I agree with everything you said except 5 and 6. The fourth season is my second favorite; I liked Emily's effect on Ross (in the fourth season), but not Emily (specifically, the way she was played); Monica has had many sweet moments this season--she's just played a little different by CCA.
<< I think it would be interesting if Chandler came out of the closet. >>
Me, too. But he'd definitely have to lose some weight and get buff if he wants to succeed as a gay man in NYC. Maybe he can marry Monica, join a gym, and then dump Mon for his male workout partner. It could be the Geller curse . . .
And then decide what she had been doing wrong all these years, forcing Jack into a sudden revelation, such that they *both* go to the gym. NOT because either of them is gay, you understand, but because the *other* is....
Remember, this is the thread where anybody can say *anything* they want,
even things people don't want to hear, and there will be *no*
backlash. This is the **only** place I'd DARE suggest that Chandler
should turn out to be a closet case, long in love with Joey, who
rejected his true sexuality because his father's homosexuality wrecked
his parent's marriage. In early drafts of the show, there was indeed
talk of making Chandler gay. There a a few dozen comments on this
thread that *I* don't agree with, but it's against the rules to
complain. Very good idea, Lewis.
You need to include the section of post (and the author) to which you are replying (such as I have done here). . . .
Readers have no idea to whom or what you are referring to with your "that's so mean . . " response. What's so mean? I don't see any reference to what you are talking about.
You're post looks as if you're replying to thin air. . .
I was able to discern that, only because of the fact that I read both posts in one sitting. Many times, however, newservers don't keep up, and sometimes one sees the "reply" on their newserver (data and all) before seeing the original post, and in that case, her response would have been to no one.
Just a pointer to help in newsgroup communication. . . .=)
OK, I really dont believe that Chandler is gay. I know you guys are probably joking anyway but I do believe that some people believe that Chandler is gay. I think he has a gay "quality" as the girls put it, because as a child you role model your parents, to learn how to be a man and a women. If his father was gay then he role modeled him which would cause him to walk, or talk, stuff like that, as if he was gay. This doesnt mean that HE is gay. I personally dont think that its learned behaviour and its hereditary or something like that. He has an obvious attraction towards women in several episodes, which Gay's usually dont have. *as I've heard*. Ok I had to get that off my chest..phew feel better now.
If a 100 monkeys each could get their own show (alt.tv.friends), perhaps one day (Sun, 23 Apr 2000 00:40:55 -0400) a chimp (Activia ) might say:
Mmmkay, maybe Monica's gay. Which would explain why she's attracted to an effeminate man like Chandler. And read Playboy with P & R. And chose a girlfriend.
Courteney Cox is far too thin at times - it gets painful!
Matthew Perry looks cute with extra weight on.
Sometimes Ross really really really bores me with his behaviour, repetitive and predictable.
Red Ross was a damn sight more interesting than the Ross immediately preceding him.
Paolo was ugly. :)
Fun Bobby was ugly. :)
Janice is one of the funniest characters ever to be on the show.
Frasier is, indeed, wittier than Friends (but I like both). The writing is sharper, lately. Friends has got v sloppy.
Monica and Richard should never have split.
Julie was horrid.
Rachel deserves all she gets*
Emily was justified in some of her actions (not all).
Controversial one: I loathe reading taping spoilers. Airing spoilers is fine, but taping spoilers really really wind me up because you guys get so defensive/bitchy/sidetracked about stuff that isn't going to be in the aired ep and therefore doesn't affect the show *as we will see it*. The inner workings of a TV company don't thrill me. Equally, I don't like fanfic. It's nice to say "what if", and have the occasional flight of fancy, but you can't change the reality of the show by writing that Monica and Richard have 14 children and Joey makes it big in serious drama (or whatever). And the whole R&R versus C&M bloodbath is SO silly. *mwah* hugs, kisses, you know I'm not having a go at anyone personally. I just "mark as read" a lot. :)
Spoilers...
Space
The final frontier
That do?
Ross was SO equally to blame for the third marriage. "Never say "I do", Ross, you knucklehead!"
Janine wasn't as bad as I expected.
*Rachel deserves all she gets *but* Jill was completely out of order, whiny, bratty and what Ross saw in her is beyond me.
Monica is sooooo mean to Chandler. I suspect he has a masochistic streak (look at the evidence: Janice? Living in a box? Monica?)
Come to that, this is a group of friends that *thrives* on being mean to each other. It might be in fun, but there's some really really vindictive blows been struck over the years. Between *all* of them, not just the obvious (Rachel to Ross or Monica to Chandler). Joey is about the least mean-spirited of them, he's not usually nasty (though he can be). Monica can be very very wounding, possibly a defence mechanism learned earlier in life (when she was fat). She scores points where none are needed. I'm surprised none of them have ever exhibited signs of real hurt, in RL she'd have severely pissed off several of them on occasion. Phoebe is the same, although in her case maybe she has more reason to have learned to be defensive - she had a seriously hard life for a couple of years.
Oh, and unanswered quibble about the whole trifle thing - in Monica's kitchen, where are the shelves of cookery books? Most chefs have quite a collection. No wonder Rachel picked a dud.
Clarify something for me, please. You thought Red Ross was interesting, but you find Ross' present behavior dull. Some people seem to think he's still Red Ross. I just think he's all over the map and very inconsistent. Elaborate on what you think.
Ok, although I can't say that I'm entirely sure which Ross the present one is (I'm now up to 615). :) The first comment was based on the fact that I'm currently watching a lot of reruns, both on tv and video, and consequently comparing Rosses on a broad basis. The Ross that dated Bonnie annoyed me slightly. The Ross that dated Julie made me want to slap him around the head. "Dirty Girl" and "Poughkeepsie" and "Cynthia" and "Hornswoggle" and... all those similar-looking, similarly disastrous dates just made me want to go and buy him "Men are from Mars..." or some similar book. He's a dating inept, and his behaviour appalls me at times, but that's just a "crap man" thing, rather than Ross per se. I suspect that *dating* Joey would be the most fun (although Ross is the "relationship" one and Chandler's the "challenge"...) Joey knows what dates are. Ross could do worse than double with him some time.
The Ross that got mad about his sandwich actually made me feel sympathetic, not irritated. He was having a hard time, and the straw that broke him was the turkey sandwich. (Being a Boots' Chicken & Stuffing Sandwich addict, I know the feeling.) I know you think Rachel is *more* to blame for their relationship up and downs, but a lot of Ross's behaviour strikes me as desperate, ill-founded and confused. Rachel is the more malicious of the two, Ross just needs sorting out (therapy?). In a lot of cases (e.g. the S5/S6 cliffhanger (no spoilers)) he is culpable and can be at fault a lot of the time, but he does not actively try and play mind games with her... he causes problems between them by being pathetic, wussy, weak and generally male (the "getting your friends to write a list of pros and cons" incident comes to mind...). :) She causes problems by trying to cause problems, IYSWIM.
I *like* the Ross that suffered after Emily (paradoxically, I am also pro-Emily, I think dating her was a strong step away from Rachel and the state he was in at that time), and most of his behaviour in S5. He stopped being wishy-washy and started having real emotions and feelings. It gave him and Rachel a chance to look at being *friends* and what that means. Unfortunately S6 seems to have plunged him right back into repetitive silly behaviour again. He's in his early 30s, not his late teens, and a respectable PhD with a son and other responsibilities. (I'm trying to avoid spoilers here, but I think the whole RW thing was really really stupid. He sounded like Arnold Rimmer at one point... and we haven't even got to *those* controversial eps yet) I think you're right with "inconsistent". The S1 Ross was the nicest, followed by S5. Ross seems to suffer whenever he's placed with Rachel in *any* context, but the eps where they are friends are much more satisfying than the psychological warfare... Basically I think, for Ross, removing Rachel from the scene would be the making (or re-making) of him. For Rachel, of course, it would be rather different...
Does that make it any clearer? (Rereading, I'm not convinced it does, but then it's not something I've tried to put into words before now... give me a day or two to clarify it and I'll find you quotes and references!) :)
No disrespect, Jacqui, but this particular paragraph has prompted me to say:
(1) Usenet is a forum designed to allow people to freely express their ideas and opinions.
(2) With this in mind, there should always be a place for everyone to say anything they want in a newsgroup (subject to to netiquette), BUT
(3) this is chronic over-analysis.
Time and again comments from writers have shown that Friends is written without anal attention to detail, in-depth character psychoanalysis, and sometimes reality. The extent to which this affects the quality of the storylines and the maturity of the characters is another discussion entirely, but what is obvious is that there's no point playing 'Hunt the Psyche' in fictional characters not intended to be deconstructed.
Jacqui's paragraph above is by no means a good example of this, it just prompted me to speak up.
I only clarified and expanded my earlier posting because Claire asked me to, I wasn't setting out to start psychoanalysing Ross or Rachel. I think your post says more about your personality than theirs...
I'm certainly not going to object to that. It is true that something of everyone exists in everything they say, and that my (general) dislike of inappropriate overanalysis comes out in this. It makes my post just an opinion, no more and no less valid than yours, and probably also shows that you and I place our boundaries on this subject in different places. Seemed an appropriate thread to stick my oar in. Maybe I'm rowing the wrong way...
I was under the impression that this thread was designed as a place where anybody could say anything and there would be *no* negative feedback. At any rate, a lot of people's overanalyzation of characters is directly related to how well they feel the show has been written; the one thing that comes up most often is not that a character is wrong, but that what they are doing does not make sense given their past and the world does not respond in a believable way. That strikes me as being a legitimate concern.
That's just what some of the writers have *said*, that doesn't mean that there isn't any underlying reason for what happens in the show. And in any case, many of the examples given for inconsistencies in the writing are due to fans paying insufficient attention: the recent complaint "Ross should have died from eating those lobsters" is a case in point.
Ha, no. I've seen roughly half of the double ep... :) (Big smooches to my friend from another ng who sent me an X files tape that ends with the beginning of 615! It's a real shame the tape ran out...)
There is a value difference here between us that causes an impasse. That's OK. I clearly have a much more tolerance for social ineptness and far less tolerance for malice than you do. My heart will always go out more to the poor clueless slob who wants to get it right and can't than for the socially smooth person who enjoys punishing other people. Both opinions are valid, but they aren't particularly compatible. It is not important.
-- I think Season 5 was really overrated, it was good, but I've seen better.
-- I don't know what I'll do if they announce on May 15th that Friends is over ( won't get use to it).
-- Ross and Rachel should have stayed married.
-- I'm confessing that I was a C&M AND a R&R fan at one time.
-- I don't watch the "Monica-competitive" episodes, I hated her like that, I like her more now.
-- I'm maybe the only person on this newsgroup who actually want to see the season finale.
-- Speaking of wich, I want to see Matthew, Courtney and Matt bawl and get emotionnal.
-- I'm a huge Matthew Perry fan, I actually LOVE the mature Chandler from season 6.
-- I hated Jill, Richard, Bonnie, Julie, Pete, Gary and especially Janine.
-- I know that whatever happens and whatever people say around here, I'll always be a C&M fan.
-- The people who come on Friends messageboards only to complain about this and that, should really take a very long vacation. I don't over-anilyse each episode, as long as it's funny, (and have some C&M stuff inside), I'm happy.
-- I hate flamewars, couplewars, bashing, bitching and other negative things people do on boards and newsgroups.
-- TO the morning after didn't made me cry (I don't usually cry at Tv shows and movies), but I was left shaking in emotion like a leaf.
-- I think C&M should have gotten together in TOW the Jellyfish. I wouldn't have to wait another stupid year to see them get together.
-- I think Lisa Kudrow is NOT that good of an actress.
-- I find season 6 to be good, even if some people think it's sloppy,
it's 1000 better than Jesse and Veronica's Closet.
-- I don't ever want C&M to break-up.
-- I even want to see the 2 couples on the show at the same time to see what it would be like.
-- I don't think C&M are dominearing the show. I actually like it.
--I think the cast should be paid 1 mil per episode, as long as ... David Schwimmer is a regular director ... Matthew Perry joins the writing staff ... Matt Le Blanc works in set design and props ... Jennifer Ansiton works in Casting ... Courtney Cox Arquette works in public relations ... Lisa Kudrow works in Editing
--I think if the characters had remained static only a few people would still be watching the show
--I care more about what happens to Ross now than I did in seasons 2,3,4
--I think Season 6 Monica has been mostly very sweet and compromising
--I would totally be friends with Rachel
--I didn't cry at all at TO The Morning After, but I thought it was brilliant
--I still really, really love Friends, and would feel a certain emptiness in the TV-viewing portion of my soul if it didn't come back for one more year
--I appreciate the writers for unapologetically making characters with real human flaws, which they can't always overcome, even if they know they should (but I don't think the writers are perfect or even near it, by any means)
--Much, much later in my life, I will remember Friends vividly where I will have only vague recollections of Seinfeld and Frasier
I loved season 5 so much, and I watch all (every season) episodes many times.... but I often find myself fast forwarding Rachel/Ross scenes (please don;t be offended....my friend fasts forward any scene without David Schwimmer..so we are quite a contrast)
I think that despite what everything one thinks.. a C+M breakup (please excuse my extreme bias for one second) would damage the show.. "love" is something special and so is friendship, both these important things would suffer especially.. and the show would be projecting for the second time that love from friendship doesn't last
I think that C+M should stay together, Ross and Rachel should have a reunion.. but in a well-written way
I meant to put it in the popular opinion place.. but I hadn't created one I reckon Gunther and Rachel should go out.. just for once. if only to get Ross jealous and bring them back together (arhhh!!) it would provide a ton of laughs.. as would other possible storylines.. anyone got any good ideas for possible hilarity ?? share it with us...
Well, Ok. Since you asked and we're allowed to say anything here-
I don't particularly care for Gunther. I don't hate the character, I just think the character should either be more dynamic and interesting, or go away. As is, the character is sort of a NOP (No OP -- computerese for No - Operation, an computer instruction that does absolutely nothing except use up a clock cycle).
Agreed, with the addition of Matt LeBlanc. He gets crap and still makes it fly.
OH MY GOD NO!! She looks like she needs a decent shower, a hairwash, and a good meal. I think of all the actors/actresses, she went from very near the top in best-looking (aka 2-4th seasons) to the VERY bottom. Uuuuugh. With a personality change to match.
If I had the time, I'd watch friends 24/7 for a week.
I do not think I'm obsessed with the show.
I really really like all of the season 3 episodes, despite the fact that Matthew Perry look so sick :(
I've really really liked all of Monica's major ex-boyfriends, and I don't dislike them now simply on the basis that she's now with Chandler.
I'd go and watch a Friends taping every Friday night if I could.
I don't think I've ever really liked Ross.
I don't think Courteney has a weight problem.
I don't think Lisa should have to wear a wig.
I think the cast should sign for series 7, but that's it.
I think, if the rumour is true, that Lisa wasn't very smart in her suggestion to wait til the last minute to sign, and to ask for $800 000 per episode.
1) Lisa Kudrow is a decent actress, but in comparison to the other five, she is overrated.
2) Every cast member except Courteney Cox has been deserving of at least one Emmy nomination.
3) I don't mind Matthew's long hair, but my shallow side wishes he'd start working out or something.
4) I wish Chandler and Monica would have a fight that lasts longer than 22 minutes.
5) I laugh out loud way more often when watching Will & Grace and Malcolm in the Middle than when watching Friends (though Friends remains my favorite show).
<< I did it on the ER group, I'll do it here. State some thoughts about the show you think no one else agrees with. No flaming allowed... >>
Hey, this is fun. Actually, I think I agree with most of your unpopular opinions.
<< 1. Yes, this season is my least favourite, but I still think it's better than any other sitcom on the air. >>
Agreed. Seinfeld was about a million times better, though. The writing was much, much tighter and the actors were stronger, too. (Not that Friends should be just like Seinfeld�it's a sitcom of a different nature. When the Friends writers try to emulate the Seinfeld-ian sensibility is often when they create their worst episodes. I just think Seinfeld was better at what it did than Friends is at what it does.) Plus, Friends IS getting REALLY lame this season. Even though it's better than the other cheesy sitcoms that abound on the networks, that doesn't mean it's good. It may have exceeded its shelf life.
<< 2. I like screechy Monica. >>
Nope. Can't agree with this one. Liked nice Monica much better.
<<3. I LOVE, LOVE Bitchy Rachel. >>
Me, too. She's a riot. Aniston does a great job with her. Too bad she doesn't get any interesting material lately.
<<4. I LOVED it whenever Ross and Rachel would fight. >>
Yep. Definitely the best and funniest aspect of their relationship. I still love it when they say mean things to each other. And I thought the 18-page-letter controvery was hilarious (as was Rachel talking Ross's girlfriend into shaving her head in that same ep.)
<<5. The fourth season is my favourite season. >>
I like a lot of the season 4 eps a lot, too. I'm not sure if it's my favorite, because I have seen most of seasons 1�4 in syndication only, and in random order, and I don't have a really strong impression of how one season differs from another.
<<6. I like Emily. >> Eh. She's okay sometimes, badly written others.
<<7. I like the Ulitmate Wrestling episode. >>
Me, too. It was a cheap, stupid way to end Monica's relationship with Pete, but I enjoyed Pete's quest in and of itself. His trainer was a riot. But wasn't that the ep w/Chandler's butt-slapping boss? I might have found that storyline amusing except that M. Perry was then so painfully thin and sickly-looking that it made me cringe to see the other guy slapping him.
<<8. I find TOW Ross Finds Out overrated. >>
Definitely. The one where R and R break up is overrated, too, at least in terms of its heartwrenching-ness. I enjoyed the funny parts of the ep, like bitchy Rachel and the pizza, and the other 4 friends stuck in Monica's room. But the tearful ending�blehhh. Did not move me. For one thing, I thought Ross was so annoying in the previous ep, with that picnic basket and all, that Rachel should have dumped him on the spot.
<<9. Kudrow doesn't deserve being nominated all the time over the other women.
I dunno. She's an excellent comic actress and probably stronger in general than the other two. But her material on Friends is often so poor that it's hard to see why she's singled out. I do think that the awards people are probably unduly influenced by her work OUTSIDE the show when it comes time to nominate her for an award for her work ON the show.
<<10. The actors are underpaid. >>
In terms of their contribution to society, no. In relation to other sitcom actors, yes
If a 100 monkeys each could get their own show (alt.tv.friends), perhaps one day (19 Apr 2000 02:16:36 GMT) a chimp (Manh Tuong Lewis Nguyen ) might say:
Whoo! :) fun fun fun till my daddy takes my t-bird away... or until they find me newsgrouping, whatever :)
- I don't think season 6 is the worst season.. well it's probably joint worst with the latter-half of season 3 (if that's at all possible)
- I don't think Monica's as screechy as everyone makes her out to be. She is loud, though.
- Monica and Chandler need to have a good fight, something that'll give 'em a good 3-episodes apart or something, something to take them out of this repetitive rut I think they're slipping in to. They should of course get back together eventually, with their relationship stronger than ever :)
- I need to spend less time on the internet/computer and get a proper life <g> oh, and eat proper meals at proper times and get a good night's sleep sometime soon, heh.
I thought Bitchy Rachel was good.
There *have* been some good storylines from season 6
Football (soccer) is so booooring to watch.
Monica treats Chandler badly, she is *so* mean to him.
- IMO Chandler's lost his cute idiosyncratic speech thing ("Could that report *BE* any later?") *sigh*
If a 100 monkeys each could get their own show (alt.tv.friends), perhaps one day (Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:20:52 GMT) a chimp ([email] (Sesame Slang)) might say:
some additions:
- As much as we may complain about it, there are still some things we are gonna remember about season 6 with a smile.
- Some people here over-analyze the show too much. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but still, we're never gonna know exactly what was going on in the writers' heads when they wrote a particular scene/line.
-Friends needs to tell more stories first with jokes coming out of the stories than vice-versa
-I enjoyed The Pallbearer
-The first bunch of episodes in season 5 were very good, but the rest of the season is vastly overrated
-I didn't start to hate Monica until she started being jealous about Phoebe and Gary's relationship. I mean, for someone who wants a husband and family, she should have just been happy to be in a loving, committed relationship
-I always thought Chandler and Janice should have ended up together
-Phoebe or Joey individual storylines can't carry an episode
-Giving Chandler the kind of happiness he has found was the worst mistake the show has made
-I hope MP has his hair that long for a movie because otherwise I don't get it
-The show can't last, creatively speaking, past one more season
2. Matthew Perry's hair looks hideous and he needs to get his weight under control.
I've always hoped that Ross and Phoebe would hook up.
I've always hoped Rachel and Joey would hook up.
5. I still enjoy the show as much as ever, but do agree that the storylines are running thin and the writers are out of ideas.
6. I think that instead of Richard coming back for Monica in the finale, Pete should have finally become the Ultimate Fighting Champion and tried to get Monica back.
I never liked Kathy or Kate.
8. I'm embarrassed to watch when the cast has scenes where they have to act drunk or when they have pre- or post-sex scenes.
I never thought that Chandler had a gay 'quality'.
10. That said, I would love to see Jack from 'Will and Grace' cross over to 'Friends' and try to hook up with Chandler.
I like Ross better in season 5 and 6 than earlier in the series.
12. I wish they had more magnadoodle messages that I could actually see to read.
I hate all of Phoebe's songs- ESPECIALLY 'Smelly Cat'!
I've always hoped that Ross and Phoebe would hook up, but to me Rachel and Joey were just a theoretical possibility until I saw how cute they were in a recent episode (no spoilers). It's a shame about the R&R fans, isn't it?
I think Ross's hairdo in 502 TOW All The Kissing was great!
Gunther rocks! He needs more lines.
Chandler is a much better character in season 5 and season 6.
- Emily was a really nice girl. I'd like to see her again. And OTOH, I understand why she was so angry with Ross after he said Rachel's name
The couple wars bore me to death
- I think season 4 was great, especially 405 TOW Joey's New Girlfriend, 412 TOW The Embryos and 417 TOW The Free Porn.
Phoebe should sing much more at the Perk. Her songs are hilarious.
Joey still cracks me up.
- Monica is still a nice person. I don't think she's that bad as some of you think she is.
- Rachel has improved a lot this season. It's easier to relate to her now.
- I want to know more about Phoebe's mysterious past, i.e. how on earth did she end up living in Prague? Oh, maybe she met the Geller family there, and Monica let her live together with her in her new apartment in NY? LOL! Or maybe Ross was there on his honeymoon with Carol?
- I like season 6. There have been some really good moments, especially 604, 606, 607, 612, 614 and the fantasy episode.
- Ross and Rachel should get together again, but they need some time to develop their relationship first. They can't just jump into each other's arms with nothing leading up to it.
Apparently, Giovanni Ribisi thinks sitcoms are above him. However, he doesn't mind being in crap like The Other Sister and Gone In Sixty Seconds (okay, not out yet, but come on! You know it's gonna suck!).
You have seen Hackers, no? Personally, I didn't think she was very good in Girl, Interrupted (Ryder, however, rocked!). And what is up with her and her brother? Ewwww....
Personally I think any bad roles she's taken, plus her...odd relationship with her brother are totally made up for by her performance in 'Gia'. It rocked.
It is interesting how close the fully spelled out version comes to the actual meaning of the word. Unfortunately that word "all" just doesn't quite clear things up.
1. Chandler and Monica can't take any major step (advisable or not) without throwing dice or looking for some stupid sign first. How pathetic is that?
2. Ross and Rachel *are* "one flesh" in the biblical sense, whether they like it or not. This is why people should wait until they get married.
3. In the real world, Joey would be dead from some STD by now. To a lesser extent so might all 6 of them.
4. Monica won't find anybody better for her (including Chandler) than Richard. More's the pity.
5. Scott was too good for Phoebe until she brought him down to her level (with Joey's .... help?).
And here's an example folks of a joke that doesn't work, from tonight's rerun (TOW Rachel Quits):
Joey: And now for the really great news!
Ross: That [a job opportunity for Rachel] wasn't the great news?
Joey: Only if you don't like this - it's snow in a can! How about it, wanna Christmas lookie?
Monica: Christmas Cookie?
See, who says something like "Christmas look-ie"?????? Nobody I know. The *only* reason why they have Joey saying it that way is so that they can then have Monica (who is hip deep in her cookie habit) mis-hear it as "cookie".
That's called "telegraphing" the shot. It just doesn't work.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
Yes, but I think the point Jim might have been trying to make is that that sort of thing happens a lot more in S6 than it does in S3. In any case, they really don't make 'em like they used to. :(
The entire third season episode, TOW Ross' Thing, stank. But the problem is not that there was a bad joke here and there in every other season. They are much more common now.
So he is.... Well, I must admit I can't think of any reason why Chandler should wear a goatee. On the other hand, I don't even remember Chandler wearing a goatee.
In the previous post, the mostly harmless James Squire claimed:
You don't? If I remember correctly, it was shown in several of the tunes (what do you call it? the music bit after the teaser) soon after that episode.
Wasn't Chandler wearing a red sweater when he told Joey & Ross he was going to ask Monica to marry him in the promo for the finale? Looks like he didn't learn from his own advice lol.
MONICA: (Looking at Joey in her kitchen with a cigar in his mouth,
admiring his reflection in a spatula) Joey, do you know we
can see you from here?
JOEY: How come Richard looks so much cooler with one of these than me?
ROSS: Well for starters, you may want to light it and lose the spatula.
MONICA: I think it's cute, you trying to be more like Richard.
JOEY: Not like him, per se, just not unlike him.
(Chandler enters with his hair full of mousse, and a cheesy moustache)
ROSS: Look it's the artist formerly known as Chandler.
CHANDLER: Just tryin' somethin' here, ya know.
MONICA: So Joey, why didn't you grow a moustache?
JOEY: Oh we flipped for it. I got the cigar, he got the moustache.
Figured if we both grew it, we'd look like dorks.
*l* Now, is James being deliberately controversial with that stuff about 'One Flesh' and Joey dying from STDs, or being ironic? Anyway, Joey's a decent fella. He'd use a rubber.
No, he's speaking from his personal religious convictions, which is a brave thing to do in public because some people can't take it. He has been consistent and honest in stating his views on the matter. You don't have to agree with him, and you can debate him if you like, but if you cast aspersions on his motives, you will be wrong.
This is a public service announcement. Please, everybody, do NOT assume that condoms are the be-all and end-all answer to all birth control and STD problems. Depending on whether or not they are used correctly, they can over 90% effective - but that still means, for every 1000 people who had sex, 100 either got pregnant or got a disease. Abstinence is the only guarantee of avoiding pregnancy. Sex with complete commitment to one monogamous partner who is disease - free is the only guarantee against STD. Period.
And one final point on this one... I spoke too soon, without knowing the deep personal beliefs of the individual involved. For that I'm sorry. I didn't cast aspersions on his motives, though. I asked a question.
Not sure what you mean by ironic. I was being serious.
Anyway, as I stated elsewhere in this thread, the use of a condom not only is no guarantee of protection, it also is not the whole issue. Even if Joey never catches an STD of any type, I am saying he is still buying trouble for himself, and Ross and Rachel are exhibit A for what I mean.
Yes, but even so... it's a fiction. It's a fantasy world. If we can take on board all the unlikely things that happen in Friends world, we can take on board that Joey has liaisons that don't end in death and disease. If those things happened in Friends world, it would cease to be a comedy. There are plenty of hard hitting shows taking on serious issues. Those are the ones to watch if you want to see serious repercussions of behaviour. Friends is fun. It's light. It's comedy. A forum like this is fine to bring up the real-life aspects of it all, but the writers and producers are never going to bring in heavyweight topics into a fun show... unless they have to. Even Phoebe's pregnancy, brought about by Lisa Kudrow's real-life pregnancy, didn't have any long-term impact on the show. It's good to debate the big issues, because it leads to a worthwhile exchange of views, but at the end of the day, a show like Friends is in the business of delivering jokes. And there are very few of those to be had in dealing with topics like STDs.
Or they could just other things to make humor out of besides the sexual revolution. I've never counted, but there must be a million alternatives.
The problem is that as a rule we *don't* just take Friends and leave it. As much as you think it's "just a sitcom", the fact is it impacts your real life. To what degree and in what ways varies from person to person, but it does have an impact. The writers and producers *do* bring in heavyweight topics - and sometimes they treat them seriously (TOW The Morning After), but other times, they trivialize them.
Which is why they shouldn't even go there in the first place, but they do all the time, and then just hide it or pretend like they didn't.
Good points, James, but I guess it comes down to what you want from your TV shows. I'm sure there are a few shows (though very few, I would've thought) which consistently take a pure moral stance on tough topics. Friends delivers good jokes and strong characters, and that's just fine by me. I can't help feeling it'd stifle the inventiveness of the gags (and lead to some very complicated continuity) if the writers had to examine the ramifications of every aspect of the characters' lives. Still, I'd imagine the producers would be pretty pleased to know their show sparks such a lot of thought.
Gee, I'm not asking for perfection or anything. And obviously, *these* writers have to stick to what they know. And in a thread so titled I continue to call 'em like I see 'em.
It may well be that no one is really able to give me what I'm really looking for, at least not in sitcom land (though I think the jury is definitely out on that one). All that means is that at this transition between the 20th and 21st centuries, we are hardly as evolved as we like to think we are. I may settle for less, but I'm not going to lower the bar.
I actually laughed at that because of Monica's reaction to the fact that it could be a cookie.. Maybe not funny in writing but it is when you see it..The first part I laughed at too because Joey thought the snow in a can is more important than a job..
For me, humor works best when it arises naturally instead of being contrived. As for the "snow in the can" thing, I just don't get what is so exciting about snow in a can. I mean I don't get why even Joey would be excited by it. Maybe if it was a product I was familiar with, it would help a little.
Yaah, well, . . . . that's sort of touching on the morality of the show. Granted, I believe Friends shouldn't be shown at 7PM MST here because of the content of the show either.
(Randy steps into a phone booth to put on his flame-retardant outfit, helmet and all, carefully taping the sleeves to the gloves, and the legs to the boots, lowers the welding-grade sun-visor, and braces himself. . . )
. . . . I think the show in inappropriate for pre-teen and early to mid-teen viewers. . . . .
Just to illustrate my point- My wife was returning home on a plane from a business trip about a month ago and happened to be seated near 2 boys, I think she said their ages were about 12 and 14 or so. These 2 boys were flirting with a couple of girls seated next to my wife. I guess they were about 18. She overheard them start talking about various Friends episodes. The boys then started naming off all the people each girl had slept with, surmising, pondering whether certain Friends had coupled or not, as well as any other combos and situations. Then they started wondering who they would sleep with given the choice, and what they liked about their choice's body, personality, etc. They talked of all of Joey's "conquests", Ross and Rachel in bed, etc etc etc in some mildly graphic detail about what was depicted.
Being appalled at such frank language 1) in a public, confined space such as an jet, and 2) coming from the mouths of boys who, in all essence of the word, were still "boys", and 3) since she was a mom of 2 little boys herself, had a very difficult time refraining from lecturing about the differences between TV and real life, and how they would never show Rachel or Monica with an unexpected pregnancy or a disease, or at minimum, a bad reputation. All the networks would show in this case is "the good stuff", non of the baggage that comes with responsibility for one's actions. None of the lawsuits, blood tests, insurance claim denials, differing opinions of friends, family friction, and certain monetary troubles (just to name a few) any of this stuff would likely cause. She wondered if these 2 boys were going to try to emulate their "heros" on Friends. She wondered if these 2 boys weren't shocked at what they were talking about and suggesting (at the obvious discomfort of the surrounding passengers) *because* of shows like Friends.
Granted - "it's just a show". But I believe many young people who are not priveledged enough to be "worldly" (be it through opportunities or very attentative parents, or whatever) have a harder time knowing just how far off-base Friends really is from Real Life. TV-Guide recently mentioned Friends as one of many shows where adults are allowed to act like kids all the time - with all of the freedom and hardly any of the responsibility. One generally gets into some pretty big trouble of one sort or another when that happens in Real Life.
How do you know he doesnt use protection? Joey could be freakishly scared bout that and be prepared. We might never knwo for sure.
I hate to break it to you but pre teens and mid teens are up past 7... To stop them ..or lower the rates of them watching it they would have to start it at 10 or 11.
I dont see why this is. Do you have any idea how many lectures there are about STD's drugs and alcohol. I think sometimes we talk about it for the fun of it. Its always in the back of most teen's heads.. I think the inappropiate age would be under 12. Teens are much more aware now then in the past. Plus many other shows have gone into all this stuff. I think a fake pregnancy would be a good idea. Or maybe some type of scare. But I really dont think its inappropiate.
18 year olds are legal adults in this country. You dont think they are allowed to talk about this stuff in public? How do you know they werent just talking about it for the sake of talking..
She overheard them start talking
and they dont do this with other TV shows.. or people in general?
They talked of all of
With today's media and movies they could get this a lot worse from other sources. Especially the internet. I think the Friends is the last show to be concerened about when you talk about graphic details. Have you ever talked about your sexual fantacies?
Is there some sort of rule that says you cant talk about what you want just because you are in public? I can see this is mainly common decency, but I think if they were talking in a low tone and there weren't in small children around it isnt so bad.
and 2) coming from the mouths of boys who, in all essence of the word,
at age 18 they are legal adults.. and this you cant stop by stopping them from watching a TV show.
and 3) since she was a mom of 2 little boys herself, had a
How do you know they dont know this? and that they havent been lectured on this several times before. Like I said yes it would be a nice touch for some sort of scare to bring that sort of reality in friends, but just because its not there doesnt make it inappropiate. Most teens know about this stuff. GOd I have heard it pratically everyday and I know most my friends know about it and I dont know anyone that doesnt use protection. THey were just relating to the show it sounds...
All the
yes but it is a sitcom...
You say "wordly"...do you mean they dont go to school? Or watch the news..or see the ribbons for aids..watch soap operas EVEN LOL.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Activia doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
And it's also not giving those at the higher end of the mid-teens section enough credit... I and those of my schoolfriends who watch it all started watching it when we were about 13, and we've *never* had one of those conversations where we all discuss the characters' conquests. Sorry, but when you consider that the only real entertainment aimed specifically at teens at the time Friends started was mediocre (at best) and almost preachy pap like the NBC kids' shows, it's not exactly surprising that a lot of people our age (you're 17 next month, right Act? - flashback to birthday list v.34763874268 :)) became fans of Friends - I think we, more than any other demographic, probably look for intelligent TV that we can relate to. And I don't know about you, but I can't *stand* shows where the characters are absolutely perfect, but any mistakes they *do* make are blown out of all proportion just so we get the point, only to be forgotten by the next episode in favour of another "mistake".
I agree. Then there are shows that all they do is make huge mistakes and all that stuff doesnt happen to everyone. One thing might happen to someone, like a pregnancy scare. But very unlikely that they would have all these major problems in such a short period of time. The only show that was true to teens that I could relate to and wasnt so unrealistic like "boy meets world" where their world seemed so perfect and they never really did anything bad or talked about any of that or saw anyone they knew go through the stuff, was Beverly Hills 90210. That is why it was one of my favorite shows. But then after a few seasons it lost what it started out with. Once they got out of highschool the whole show changed, and even more from then on. I barely watch it now. It lost its sense or reality, and became harder to relate to the characters. How many shows are there for us teens? Not many at all.... Someone mentioned before that teens are very busy and there is a lot going on in our lives so we arent a trusted audience and its always risky to try to appeal to teens, so they dont do it much.
Yes this is another point that I meant to point out but didnt get to it. I started watching the show around the same age Tina. I never had any of thsee conversations either. When I catch myself talking about the show with my friends I say oh did you see when he said that or did this that was soo funny! Or how omg that is so true! That has happened to me..or I've seen that happen. I have never once talked about the sex part of the episodes and I myself have never heard it being talked about in school. There are those teens that are going to talk about it wherever they see it, because they are immature in that way, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. If its not friends its some other show.
That was my point. 7PM is still pretty early for racy stuff like Friends, IMO.
The boys were obviously talking about stuff just for the sake of talking, to flirt with the girls. . .
I'm sure they do. Friends just happened to be the show they picked to talk about. 12 yr olds seem pretty young to be talking about who they want to sleep with, don't you think?. When I was 12, I still thought my BMX bike was the coolest thing on earth. . . Much more fun than an (ewwwww) girl!!
(Heck, probably still would. . . =) )
Ya. With someone my own age, (which just happens to be nearly 3x the age of that 12 year old kid) That's exactly my point. The Internet, Friends, comics, advertisements . . .it's all part of the larger picture here. .
The point was it was neither. Small kids were aboard, and my wife could hear the conversation pretty clearly, sitting on the opposite side of the girls (next to the window), over the roar of the engines.
The row in the airplane looked like: -oo xx1 oo = the 2 boys location, xx=the 2 girls location, 1=my wife's location, - = unknown passenger.
Ummmmm. . . . the boys were about 12 and 14, the girls were about 18. Could have been 17, or 16, or 19, who knows, that's not the point. The *boys* were the one's doing all the talking. . .
That was my point.
Could have been. Probably. But we KNOW there are cases where many early teens DON'T know all this stuff, or still can't distinguish between "entertainment" and "real life"
Did you hear about the group of extremely promiscuous kids near Atlanta, Georgia not too long ago?
Did you hear of 13 year-old Mitchell Johnson and 11 year-old Andrew Golden and Jonesboro, Arkansas??? Did you know that when they were questioned about what it was that they really did, they responded that they ". . . didn't think they were really killing people. . ." just like in the movies?????
Did you hear of Columbine? Did you know that Harris and Kliebold had designed their own "Doom" scenario a year or so before the tragedy (called a WAD file) that portrayed the player rampaging a school? Have you ever played Doom?
Now tell me again that the entertainment media doesn't have anything (however remote) to do with the behavior of young adults.
And Doom is only a game. . .
I meant worldly as in educated, informed, aware, with loving, caring parents who spend the time to teach them right from wrong, spend time with them in general, teaching them empathy, and the ability to see things from others' points of view, etc etc etc.
It's synchronicity because there are so many things going on at once that the chances of two similar things at the same time are actually far HIGHER than we think. You may be scared because it happens so often but believe me, for every one you notice, there are many more you miss.
You're talking about Media as a whole, I'm talking about Friends in General.
Times are changing...just look in the back of a middle school bus. I know I talked about this stuff but in a different way. More like, wondering what it was....
I'm not justifying their actions. Their parents or teachers should have taught them this.
SO what age do you consider one old enough to watch friends?
I think that the problem is a little the media but far from all. The main problem with society right now is that kids and parents are not talking. The parents are not explainging what is right and wrong. It's not the media's job to do this, its the parents! With both parents working there is less and less time for talking with their children. This is an obvious problem with society right now. I know I only SEE my mom once or twice a week. My dad comes up every now and then. Plus there is a lot of divorces which make kids become even more distant. There are plenty of things on TV to teach this. Yes, they could do a little better job I guess, but is it really their job? I think media needs to be changed *a little* but the bottom line is the parents. As for what age is old enough to watch friends..I think you're dead wrong. Age IS just a number, its the maturity of the child, the ability to seperate fact and fiction. ect. ect.
Of course, where was the parent to teach them about guns adn death?
It has some, but it would have none at all almost if they parents talked to their children.
Exactly.
They should have been taught the difference between fact and fiction by that time. I am actually learning about child development and a child learns the difference between fact and fiction at 8 or 9....If they haven't by then then there is something wrong with the parenting.
adn why arent children getting this? They should be wordly, there has been endless shows and movies about STDS pregnancies, I have watched at least 10 on each. I have talked about it in school. We have done projects on it. I learned all about it in Biology *which I'm sure all "Children" take this course. Around age 14 or 15...Plus, the parents??
My mom never had this conversation with me. But I have been educated by school, and other sources.. It's drilled in my head.. It has been since at least 14..if not younger. The parents should talk to their kids about sex and drugs at age 10 or 11. There are even commercials about STDS!
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Activia doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
Really? I learned all about it at the age of 9. But then again, I learned practically *everything* from teen magazines like J17, which in places like my town is the best form of sex education you can get... they're hardly world-class literature, but for all the bad press they get, at least they give the facts rather than shying away from anything that's not solely to do with the biology of it, and stress that you should only have sex when you're in a long-term relationship. Also, people like Jessica Simpson (and I guess now Britney Spears as well) are often cited as good role models for not having sex before marriage. These magazines can hardly be accused of encouraging casual sex [1].
I personally think it should be even younger - certainly, I think they should start talking about sex as soon as the questions start coming up, which in my experience was at about 7. And I agree, it probably *is* the parents - unfortunately, there's a high rate of teen pregnancy in my town, but a *lot* of that is because the parents expected the schools to deal with it, except what the schools provided was hardly what you could call adequate, let alone good sex ed - I know that all my parents did was get out a book from the library and made me read it from cover to cover, and like I said I ended up learning the rest from magazines - I didn't even get the birds and the bees talk. If the individual received anything resembling good sex ed, then the way sex is discussed on a FICTIONAL TV show would not matter (although obviously it would if it were a discussion show) - although on this show, I do happen to think they all tend to give it up a bit too easily.
But then again, even with this, we're forgetting the great Writers' War Cry: "We Do It Because It's Funny." And in light of that, we can't exactly expect them to handle *anything* like this responsibly.
Tina
[1] Although obviously people's definitions of that will differ - by my definition, that means people having sex when they're not in a long-term relationship with someone, but not necessarily when they're not married but still in a long-term relationship. (I don't buy the argument that sex is what makes a long-term relationship a long-term relationship - I am not in the least bit interested in having sex *until* I'm in a long-term relationship, and not before then.)
OH I forgot about hte magazines! You are correct, I did read a lot about it in magazines also. Nothing from my parents, and then the rest from school..a lot from school and friends.
Still, given the difficult pciture you paint about parenting these days, and it is hardly unique, I believe the media has a little more responsibility than that even, responsibility to not just put on whatever the hell they feel like putting on. Maybe we are saying the same thing, but I guess I would put a little more of the burden on the media than it sounds like you would.
Of course it's the parent's job. But Activia, I know loads of parents just like yours, and they are doing the best they can! They deserve a lot more support from Hollywood than they are getting.
The only foolproof method of protection is abstinance. For a lothario like Joey, there's a multitude of opportunities for a condom to fail. It only takes one.
Besides which, I don't know that such protection protects as well against STDs as it does against pregnancy. Diseases can be passed in other ways besides genitally.
And that makes it all better?
Randy mentions some reasons why Friends is inappropriate, and your rebuttal is: "other shows do it too"???????????
Just because he didn't talk about other shows doesn't mean he's saying Friends is worse than any other show. A person is not required to answer every possible question before hand when they make a simple argument.
Again, more's the pity, but beside the point.
Protection is *hardly* the only issue here. See my #2.
... which everybody here already knows and which is totally irrelevant to the point being made here.
I did not say that it makes it all better. Simply that the show is not made to educate. It's made for entertainment purposes only.
Did you see my other post about this, and parents?? I added a lot to this one.
See above, and thats not the only one.
I didnt say this. I was going up against his theroey that no one under the age of 18 should watch the show.
but is it really?
WHY is that? Yes, and they also dont go around having sex all the time but I thought I didnt have to mention that. Of course Abstinance is the safest, the important thing is that we know the dangers of having sex.
Oh but it does educate all the same - for the worse. *That* is Randy's point.
Yes, see my response.
That's not the only one what??? I lost you here.
My point is that your response implied that Randy was saying that Friends is the only show that does this. He was not implying any such thing.
No, he said kids around 12 to 14 shouldn't watch the show. You misread his anecdote from his wife on the plane ride.
Yes. This is not about Friends being the worst offender. Friends happens to be what this newsgroup is all about, so it is the natural example to use. Nobody said it was the worst or the only offender, and whether it is or isn't makes no difference. The fact is, it is an offender. That's bad enough.
Activia, the medical dimension is only one aspect of this. I said that Ross and Rachel *are* one flesh, whether they like it or not. This is why people should wait until they are married.
That statement has absolutely nothing to do with STDs or AIDS, all of which are also important.
I am talking about two people who have given their bodies to each other (in a long-term relationship, I might add), and now are finding out that much as they would like to, they can't undo that. I realize that what happens to Ross and Rachel is totally dictated by the writers (because they are not real people), but it is quite plausible to suggest that *within the story* the reason why Ross and Rachel (especially Rachel) can't seem to make a go of it with anyone else is because they have become one with each other and cannot erase that from their lives. What makes them so sad and pathetic is that erasing is what they would love nothing better than to do.
They belong to each other, and they can't stand each other *that way*. They can't really go back to being friends either, not as good a friendship as they once had.
Now, if they could only figure out how to heal their love affair, they might actually find happiness in the only place where it exists: with each other, and you might as well say "forever".
On the other hand, if Ross and Rachel are unable to make a go with anybody else *because* they have had sex with each other, then they should be having similar sick and neurotic relationships with the following people who still live in New York and can be reached:
Carol, Julie, Chloe, Bonnie Barry, Paolo, Joshua
This other seven people are out of the picture, except for Carol, whom
Ross appears to have made into a happy and peaceful friend. And Ross
was One Flesh with Carol for longer than he was with Rachel. I don't
think it's just the sex, Jim, and you know I've got some of the same
views on promiscuity that you do, and for the same reason. They can't
forget each other because, for one brief shining moment, they were
really, deeply in love and they really made each other happy. They are
still really attracted to each other, and they really *like* each other,
as the scripts show us time and again. Rachel may be in denial, but
there's a reason why, when inebriation made her lower her inhibitions,
she asked Ross to marry her and shared her bed with him again. The
emotional attachment was augmented by the sex, but it existed
independently. Ross does not hunger for Bonnie like he does for
Rachel. Rachel has no compulsion to hang around Barry like she does
around Ross, and Monica is no longer as big a factor as she was last
year; Ross can go to Monica's without seeing Rachel. (Although he can't
go to Joey's.)
I don't think so. We last saw him in 201 "TOW Ross's New Girlfriend", but in 218 "TOW Dr.Ramoray Dies", a jealous Ross challenges Rachel to invite Paulo over & have a little romp in the sack while he just stands in the corner and tells knock-knock jokes.
1. Chandler and Monica can't take any major step (advisable or not) without throwing dice or looking for some stupid sign first. How pathetic is that?
2. Ross and Rachel *are* "one flesh" in the biblical sense, whether they like it or not. This is why people should wait until they get married.
3. In the real world, Joey would be dead from some STD by now. To a lesser extent so might all 6 of them.
4. Monica won't find anybody better for her (including Chandler) than Richard. More's the pity.
5. Scott was too good for Phoebe until she brought him down to her level (with Joey's .... help?).
And here's an example folks of a joke that doesn't work, from tonight's rerun (TOW Rachel Quits):
Joey: And now for the great news.
Ross: What, that wasn�t the great news?
Joey: Only if you think it�s better than this... (holds up an aerosol can) snow-in-a-can!! I got it at work. Mon, you want me to decorate the window, give it a kind of Christmas lookie.
Monica: Christmas cookie?
See, who says something like "Christmas look-ie"?????? Nobody I know. The *only* reason why they have Joey saying it that way is so that they can then have Monica (who is hip deep in her cookie habit) mis-hear it as "cookie".
That's called "telegraphing" the shot. It just doesn't work.