

past

I

Yeah. My little toungue-in-cheek on myself. <evil grin>

LOL Guilty as charged. I thought of you as I did it.

"David Buehrle" wrote in message news:...

Oops, the rare misspell on my behalf. I guess Hell can freeze over once in awhile.

But don't you find it funny that it took something like 15 replies before someone noticed the error?

[email] (Anonymous) wrote in message news:...

"with the storyline receiving such overwhelming praise by television critics, and with ratings averaging around 28 million viewers each episode"

you were exagerating just a bit with this comment, weren't you Johnson?

anyway, I think its good business for Mr. Bright to not let on to any plot possibilities, no matter how unlikely. That keeps people tuned in. You notice that he didn't mention anything spoilerish? He didn't bite at all.

"BJ" wrote in message news:[email]...

news:...

http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20020423005/tscript.htm

It was, however, a comment that really does throw some suspense back into the mix and does indeed strengthen his case a fair amount. It was an interesting article. Maybe the idea that the issue will be properly finished will make everybody happier.

[email] (BJ) wrote in message news:...

Umm...no. It did average 28 million viewers, and practically every television critic that has had something to say about it has been positive. So where's the "exaggeration part" at?

You do realize this was a MODERATED CHAT, meaning Kevin got to pick and choose what questions he felt like answering, and only the ones he chose would show up during the chat. Basically, he wouldn't have answered a question dealing with Joey and Rachel if he didn't want to.

And as for your claim that it's standard practice for him not to reveal spoilers and that we shouldn't read anything into it, you notice he didn't mind at all being forthcoming about bringing Hank Azaria back to the show to reprise the role of Phoebe's boyfriend. That's because it's probably not going to happen, and he didn't mind being forthcoming about it since it was highly unlikely. Unfortunately for you, Joey and Rachel getting together is a likely possibility, so Kevin did his best to reassure that something was still out there, while not saying what it was.

In article , [email] (Anonymous) writes:

I hate to burst your bubble, but it wasn't quite that revealing. Close, but not quite:

"Kevin Bright: First of all, you're making the assumption that it IS over and we've forgotten about it. But you'll just have to keep watching to find out. I'm not being cute; that's just all I can say about this topic right now."

If you want to bet $50 that the story line will indeed be revisited, I'd say that's not a bad bet to make, but that was a completely non-committal response on his part.

The questioner was making a *premature* assumption. He *never* said that assumption was *incorrect*. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html

[email] (JamesS1889) wrote in message news:...

1.) I don't think Kevin would have answered a question about it if he didn't feel that there was still some major sentiment being expressed about the storyline.

2.) If the storyline had obviously acheived closure, as many of the R&R geniuses have said occured in 817, then Kevin's thought process would be that it would be stupid to try to fool around and not give any J&R details if it was so obvious the storyline was over. The fact is, it's not at all.

You're right, he never completely committed to it, but went out of his way to reassure that there was still something there to that storyline. Now, it may just be Joey and Rachel will have a big friendship fight after he learns of her and Ross, and maybe that's the end of it there. Or more likely, Joey and Rachel will try dating in the 9th season, and based on how viewers respond to that is where they will likely end up as the show ends.

But for someone, not necessarily you James, to suggest that they aren't going to revisit the Joey and Rachel storyline now after reading this is just fooling themselves, really. Kevin did about as much as he could to reassure the storyline will be revisited while not giving away the farm.

In article , [email] (Anonymous) writes:

and

response

Unless I'm reading you wrong, that was patently obvious from the questioner, and I don't see anyone disputing this much.

I don't think his thought process would consider that stupid at all. Let's start with the obviously overwhelming interest in the J&R story line. At least it was obvious to the questioner, and I'm sure it is obvious to Kevin Bright. I don't find it obvious, but that's irrelevant. The operative perception in the quoted conversation is that it is obvious. There's one reason to leave the door open for future J&R material, regardless of whether there will be any or not. He didn't rule it out, but he didn't promise it either, and if there isn't any more no one can say he misled them.

Second, the essence of good story telling is to keep the audience guessing, Anton Chekov's axiom notwithstanding (something about if you point at something in Act I, you had better use it in Act 3).

Third, these people have proved to be very good at misinformation in the past.

Finally, he said, "But you'll just have to keep watching to find out." And he was talking about whether or not the story line is over.

OK, I'm with you so far.

that

Sorry, you lost me again. It sounds like you are saying he never completely committed to it, but then he went out of his way to completely commit to it.

He *hinted* that there *might* be still something there to that story line. How strongly he hinted you are free to assign a probability to, and I'm telling you that I don't think "yes" would be a sucker bet on your part.

But I honestly don't think he committed to anything one way or the other.

Go for it.

Of course they are. I don't recall seeing anyone doing this, but then I don't read all threads. All I've seen is people like me telling you that you are seeing even partial commitment where there is none.

What is your definition of "reassure"? And how is that different from "commit"? --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html

[email] (JamesS1889) wrote in message news:...

One questioner's opinion though does not constitute *major sentiment*. Kevin has more access to those types of feedback than one individual does, so he probably knows much more about the supposed reception of the J&R storyline than any of us will ever know. If he acknowledges that there is that sentiment hanging around, then you know it's something significant.

Let's be honest here, he was talking to "Friends" fans. And any good producer worth his salt would know where his show stands in what people have and have not seen. And unless he's totally oblivious, he knows that...

1.) Most people have seen 818, which dropped some R&R tension, and 819, in which neither episode made reference to Joey's crush.

2.) Most people have seen the May promo, which a couple of times aired during Friends. I don't want to spoil that promo for those who have managed to miss it, but it does suggest taking the show in another direction.

But then again, Kevin does say the best cliffhangers are those that don't have too much foreshadowing to them, so that they will be a shock when it happens. You can take that as a good sign if he was referring to Joey's crush being put on the back burner leading up to the finale.

That just reassures my point. They are making the R&R tension so obvious right now that I have a hunch it's not leading anywhere in the end.

True.

But he did question on whether we should even consider the storyline over. And in the same breath he said he didn't want to be cute about it, so the fact he was dancing around it probably shows there's still something there.

If the producers intended us to not root for Joey & Rachel anymore, which would happen if they intended on getting R&R back together, they would not even try to keep people's interest in the storyline. It will only make for fewer people happy with the outcome.

I'm sure his comments will make much more sense at about 8:58 p.m. EST on May 16th.

People think the producers don't base their plot decisions on how popular they are, but that's totally the reason Monica and Chandler are a couple now. Their original intention was to just have them sleep a couple of times together and that's it.

Why would he care about keeping people's interest in the storyline if it was truly dead? He was reassuring people that it wasn't dead.

In article , [email] (Anonymous) writes:

You are missing my point. You are arguing a point that is not in dispute.

Now if you want me to dispute it, I'll be happy to see what I can do to make a game out of it ;-)

Yet another point that is not in dispute.

Also not in dispute.

I don't know which promo you've seen, but I've seen the May promo, and it actually suggests taking the show in the direction of R&R, so I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

If this is what you mean by the promo suggesting taking the show in another direction, by overtly suggesting *not* taking the show in another direction, I suppose you are entitled to think that since they've been known to engage in massive misinformation, anytime they point to R&R they really mean R&J.

That, too, would involve Kevin Bright being "cute", which you point out he stated he *wasn't* trying to do.

The promo has R&R nice-looking scenes and no R&J scenes at all. Kevin said there may be more R&J stuff, or there may not be. The promo only tells us that there will be R&R moments. We can draw no conclusions on the absence of R&J moments in the promo. It could be misdirection, or it could be genuine. Either way there are unanswered questions galore.

Like I say, if you want to put your money down on R&J, you go guy. The fact that they dropped the R&J thing like a hot potato is a good sign. But it is *hardly* conclusive.

And you are entitled to your hunch. Just don't come crying to me if you end up being wrong, that's all.

Of course he questioned it. That's the very essence of being vague and non-committal. If he said, "I can't answer that question" *THEN* you'd really have something.

There are certain questions for which the response "it's none of your business" is a futile response. In those contexts, it really means "yes" or it really means "no". His job is to keep you guessing, remember? As has already been agreed to, he is well aware of the sentiment for more R&J tension. He must be aware that people are very disappointed that story line has been dropped. Don't you suppose it is possible that he has ulterior motives for keeping such people interested in the show?

And R&R not getting back together won't make for fewer people happy with the outcome? And to anticipate your comeback, you have no hard evidence whatsoever that says the J&R fanatics outnumber the R&R fanatics.

They are, to some extent, telling the story *they* want to tell, and our wishes are a limited factor in their thinking. They *have* to keep viewership up in order to satisfy their bosses (which ain't us), so we get their attention, but we don't get their love.

Like Kevin said, we'll just have to wait and see.

They don't have original long-range intentions. They don't operate that way. I guarantee you part of their decision was that they thought the story had real possibilities, otherwise, they wouldn't have done it. Sure, they took fans' input, but they weren't taking orders from the fans.

Because he wants them to keep watching? Because if he can get them to keep watching, he can take them in a new direction they hadn't thought of that they just might like? Because he's not planning on doing R&R *OR* R&J? Because he's really messing with *both* contingents?

I can think of dozens of reasons. If you want to think of Kevin Bright as your best friend, be my guest. I hope for your sake you are right. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html

"JamesS1889" wrote in message news:[email]...

so

Close,

find

I'd

non-committal

Grin. There's actually a bet going. It began when I said I was willing to bet that the cliffhanger would NOT be about Joey going into a bitter tailspin about the idea of Ross and Rachel getting back together again. It has developed into a more balanced concept; If the cliffhanger is primarily about Rachel's relationship with Joey, Paul wins. If the cliffhanger is primarily about Ross and Rachel, I win. Loser has to write an essay discussing the advantages of the coupling favored by the other. I already have a pretty good idea of what I can say if I lose.

Or maybe the moderator just felt it was a juicy, interesting question and that's the one he picked for Kevin to see >

the

The promo is absolutely unambiguous in the direction it's going. Now, that doesn't mean anything. NBC promos are as slippery as a used car salesman, but there is absolutely no hint of R&J tension of any kind.

another

direction, I

in

A theory which actually has some support from their behavior last February. We had promos of Rachel with Joey, so Rachel moved in with Ross!

fact

is

In another thread I posted some information about Matt LeBlanc's reaction to the whole love triangle, along with a little hint dropped by the interviewer which came from Marta Kauffman. There are a number of directions this could go.

And

I'd say he was telling people to watch Friends - which is his job!

Kevin has said that we are making assumptions to think that Joey's been dropped. Marta says that Joey may not be entirely out of it. These comments are plenty to give Joey fans hope - but what it means is that he may yet have a part to play somehow. It is not a guarentee that Joey's going to develop into Rachel's primary love interest.

business"

really

been

must be

such

He wants to keep people from both camps watching.

the

whatsoever

A fairly sizeable number of folks are going to be bitterly disappointed no matter what happens. I really question the short-sightedness which *deliberately* put the fans of the show in such opposition.

No, Monica and Chandler became a couple because the writers had such a great
time with the story.  And THAT'S from the horse's mouth of season five-
Michael Curtis, when he was posting here.    They do what *they* want to do.
Period.  Earlier this year, David Crane addressed the fact that Ross got
relegated to second-class status for awhile while Chandler and Monica were
in the foreground.   He said, tongue in cheek, that he needed to apologize
to a fictional character for allowing the writing staff to write stories
that *they* found interesting.  Fans do not dictate the story arcs in any
measure whatsoever.

keep

they

Because

Bing! Bing! Bing! I'll go with the "messing with both contingents" answer!

SPOILER WARNING.... possible info about 821 so pls do not read

"abrahammy" wrote in message news:...

What ever direction the show takes it appears likely to be centered around Joey, Ross and Rachel. Season 8 has been about these 3 characters and likelihood that something major is going to happen with Monica and Chandler or even Phoebe in the final tag scene is remote. Much less keep fans buzzing about them all summer.

Looks that way and unless something profound or drastic happens that shifts opinion favorably towards J&R by the time season 9 premiers, I think its going to be R&R at the finish. Think of all the episodes in syndication runs and that'll be around for a long time after the series is over, peppered with R&R sweep stunts when the average viewer would probably be aware by then its Joey that Rachel ends up with in the last season. That sort of irony does not sink in too well with viewers of a feel good show.

Besides why would the writers want to bring up the R&R storyline as the promos for 821 suggest if the intention is to make Joey, Rachel's primary love interest?

I can understand the anxiety but I would give BKC some credit. No producer in his/her right mind would want to split the fan base down the middle and risk losing one half in a showdown. No good ever come out of it except a temporary spike in ratings as we had witnessed in the middle of season 8. Never mind the risk associated.

I think the writers might make Joey, Rachel's 'secondary' love interest instead, leaving fans guessing when and how the triangle is resolved. In a way the writers could lead the audience down the path they want them to go without spliting fans up into two camps; as deep down most fans would have realised that R&R belong together after all. Everyone gets closure and a respectable ending with sensitive writing.

Sonny Black

Just in case ...

S P O I L E R

In article , "abrahammy" writes:

I remember, you even briefly toyed with the idea of asking me to be the judge, and then discarded it ;-)

That's another good point. If anyone thinks such a moderator simply takes the questions as they came - and all of them at that - they are kidding themselves. And rest assured the screening process includes giving a healthy consideration to which questions will make the chat more entertaining/juicy/exciting/<pick your adjective>.

Thanks for the confirmation.

I don't even remember back that far. I'm no longer quite as obsessed with this show as I used to be, I guess ;-) But I have no trouble believing it.

I noticed that. I was a little surprised at his reaction, frankly. Part of it was as a fan of the show, and that part I understood, but I didn't quite get his own personal reaction to it as an actor.

Yep!

I do too, frankly. Of course, we have to admit that what is really questionable here is that this show has encouraged all of us to be *so* invested in particular characters that such friction was inevitable. It would be theoretically possible to create this same show in such a way that we all would be *so* invested first and foremost in the *story*.

Of course, I could be asking for the impossible in the sitcom format, I suppose.

great

do.

were

apologize

I do agree that there is no direct line between the details and the fans, but I disagree with "in any measure whatsoever". The details of each episode and new ideas/arcs etc. are strictly at the whim of the writers/producers. But, if fans had disagreed with the Chandler/Monica pairing (just as one example) to the point that ratings started to drop, I believe the story line would have dropped just as quickly. In fact, I think they were able to continue their fun because the ratings were good.

In article , "David Buehrle" writes:

That is not the same thing as "dictating" the story line. I'm sure it is important feedback for the writers, but they - and only they - dictate how the story line will go. They are motivated to do something that will earn them ratings, but *they* decide how best to go about that, *not* us. Not in the least. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html

"JamesS1889" wrote in message news:[email]...

five-

to

got

stories

any

I

think

the

them

the

That's true. They might look at the ratings, but only they decide what to do about it.

[email] (Anonymous) wrote in message news:...

the part about "overwhelming praise by telivision critics." Admittingly, the story got some very positive press. But you misused the word "overwhelming," which is where you exaggerated.

sorry, I didn't realize that. You see, I actually have a life and don't have time to sit around all day waiting for moderated chats and scouring the interenet for articles on Friends.

I didn't say it was standard practice for him, I just said it was a good idea.

he didn't say it was highly unlikely. Here's what he said,

"Possibly. It depends on Hank Azaria's schedule. He's a very busy actor."

I guess we just see things how we choose to, but that hardly seemed indicative either way to me.

It's a possibility, but you are setting yourself up for a fall if you consider it likely.

and it's not unfortunate for me as long as it is well-written and well-acted. My enjoyment of the show isn't directly connected to the character's fictional love lives, because that would be just a little pathetic, wouldn't it johnson?

[email] (BJ) wrote in message news:...

Oh man, you were right. That was such a blatantly obvious exaggeration of a question because the word "overwhelming" was used, instead of words like "great", "fantastic", "very positive".

Whew, you bowled me over with that defense. Can't wait to read the rest...

LOL, yeah I can tell you *really* have a life, since all you do is post messages trying to shoot down my claims. Did it occur to you that I found this chat about half and hour before it happened? I get the feeling it didn't...

And I think most people here will agree that the dumbest people on the internet have to be those that go onto message boards and tell people who post there that they have no lives, when basically they are exhibiting the same lack of life by posting there in the first place. It's sad because you actually claim you have a life, when all you do is post here.

And the difference is?

Did I say that Kevin said it was highly unlikely? No, I thought it's was highly unlikely. Apparently, comprehension of words is too much of a trial for you to bear.

Well, I wouldn't put lacking common sense past you.

Right...

Almost as pathetic as posting on a message board saying those who post on a message board have no lives...

[email] (Anonymous) wrote in message news:...

right, since I posted all of a couple messages, and you camp out here all day. If rachel doesn't eventually pick joey, I fear for what someone like you who has such an unbalanced and unhealthy obsession with a fictional couple will do. Look out world.

[email] (BJ) wrote in message news:...

Amazing for someone who claims to never hang around here that they would have a complete idea of someone from them posting a link...

Who do you honestly think you're fooling?

[email] (Anonymous) wrote in message news:...

I never said that I havn't been reading the messages here for some time. I just finally got fed up with your act and so I commented on it. How is that trying to fool anyone? You really like putting words in people's mouths don't you?

[email] (BJ) wrote in message news:...

That's even more pathetic. Your sole purpose for posting here is because to argue with one individual? You are actually putting me more on a pedestal making that statement than you realize.

Me too. If this is true, it will show the fans that the people behind the scenes don't forget about big storylines as soon as we thought. However, I'm also excited about the fact that all the seasons will be released on DVD with brand new material. :)

[email] (Anonymous) wrote in message news:...

Tennant, just curious, was it my excitement of this chat or priya's additional confirmation that piqued your interest in reading this? :)

There are no spoilers. Kevin made sure not to give away any plot details, but he did go out of his way to maintain that the Joey/Rachel storyline is not over yet. It also seemed as a good sign that he didn't refute any statements that the J&R storyline is very popular.

Vomit... R&R

Anonymous :

There're some questions I'd have asked too, but if I had the chance I'd also ask Kevin, Marta and/or David the following:

Do you already have plans for the 200th episode, which will be early in the 9th season? Any special story, guest star or location (<- real New York?)? Do you earn more or less money than the actors? If less: Since which season? and: Are you stupid? Do you care at all about plot holes, continuity errors and illogical story twists? Do you have emergency stories for stuff like an actor getting injured or even dying or an actress getting pregnant? I.e. what would you do if Jennifer Aniston told you later this or next year that she's pregnant? Will there be any crossovers or cameos in the ninth season? Maybe with the yet unknown successor of Friends' NBC time slot? Can you confirm any guest stars yet? Do you watch the episodes on TV? Which else sitcoms do you watch? Which is your favourite Friends character? Which your favourite episode? When and how do you get the ratings and how much do you care about them? How many hours a week do you work and how many weeks a year? Is that enough or too much? What do you like better, the 21 minute format you have to fit an episode in or the freedom of length choice with DVDs? I.e. would you like to make episodes as long as you want? If you could choose one [director|actor|writer] to do one or two Friends episodes, without caring about salary or time schedules, whom would you choose?

Anyone any more questions?

Christoph