It may be just me but in Friends there seems to be a hell of a lot of things said about the British... Not that any of it is wrong, I'm just making a statement!
Janice: (To chandler) Are you being British?
Phoebe: If we were in England, that bed would be on the otherside of the room!
Plus in TOW No-one's ready there was a englishman at the end credits.
Then there was Emily and her family (Which was supposed to be a treat for us - them coming over to London)
Ross' attempt at a cockney accent, Rachel's scottish one (I still pee myself when I see this episode) and Monica's fatal attempt at an Irish 'un.
... and then the trifle incident. Rachel says something about us being very weird people when it comes to food. After all we have mincemeat pie for dessert.
Well yes, but these were more of a fake Scotty accent (as in Star Trek).
Lol!
In article , "The Fax Machine" <thefaxmachineNOSPAMPLEASE@NOSPAMPLEASEcurrant wrote:
No, Rachel performed an Irish accent at this point. Though a poor attempt can be forgiven since she said "Fake Accent University", there is no need, my Irish friends report that Miss Aniston achieved a fair Dublin accent.
In article , "The Fax Machine" <thefaxmachineNOSPAMPLEASE@NOSPAMPLEASEcurrant wrote:
See below.
Ross did not attempt a Cockney accent. First of all, Ross wasn't attempting anything, he got nervous, and the accent just came out. Second of all, DS wasn't doing Cockney, just bad British.
Rachel did *not* do a Scottish accent, but Bombay then Dublin.
Some more British references for you, omitting the essentials of the wedding in London story, and more accents...
111
JAY LENO: What is this about you, you being arrested in London?
What is that all about?
NORA BING: This is kind of embarrassing, but occasionally after
I've been intimate with a man, I just get this craving
for Kung Pow Chicken.
119
RACHEL: We have: Earl Grey, English Breakfast, Cinnamon Stick,
Camomile, Mint Medley, Blackberry, and.. oh, wait, there's
one more, um.. Lemon Soother.
207 JOEY: Maybe he, uhh... drives his car on the other side of the road, if ya know what I mean. PHOEBE: No, whad'ya mean? He's not British. JOEY: Maybe he's... gay.
415 ROSS: So uh, what, were you guys playing soccer or something- or should I call it (in an English accent) football?
415 CHANDLER: Unfortunately, my company is transferring me overseas. JANICE: Oh no! Where to? To Paris? CHANDLER: No! No! Not Paris. JANICE: To London?
416 MONICA: I don't know how museums work in England but, here, you're not supposed to take stuff.
417 ROSS: (In a British accent) "This is so fantastic! Why do we have to talk about the future? Let's just enjoy-" MONICA: (interrupting him) No-no-no, don't-don't do the accent.
418 CAROL: Susan's gonna be shooting a commercial in London next week. SUSAN: Oh yeah, I'm so excited, I've never been there.
417 EMILY: Ross umm, there's something that I've got to tell you, there's-there's someone else. ROSS: Does that mean the same thing in England as it does in America?
421 CHANDLER: If we do that, we gotta get Die Hard. JOEY: Oh-ho! I bet the British version is gooooood!
424
PHOEBE: (In a British accent) This is Phoebe Buffay. I was wondering,
please, if-if it's not too much trouble, please, umm, might
I speak to Miss Emily Waltham, please?
509
PHOEBE: Okay, it's this tragic love story between Cathy & Heathcliff
and umm, it takes place on like these really creepy moors in
England. Which I think represents the wildness of Heathcliff's
character. I totally get symbolism.
Not to take Tennant's job, but nope. They do mention the word "Swedish" twice, though. In episode 404, the worker at the gym points out to Chandler that if he quits the gym, he won't have access to the Swedish spa. And in episode 514, Chandler says his grandfather was Swedish (and his grandmother was a tiny little bunny).
Except you'd tell her to get Ross & Phoebe together, and she'd probably look at you strangely. ;) (And you know what? Your posts always appear on AOL hours after you've sent them, so I didn't see that you had already answered the person's question. Sorry.)
No, I know how much the R&R thing means to so many of you, so if I *did* get the chance, I'd do as I said - tell Marta to reconcile Ross & Rachel.
The thing is that Marta may well get Ross & Phoebe together without any encouragement from the likes of us, for it makes a good story. :)
No need to apologise as long as you're agreeing with me <g> and anyway you missed the Swede coat! I wonder why my posts take so long to appear on AOL? They bounce back to me in seconds.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
For about half an episode. It's one of the relationships on the show that I tend to call a "gimmick" relationship - it might be cute at first, but it wouldn't last long because the fact that it's an unexpected relationship only adds a small amount of novelty value to it, that would wear off very quickly. And as Claire said, the only long-term purpose it would have is to cause a long-term rift between Rachel and Phoebe (or something like that).
By the way... why don't they? I don't mean so much the R&R thing - they broke those two up because they got tired of writing it, and don't want it back because they are tired of writing it. Watching Chandler and Monica getting so incredibly dull is exhibit A as to why they broke up Ross and Rachel before they got this tedious. But why didn't they care that everybody hated Ross in season five.
Well, why do you think they *would* care if people hated Ross? You know they always write what's interesting to them, since they're the ones who have to spend the majority of their lives during the season thinking about it. If it's interesting to them and makes their job a little more amusing, they're not going to care what the audience thinks.
Because their audience is largely made up of people who identify with the characters. Because they spent the first three years of the show allowing Ross to be sympathetic; just maybe, they'd want to keep him consistent. And if they want to give him a serious emotional problem, fine, but they should really buy into that idea and do it justice. It wasn't just that they made Ross weird and troubled; they did a half-hearted job of it.
I was under the impression that comedies are supposed to be funny, not upsetting and disturbing and hard to watch.
Unless the changes make the *show* a little more amusing, it's not a good idea. I have said before that episodes which were funny and worked (think TOW Unagi, TOW Resolutions) didn't bother me much. This attitude sounds kind of immature and self-indulgent. Coming up with good ideas that make for a good show that people like should be the crux of the matter. Very few people enjoyed the Red Ross Freak Show, and it wasn't an artistic success.
In contrast, I would put forward the New Billy of Ally McBeal. For much of this season, Billy was a substantial jerk. They livened up a boring Ken Doll character by giving him some emotional warts, and it worked. It worked partly because the other characters acknowledged that there was a problem, and also because he still had moments where Billy was still warm and human and you could see that he was aware of his troubled state. Now, the actor's departure has made for a somewhat startling and sudden end to the storyline, but I really think that, if you are going to deliberately damage a character, you should do it more carefully and have a more well-considered strategy about it. There should be a point besides "Oh, we're bored, let's make this one crazy. You know, just for fun."
I'd also like to add that I thought the purpose of their job was to entertain *us* not *themselves*. Has their main purpose disappeared somewhere in all this?
I think part of the problem could be--I could be totally wrong here--overall, the writers were praised for their work in season five. The same time that they were writing Red Ross, they were hearing really good things about how the show had gotten even better, etc from both critics and fans. Though this was largely in part due to the Chandler and Monica storyline, the writers could have it in their head that people *do* like Red Ross.
The majority of the viewing audience of Friends is casual viewers, who don't care if Ross is going through an emotional breakdown - they're just watching what's funny. And to someone who doesn't care that much about Ross, insane Ross *was* funny. You found it disturbing and hard to watch because you knew that Ross had changed from the sweet, caring person he used to be, and you didn't like the crazy person he had become, right? Most of the viewers of Friends aren't like the overanalytical people of ATF. They don't care that Ross used to be a nice person, found some of the things he did in season five to be funny, and found Ross to probably be more of an amusing character than in the past. (And now they're sounding like the writers...) I honestly don't think the writers think that most of the audience hates Ross, just the deeply involved fans.
Well say hello to the writers of Friends. :) (Fine, I'm kidding - half anyway.)
Very few people on *here*. And the people who take the time to get on the internet and come to ATF for Friends are obviously going to be the people who care the most about Friends, and subsequently Ross' emotional state. Season five was praised by critics - casual viewers. I don't remember the critics bashing Friends for the writing of Ross during season five, but I guess I could be forgetting something.
I don't watch Ally McBeal, but I see what you're saying. And your last quote about making Ross crazy just for fun sounds totally like what they'd do. Do you remember an article in Across The Hall a few months ago about the writers' room, written by Andrew Reich? Didn't they all sound a little insane there? MNL said that article was actually a toned-down version of what they do all the time. So yes, a lot of the things they come up with don't have points.
Season five was praised because the Chandler and Monica Secret Affair hook was an incredible success. It was fresh, it was funny, and it worked for a long time. C&M have not been as successful this year, but I understand the experiment they were trying. Season five was not a success because of Ross. The only review I've seen that even mentions him was from TV Guide, and it said that he was becoming difficult to watch - with "his nadir" being the pantomime in front of the window.
You say that casual viewers "probably" thought he was funnier last year. If I can say this without coming across as confrontational - that is not at all my intention - how did you happen to know that? Did they decide Ross was working because of fan mail, or audience response at the taping, or what?
Sorry I don't have a better answer for this, but they thought most regular viewers seemed to like him, while most people on the internet didn't. I've never heard any justification for that, but it's the truth.
There were a couple of episodes in S5 that worked dramatically but were not very funny, until suddenly Chandler darted out of a door carrying his pants, and we all fell over laughing.
Isn't it just that R&R are more interesting to write for when they are not a couple? There was a rerun of 520 "TOW the Ride Along" last night, and Aniston & Schwimmer were just amazing in the final scenes.
Isn't this kind of the same thing? Incidentally, if they found R&R more interesting to write when they are not a couple, why is Chandler and Monica so different? They have gone on twice as long and are getting pretty dull themselves.
You know the problem - they should not feel like, when they have a couple going, they are required to make 2/3 of the episodes in the season focus on that couple. That's what wears them out and makes Monica screech like a mental patient.
That's because I was agreeing with you, except in a glass half-empty or half-full way. You say R&R were boring to write for as a couple, I say R&R are interesting to write for now they are not a couple.
If C&M have become dull then they're not so different. They are still together because it would be wrong to break them up. Their relationship should be pushed into the background a little - let Chandler cross the hallway to meet his best bud, give Monica more time with the girls (they were magic in 612), and do more work-related stories for both of them.
I don't think that's why she does that, but I wish she'd stop it.
Now, why would it be wrong to break C&M up but it wasn't wrong to break R&R up? And I don't want to hear anything about how they are made for each other or it's destiny or they are really in love and R&R weren't. I want a practical discussion of the narrative function of the couple as it fits into making this show entertaining and interesting. Any platitudes about how one couple is made for each other and the other wasn't is baloney on two levels:
1. Anybody can declare any combination meant to be, or destined, and then back it up with incidents from the show. I could sit right here and "prove" that Chandler and Joey are both actually gay and they should admit their unspoken passion and be together if I wanted to.
2. I really don't feel like starting the C&M/R&R war back up again. My original question was as to why the writers didn't care that the audience hated Ross; I stated that I understood they had some good reasons behind breaking up R&R. The only way to keep this from turning into a flamewar is to analyze this *purely* from a technical aspect.
Don't say it's because breaking up C&M will break hearts, either. R&R fans are getting mighty used to having broken hearts.
Alright, we know that Chandler has really grown because of this relationship if they break C&M up he will turn into Ross. He finally is learning to commit in a relationship and if he gets his heart broken than he will never get over the commitment issue again! It's much easier to not commit therefore your heart doesnt get hurt if you break up. Which is in some essense what happened with Ross but not so much the issue of commitment he is just scared and parnoid now and insanely jealous.
If the show goes on they really need to have the characters grow up and mature because they are getting older now. I think the right thing to do would be to have them all get into solid relationships and still be friends. Go into their next stage in life. If they break C&M up then they will be back tracking instead of moving forward. Also Monica has never been as close to anyone as she has chandler. She wasnt even this close to Richard. She would be really hurt...plus isnt it time for her to finally get what she's been dreaming about? I believe that the other friends need to get into a more commited relationship too..they need to mature much more than they have.
I would ultimately like to see that also, but given the fact that the show's not going to go on forever and probably only one more year, we're not going to get to see them all in solid relationships and in the next stage of life. If we do, it will only be for a few episodes before the show ends.
I would like to see C&M have to truly fight for their relationship. They have gone through virtually no real relationship harming incidents. I don't want to see them just have their dreams come true without a fair amount of trouble that can't be resolved in only a few episodes. That doesn't happen much in real life, not to mention in tv world. I believe that it's in the best interest of the show to have them break up for awhile. The way I see it, if Monica's dream were to come true, C&M fans would be happy and satisfied, as they should. But why not hold off with this ultimate "dream come true" and try to make others care about C&M so that when it does happen, more people will care about it and be happy for them. It's like at the end of season 1 where the writers could have put R&R together, but they didn't. It was disappointing at the time, but it made them actually getting together even more special for even more people.
As for the effects a breakup would have on Chandler or Monica, the writers will decide how it effects them. I have trouble believing that the writers will make Chandler completely unable to love and commit to anyone, including Monica when they eventually get back together, just because his heart was broken once by her. I personally would think it would be more special when Chandler can finally commit to Monica even though she may have broken his heart once. It would make for a truly special moment that shows love conquers all. Without them breaking up and fighting to get back to each other, I think the whole thing just comes across as contrived and void of any really "special" moment that makes fans care about them making it and finding happiness together.
I absolutly agree! I think that they should break them up for a few episodes or have them go through some major hardship. I have mentioned this in the past. I think you would feel more for them and they would be so much closer when they got back together. Just as long as they dont do anything stupid like Ross did with Cleo..or something along the same aspects. <snip> ~Act
This is exactly what I was going to post. The writers would do the C&M equivalent of the scene in TOT Morning After where R&R are left standing facing each other as the credits roll by.
I wouldn't dream of doing any of the bad things that you warn me against, Claire. It was wrong to break up R&R the way they did, but they did. C&M have not been broken up, so they shouldn't be. I hesitate to say that the writers have learnt from their past mistakes, but in this case they did.
The show is indeed rich with incidents that could prove almost anything, in fact it would be even easier to "prove" that the girls are gay, which they are not. I wholeheartedly agree with you that we do not need to renew any C&M/R&R war. The couples would not be in conflict even if they had existed at the same time, never mind being separated by 1� seasons.
However, I don't think that we need any *more* broken hearts.
But you yourself just said that R&R were more interesting to write since they ceased being a couple. That would certainly indicate that breaking them up was the right thing to do, and I understand why people feel that way.
It is the *writers* who find R&R more interesting to write for since they ceased being a couple, so perhaps the *writers* would say that breaking them up was the right thing to do.
For myself, I feel that it was wrong to break up R&R the way they did. It was their cliffhanger at the end of the first season that turned me from a viewer into a devoted fan, reinforced by how wonderful Rachel was when the second season began, and though such dissonances were all part of the fun on the way up, I could never forgive the writers for making me hate Ross for being such a total jerk in Season 3. :(
Curious. How wonderful was Rachel when season two began? Aniston's a hell of an actress, but I wasn't particularly impressed with Rachel as a human being. (That only happened in sections of season five.) What's the appeal, besides her looks?
and though such dissonances were all part of the fun
Well, I'd say he was more pathetic and pitiable than hateful, but I understand how you feel. I felt the same way about Rachel in season four.
I was *trying* to speak briefly - Aniston & the script made Rachel's reaction to Ross's new love quite wonderful to behold. She was *very* funny, and yet we shared her torment. Of course, I'm quite unable to be objective, since her visual appeal means more to me than it does to you.
I think there was a massive male attraction to "Rachel" during this time. I know I was affected. Most every guy fan of Friends I know loves Rachel, at least the Rachel from the early years. (The Rachel of S5 and S6 seems to be less of a care-free, kickback type, and more uptown and trendy) Didn't DS even say he was attracted to "Jennifer Aniston's character" in an interview some time ago?
Rachel seems (seemed?) to have the correct amounts of: an arrogant but naive manner, an uppity but genuine concern, intelligent but not condescending. and a touch of bitchiness, just enough to keep guys on their toes. She seems to portray an aura of being "just out of one's league", regardless of who they are. (her looks don't hurt either)
I think there's a certain amount of relationship "labor" guys begrudgingly enjoy doing to keep someone like her, and she keeps it right at the fine line bordering on "high maintenance". She's the type of date you'd love to parade around in front of all your friends/coworkers/family/etc. Extremely sexy and confident, but not complex or intense. She looks comfortable in jeans or formal wear. Can be goofy and sophisticated without feeling awkward in either mode. She played football with the gang, but didn't really feel bad about not being very good at it.
Would I personally like to date a "Rachel"? You bet.
Would I want to marry one? I doubt it. All the above attributes are (imo) desirables for a great date/LTR. But for a life-long spouse, over many decades, they would become tedious and annoying, unless these attributes matured along with the person possessing them.
I wish I knew enough about Jennifer Aniston to know how much of a stretch it is for her to play Rachel. But then again, I'd run the risk of finding out something about Jennifer Aniston that would totally ruin my image of her. The fact that she smokes is one such characteristic I wish I didn't know. (no offense intended to any smokers)
I agree with just about everything you had to say here Randy. It was my male attraction to CC that made me watch the show in the first place, to JA that turned me into a fan, and to LK that keeps me going right now.
Like you say, Rachel isn't *just* about looks, but personality too - some undesirable traits can be very attractive, especially when there are no long-term consequences.
But only today, I was repelled by a photograph of Miss Aniston in the current issue of Heat magazine - not because she was in the arms of you know who, but because she had a cigarette in her great big hand. Ugh.
Hmmm. On second thought, maybe I don't want to see it. . . .
Finding out information about an admired celebrity is kinda like viewing a car wreck on the freeway. I admit, my curiousity about Jennifer Aniston is similar. I want to find out more about her, but then regret it when I do. Not that everything one hears or reads is bad, but that by acquiring knowledge about such a person, they become "less larger than life". Another reason is that I know there is a finite number of details about her in the public domain, so by learning one, that means there's one less piece of info out there for me to look forward to learning. Yet a third reason, on the other hand, is a fear that said celebrities may turn out to be perfect, just like one imagines, and the yearning to meet such a celebrity would grow, but the chances would likely decrease. I've been tempted to check out the book written by her mother, but haven't yet, especially since it appears to me Jennifer wasn't too happy it was written.
I recently saw a picture of her holding up some roses she obviously clipped from the bushes right in front of her. The picture appears to be a suprise. Initially, you think she's smiling, but if you look closer, she doesn't look too happy, probably because she just had her picture taken for the gazillionth time. (Heck, I hate having my picture taken once a year at Christmas . . .). She looks frustrated. That makes me feel bad for her in that respect, but yet I know I wanted to see the picture, so I'm contributing to the cause of what looks like her obvious frustration at that moment. Sorry!
But to her credit, she looks good even when frustrated =)
Ahhhhhhh!! This paradox is killing me! I think what I need is a dose of pictures of her in a bad mood on an early cloudy morning with a severe head cold.
However, I'm sure those are hard to come by. . . . (Sigh.)
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Randy Hinds doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
I've found myself in a similar situation, and I suspect every fan of every celebrity out there does as well. Not all public info about a celebrity is bad (in fact, probably 95% of the info I've found about one of the celebrities I have a particular interest in is positive, and makes me like them more), but when you discover a somewhat negative piece of info, it does tend to bring them down in your eyes a little. But then again, that's showing that you're acknowledging they're human, so it's normal. There's nothing wrong with it. Now, if you actually thought they were perfect aliens from the planet Perfectamundo, there might be a problem... :)
In 404 "TOW the Ballroom Dancing" there is a full service Swedish spa at Chandler's gym, and in 514 "TOW Everyone Finds Out" Chandler jokes to Monica that his grandfather was Swedish & his grandmother was a tiny little bunny.
There was a third reference in 510 "TOW the Inappropriate Sister" to Monica wearing a new Swede jacket, but I've just corrected the spelling. :)