I am sure that most people would agree that the show has gone past its best. Some might say that it is rubbish now, most people are probably like me in still thinking its pretty good but is defiantly no longer at the excellence that it was around seasons one and two.
This brings up an interesting question; should Bright, Kaufman, Krane and the various other writers on the show have given up at the end of series two/three when it was at its best? They could have left with a tremendous "The Last One" style final� such that its memory would have lived on for a long time thereafter as one of those rare, short but priceless gems of televisual greatness similar to the likes of "Fawlty Towers."
As it is they let it run on, I won't say into obscurity and mediocracy because it is still a successful and reasonably well put together show, but as we run into season six, probably season seven, maybe a season eight - who knows - I seem to get the impression more and more that it will just fizzle away into a sad and lonely demise and doesn't it deserve a little more than that?
Yes but if they had given up after season 2 we would not have had the classics of season 5. Personally I think TO in Vegas should have been the final curtain call for Friends.
Surely after the dismal start to the latest season this will be the end of the road. A 7th series would just be flogging a dead horse and, as you said, it deserves a grand finale and not fizzle out into nothingness.
No more suffering and lets not prolong the death. Let it rest in piece and leave us with nothing but good memories.
They should have given up with a double wedding in Vegas at the end of season five. C&M get all mushy, R&R's reunion is at first startling, then sweet when they consider that real emotion was behind it and decide to start dating again. They do not live in the same house. They call it "the engagement that took place after the wedding" to see if they want the wedding to gel.
Too true. I'm almost hestitant to wonder what is missing. James Burrows is too busy on "Will & Grace" to do the show again, and most of the first season writers now work on other shows (I think.)
The only flaw in Faulty Towers is the run was *so* short the only way to watch the episodes is on Comedy Central or PBS if you're lucky enough to watch the show when it's on. The show ending at the end of season 3 is an interesting concept, but there's no way NBC would go for their Golden Goose only having enough episodes to by syndicated on the USA network.
show,
Well, IMHO, the show has survived by changing things around. I don't expect Friends to go the way of shows where you don't really care if the show is still on or not: Wings, Suddenly Susan, etc.
Sounds good.
Hmm. The show ending at season 6 before things go downhill too far is interesting. Just end everything now before things get too far out of hand. I would find it ironic that "Friends," their top-rated show, would not last as long as "Homicide," which struggled in the ratings for 7 seasons. As it seems at this point they don't know if the show will continue after this season. Maybe they should do what Homicide did, and write season finales that could double as final episodes if need be. That means no cliffhangers, though.
Oh that's just the difference between British and American commissioning and scheduling, over here it goes somewhere along the lines of:
1) commission a show, 2) film a series of typically 6 episodes 30 mins long for BBC, something like 25-27 mins long for commercial tv 3) show it 4) if its a success goto 1)
In the us its something like:
1) film a pilot if network likes film some more 2) if its a failure cancel it if not carry on for about 24 episodes of about 22 mins.
that's why UK sitcoms are usually only on obscure channels or PBS.
If one of their other shows gets cancled, which is very likely (both were pulled for sweeps), then BKC will almost definately spend more time on Friends. Also, the cast could put something in their contracts about BKC's input to the show.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, lolo doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
But then again, Fox pulled Time Of Your Life (or that thing with Jennifer Love Hewitt in it) for sweeps, and apparently that looks like coming back for another season. (I prefer her in movies, though.)
I think that the show still has a lot of potential so dont be so quick to put in an end to it. I really enjoyed season 5 too and I dont think season 6 is that bad there has been some really funny episodes. I think the writers still do have some creativity for making TO that could have been. I've never seen a show like that done to another sitcom..or maybe I just missed it. I think there is still a lot that can be done with the show and more dynamics of the characters to be explored. I think we should see what season 7 has to offer.. also the ratings are still incredibly high so it wouldnt make sense to end it now. Does anyone agree with me? ~Act -I'm finally home icq# 12143976
The reason "Fawlty Towers" only ran to 12 episodes was that they were all written by John Cleese & his wife Connie Booth, (who played Basil & Polly), not a team of writers.
They went into meticulous detail in planning the episodes, taking over six months to write each masterpiece, putting *tremendous* strain on the pair.
The first 6 shows went out in 1975, and it was four years before the second 5 appeared, then a 12th seven months after that. In the interim, John & Connie were divorced.
I don't know if you're pulling my leg Jim, but the whole thing is a series, divided into seasons. Friends is a series of television comedy programmes, currently into its 6th season. I'm sure you know this.
This is where we get very very confused. I would agree with the point that Tennant is making - the show is a "series" all to itself. However, within that series I would still say there were 2 (or even 3 really!) series. "There have been 8 series of the series Red Dwarf..." I don't think I'd ever use "season" of a British show, only when referring to American ones. Certainly none of my media studies books do (A level, university-level).
English isn't logical, and well-meaning attempts to clarify it often make things so much worse. Think about that next time you put a video into the video and video a programme, then viddy it later. ;)
I would agree. Its just a difference of production. Tennant has a point but you can't tell me that most British shows are described seasonally, cos they ain't :) Admittedly you feel like yelling at the TV when American sitcoms are talked about in series, since we know thats not what they intended.
Biggest confusion on the matter i've ever encountered: Simpsons episode - Brother from another series
Until I found out what this episode was about, I thought it would be about a brother from a previous season of the show.
They are, but to mean a different thing than the US term season, or our own term series. You'll often here stations refer to "The xxx season of programmes" describing a range of different types of programmes based around the xxx theme. This is not the same as a series.
Yes, that would be my understanding of "season" in, say, BBC terminology. I don't know what the US term for a "themed" run of programmes would be...
The main problem is that US shows do literally run through seasons. They start in Fall/Autumn, run through Winter and into Spring. :)
Ours, being shorter, come as and when schedulers feel like it, the bastards... What has happened to the new "series" of Never Mind The Buzzcocks? 2 shows and then nothing until later this year???
Indeed. I like the idea of seasons though, some of the ones C4 carry can be quite interesting... though none spring instantly to mind :)
They do have the disadvantage of if the programme doesn't hit the ratings then its cancelled mid-season, wheras over here its commissioned, and then we see the full run
Unfortunatly the BBC have a tendancy to do this :( I recall Vicar of Dibley was 4 episodes long, (not hte christmas special, the one before) and Dinner Ladies didn't seem to last long, either
You hint at something interesting here Jacqui. Are you saying that Friends can be divided into three distinct (errm) divisions?
Betcha one of these began with 601, and of course another began with 101, where do you see the other beginning?
The Dr.Who guide divides the show into Seasons A to H.
I think that the American system is a good one, as it avoids the confusion of the British method. Ever seen an episode finish with a cliffhanger, and heard a voiceover saying "that was the last of the series"? After going mad, you later learn that it was just the last of a season, and the series will return, (or in the case of "Cybill", not). Also when a new season begins and the Radio Times (for American readers this is the senior British TV listings magazine) says "NEW SERIES" this is followed by complaints in the letters pages that it was not a new series, and the poor editor has to explain that these were new episodes of an old programme so they described it as a new series.
I see...
Yes - apart from the fact that "video" comes from the Latin - I've long complained about the word being used for the storage medium, the machine, the recording process, and a short musical promotion...
"I put a video in my video to video the video."
..is like saying...
"I put a disc in my disc to disc the disc."
"I put a computer in my computer to computer the computer."
"I put a copy in my copy to copy the copy."
"I put a game in my game to game the game."
BTW, are you a "Clockwork Orange" fan by any chance, Jacqui?
The Vatican still strives to come up with Latin terms for modern objects. A 1993 encyclical declared a video cassette to be a "sonorarum visualiumque taeniarum cistellulae."
I didn't think RT readers would make that sort of mistake :-)
I quite like the radio times. It is definatly a good read, but like a lot of things it has its faults, RT's one being its very poor coverage of non terrestrial analogue stations.
BBC, ITV, C4-5 get a three and a half page spread per day, the rest get a two page spread, all bunched up together, and Such channels as uk-play, mtv hardly get a look in and channels such as Carlton Cinema were only recently added! Worse of all there is not the detail of programme information that terrestrial analogue channels have, hopefully this will all change once digital becomes more widescpread. There is also the fact (which AFAIK applies to all listings magazines) that local commercial radio listings are not published. And they call themselves the RADIO times!
What is a true shame is that 'The Listener' A magazine about tv and radio by the BBC, got scrapped in the 1980s. (well not scrapped, but encorperated with the Radio Times to form what we have now.)
True - but yet *not* true - for the word series is not a redundant British term, but the word employed in the American system (which is being adopted worldwide) to mean the whole damn thing, from the pilot to the last season finale (which is the series finale).
A series is made up of seasons which are made up of episodes which are made up of acts which are made up of scenes which are made up of lines which...
It still stands that a consecutive run of programmes filmed and commissioned at the same time to be shown together in a run, are called a series. Season is merely the term used to describe foreign programmes (i.e. American)
Nope, Whilst a series can be used in that way to mean a series of programmes, it can also be used to refer to a particular series of those programmes, i.e. a season. It is commonly understood by the average layman and those in the industry alike that a series in its general sense refers to a season. i.e. the first series of programmes. Yes, the programmes make one series but they are in general specified to mean exactly the same thing as series, in the same way somebody might say - that is a row of houses, that is the first row, that is the second row.
If you are talking about the UK, then I can't argue this. And, on a technical level, what you say makes sense.
But in the USA, series *never* means a season, when talking about TV shows. I'm not talking about what makes good technical sense, I'm talking about universal usage.
I'm not talking about the US, in the US, afaik, Season is the word that is used by and by. AFAIK the word Series is not used at all, or if it is, it has a different meaning.
Unless you know something I don't, British shows don't say season, they do say series, which makes more sense in a place where new shows don't really come seasonally. Since I doubt this is news to you I assume you do know something I don't :)
New shows do come seasonally in Britain, but I agree that the distinction of series/season is observed more by younger people, which is just as well since it's a useful system.
If you check out various episode guides for British sitcoms & dramas you'll find a mixture - it's certainly true that listings magazines lag behind.
The term 'season' in this country is used to mean something different to that in the US or other countries. - i.e. a group of programmes centered around a theme, for example "The BBC Millennium Season" or "The Channel Four World War II Season" this is not the same thing as a series of programmes that are essentially episodes of the same programme, which are most defiantly defined as a series.
In article , "Tom Hawley" wrote: o> o> > BTW, one series, two seasons. o> o> Unless you know something I don't, British shows don't say season, they o> do o> say series, which makes more sense in a place where new shows don't o> really o> come seasonally. Since I doubt this is news to you I assume you do know o> something I don't :)
well in america they call em seasons....as it's an american show we should call them seasons.
Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry
You're right actually. I saw this interview with BKC, and they said the hours were too long for them to do many more episodes. OK, I did miss a bit, so I may not have got the whole story, but I got the impression that they're getting tired of 'Friends'.
Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry
Adriana loves Matt wrote in message news:[email]...
bit,
they're
I know! They *only* had 6 hugely successful years with a mantelpiece that is creaking under the weight of all the awards! I just don't think they appreciate the freedom of choice they have. They could do ANYTHING they wanted with it, and they're getting tired of it! You're right... some people!
Yes they have been denied several awards that they were well-deserving of, but although those awards people don't like them, the fans do as is demonstrated by the ratings. Here in Southern California, Friends comes in at number one very frequently, even above ER.
On a side note, any of you guys see Frasier coming to its end any time soon? That guy has been the same character since forever.
Adriana
Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry
LoL! I'm going to retract my optimism statement that I made in the other thread. 16 would be about 9 too many. (unless Ross and Rachel were happily together, but then it wouldn't be considered the best sitcom in many eyes would it?? It would in mine of course...)
Adriana
Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry
Should we try and compromise on a desired season limit?? =)
Adriana
Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry
First of all I would like to point out that I haven't seen S6 yet, so I don't know how bad it is. I agree with you that S1 and S2 are brilliant and represent the "golden age" of Friends, and then S3 and S4 were not amazing but they weren't awful. S5 was very good, and if they'd ended it after S3 it would have been too short - there were still storylines to explore as we saw in S5. Maybe now they're running out, but S3 would have been too soon!
I am not sure why everybody liked S5 so much. I didn't find it any better than S4 by any means except a few episodes like TOW thanksgiving flashback, certainly not better than S3!
Correction, Chandler and Monica's SECRET! If it wasn't that. . .wouldn't season six rank right up there too? =)
Adriana
Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry
I forgot this was a very grammatically correct newsgroup! =) If you look at the "wasn't" as a reference to my previous sentence, it makes sense, but if you look at it in reference to Jim's, then yeah, it's WAS.
Adriana
Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry
My friends & I are really enjoying S6, but then we've only seen the first six episodes - not quite as good as the best of S5, but good all the same, and of course it's still streets ahead of any other sitcom in the world.
I want it to end on a semi-high note too, which is why I hope for a season finale next year, so that they can have time wrap things up nicely, something that they most likely can't do this year with the number of episodes that are left unfilmed. It's still at number one, keep in mind, so next year it would still leave on top. I totally don't think they should have called it quits in season two OR three...shows are still way too young at that stage to walk out. What I think Bright Kaufman and Crane should do is spend more time on it themselves, instead of all their other creations. Friends has proven to be their best anyway.
Adriana
Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Adriana loves Matt doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
Yep. The show would be better if BKC hadn't come up with the bright idea to become breakout creators, as it were. The show's always best when they've spent time on it - they're the only ones who still seem to have an idea as to what the characters originally were and should be like now.
In the first 2 series, a lot of the story lines were the group getting to know eachother and the on going R & R saga. Now they are starting to 'mature' (for want of a better word) and things are changing.
Any story lines with R & R are now becoming drawn out and tedious. This farcicle marriage, anulment, divorce story line should have been put against a wall and shot. Why, oh why can we not just have a conclusion to this.
We also have another repeated story line with Chandler moving out and leaving Joey to fend for himself only it's Joey who now has to find the new room mate.
So what are we left with. Chandler and Monica living together, Phoebe and Rachel living together, Joey alone and Ross alone. How long before it's 'all change' again. How long before Rachel realises she is in love with Ross again. When Ross starts dating? thats what usually happens so why should we expect any new ideas now.
Lets just face facts. The writers are running dry and prolonging a show just to keep the greenbacks rolling in. Some of you may slate me for saying that but don't get me wrong guys, I am a HUGE fan of the show. I just want it to bow out gracefully. That should have happened in Vegas.
Season 6 so far:- Dull and predictable. The odd laugh but nothing outstanding. Is that how we want to remember Friends?
Is Joey THAT dumb to build a fake Porsche out of boxes? He never has much trouble getting a date so why would he risk making himself look stupid to get a girl?
Chandler is growing up and Monica now has a steady relationship. The whole base of the two characters has gone.
Ross is becoming someone we don't know. I still ask the question why would he have sat in Central Perk and suddenly blurt out to Phoebe that he was still married to Rachel? TOTALLY out of character. It seemed to happen just to manufacture a story line out of Phoebe keeping it a secret from Rachel (must admit though, the scene outside Central Perk with Rachel in the taxi was one of the best so far this season, very funny).
Only Rachel and Phoebe seem to be the same people this season.
I think we have to face it........... The end is nigh. (I hope)
Joey has always made himself look stupid without even knowing it, even in front of girls.
The characters are changing or "maturing" as you said earlier. Everyone does that as they grow older...how come the characters can't? Why can't we focus on more what they have become instead of what they were.
All the characters have blurted things out by accident. It obviously was on his mind and I do remember him making mistakes like that before I just cant remember the episodes right now. I'll check later and get back to you. But chandler blurted out by accident that Ross loved Rachael for lack of a better example.
Rachael has changed too over the seasons and so has Pheobe. Pheobe used to be more into "cleansing oras" and now she also finally showed how she "sees" or "listens" to them all very carefully. TOW Pheobe tells monica she is high matenance + Rachael is a push over. Rachael has become more loyal to her friends and has learned how to be on her own.
There is still a lot of potential I think! Just because the characters have changed doesnt mean that it is going to be the same story lines. Like you said M&C's relationship is very out of character. It's new and exciting. well thats it for now..please comment
In article , "DaveT" wrote: o> o> o> Puddin wrote in ... o> > o> > So you consider giving up the only alternative? Why couldn't they have o> > continued in the same style as the first two series? o> > o> S o> P o> O o> I o> L o> E o> R o> o> S o> P o> A o> C o> E o> o> In the first 2 series, a lot of the story lines were the group getting to o> know eachother and the on going R & R saga. Now they are starting to o> 'mature' (for want of a better word) and things are changing.
And nobody likes change
o> Any story lines with R & R are now becoming drawn out and tedious. This o> farcicle marriage, anulment, divorce story line should have been put o> against o> a wall and shot. Why, oh why can we not just have a conclusion to this.
The whole R&R storyline does need some quick sorting out, it's like they're meant to be but all hope has been destroyed i think it's time the characters started to setlle down alot more. I rekon a better way to have an R&R storyline would have them both in vegas finally realise that they were in love with eachother.
o> We also have another repeated story line with Chandler moving out and o> leaving Joey to fend for himself only it's Joey who now has to find the o> new o> room mate.
Chandler didn't actually have to find a roomate when Joey moved out he could've kept the apartment on his own, if you want my opinion it's highly likely that Joey may not be able to keep a room mate and give up the apartment.
o> Lets just face facts. The writers are running dry and prolonging a show o> just to keep the greenbacks rolling in. Some of you may slate me for o> saying o> that but don't get me wrong guys, I am a HUGE fan of the show. I just o> want o> it to bow out gracefully. That should have happened in Vegas.
I feel the same way, the trouble is the writers need a way to end so that the fans are satisfied, they don't want to leave and unresolved storylines.
o> Season 6 so far:- Dull and predictable. The odd laugh but nothing o> outstanding. Is that how we want to remember Friends?
Season 6 hasn't ben the best season admitttedly but I wouldn't go sa far to say that it's dull, friends has always been a little predictable. It's extremly obvious the writers are trying to make more pheobe storylines, and I like the develpoment of her character even if it has been a bit OTT @ times.
o> Chandler is growing up and Monica now has a steady relationship. The o> whole o> base of the two characters has gone.
Finally M&C have found some stability in their life, and with that have matured, therefore they may not be entirely the same people they were in season 1 but would you really want them to be?
o> Ross is becoming someone we don't know. I still ask the question why o> would o> he have sat in Central Perk and suddenly blurt out to Phoebe that he was o> still married to Rachel? TOTALLY out of character.
Ross went thru quite a bit last season, of course he's not the same person, to me he seems a little unstable. A little creepy too
o> It seemed to happen o> just to manufacture a story line out of Phoebe keeping it a secret from o> Rachel (must admit though, the scene outside Central Perk with Rachel in o> the o> taxi was one of the best so far this season, very funny).
It was, we have to remember that Ross and Pheobe are very good friends, remember she was the one he first told about Carol being a lesbian, okay so it's not entirely the same thing but still, they seem to be very close. hge probably needed to tell someone, pheobe was the obvious person.
o> Only Rachel and Phoebe seem to be the same people this season.
I think Pheobe has changed, but perhaps that's because she seems to me a little OTT.
I'll take your word for that. I don't really follow the show, but I was just commenting because he was never my favorite character on Cheers (a show I did follow). But hey, if the Friends can change in six years, the guy must be entitled to change in 16.
Adriana
Ross: I don't know if anything is ever going to happen with us again, ever, but I don't want to know that it never could. So I stopped it, and she got mad and broke my projector. -TOW Chandler Can't Cry