Brief comment on tabloid article spoiling Friends' finale

Feb 10, 2002, 7:46 PM ET6 posts by 4 posters
6 posts
Dan Silverstein

I was in Wal-Mart today and I saw a headline on one of the national tabloids regarding the Friends season (and possibly series) finale this year: s p o i l e r . s p a c e . d o n t . s a y . i . d i d n t . w a r n . y o u . . . .

According to this tabloid, the writers of "Friends" have filmed three alternate endings to the season and in the most shocking, Rachel dies due to complications with child birth and leaves her daughter to Chandler and Monica to raise as their own. They affectionately name the daughter Rachel. The tabloid predicts that Aniston wants out, and has no intentions of coming back for Season 9 even if the pending negotiations pan out, and this is her way of escaping from the show and creating a ratings coup in the process.

This BETTER not be true!

First of all, how can you end television's greatest comedy with the death of one of the main characters?? Leave the drama to ER! If Rachel dies in the last episode, it will be one of the most depressing moments in TV history. Why would the writers punish the fans with such a traumatic finale?

Second, even though the article goes on to say that the chances of a ninth season are only 50-50, I would put significant amounts of money on the fact that we will see a ninth season. If this year was truly the final year, NBC would be hyping the last few eps of the season with far more gusto than they have been up to this point. When the last episode of "Seinfeld" came around, you'd have thought NBC was airing the return of Jesus. "Friends" is no less important to the network now than "Seinfeld" was then, and they have to be planning to milk the show's exit for all it's worth.

Rachel dying in the final episode? Come on!! IT CAN'T BE TRUE!!!!

Dan

Johnny CarwashDan Silverstein

I read Dan Silverstein's ([email] (Dan Silverstein)) post in alt.tv.friends and thought I would reply:

I'll propogate this thread just so more people have their anticipation spoiled:

A. Get a life. A TV character dying punishes nobody, unless TV is an important part of your life. That is another problem all together.

B. Seinfeld = Jesus/Bible; Friends = Willy Wonka/Chocolate Factory.

I like the parallel of Stephanie in the WWF being pregnant along with Rachel. It should be interesting to see how each birth is handled.

Johnny Carwash

David BuehrleJohnny Carwash

Just replying to get the pro-wresting cross-post off the damn list.

"Johnny Carwash" wrote in message news:[email]...

Johnny CarwashDavid Buehrle

I read David Buehrle's ("David Buehrle" ) post in alt.tv.friends and thought I would reply:

Hey, you can't deny the parallel between the two pregnancies on these TV entertainment shows. And this thread about the Rachel character dying in the finale made me think about the possibility of Stepahnie dying. Wrestling is dangerous, just ask the Hart Family. People can die. And there is a possibility that Brett Hart is the father of Stephanie's baby, since VKM screwed Brett in Montreal, Brett got back by doing the same to Stephanie. It can happen.

Johnny Carwash

Dan SilversteinDavid Buehrle

I guess the only thing more problematic than caring what happens to a fictional character is subscribing to and participating in a newsgroup dedicated to a fictional character you don't care about at all.

To me, the funniest part about your post is that you tell a "Friends" fan to get a life and in the same breath you refer to "Seinfeld" as the Bible.

Enjoy your wrestling. While I've got your attention... could you explain to me why the announcers refer to so many moves as a "suflex"?

Dan

fdlkliqJohnny Carwash

Hopefully the parallel is closer than that... meaning hopefully Stephanie dies during child birth.