What did she say?? TOW The Girl who hits Joey

OK, I saw this one again (for the second time) and I can't tell what Rachel says during this scene (and was wondering if the script was transcribed incorrectly)- (From www.thecfsi.com):

-------- [Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Chandler comes running in. Everyone else is already there.]

Chandler: Where's Monica?! Where is she? I need to talk to her! It's urgent! Is she here?

Monica: (raising her hand) I'm Monica.

Chandler: I need to talk to you, it's urgent!

Monica: Okay.

Chandler: Okay, I've been doing a lot of thinking about us, y'know a lot of uhh, us thinking. And uh, well I guess there's only one-one way to do this. (He slowly and awkwardly gets down on one knee.)

Monica: Wait what-wh-wh-what are you doing?!

Chandler: (getting out a ring box) Monica�

Monica: No-no, don't-don't-don't do it!

Chandler: Will you marry me?

(Phoebe hides her eyes in shame. Rachel is starring at them wide-eyed and open-mouthed. Joey and Ross are stunned to temporary silence.)

Ross: Oh-no. No. No.

Joey: What a bad idea!

Rachel: Ohhhh, I cannot look at it! (She doesn't move.) -------

I thought Rachel said "I can't not look", because she has her hands holding her head fixed on C&M. The humor (IMO) comes from the fact that one might feel the urge to "not look" and turn away from something such as what is unfolding in front of the group (like Phoebe did), and Rachel acknowledges this urge, but doesn't want to miss anything because it was obviously unexpected so soon.

I understand the humor in the the script as-is, and either way it's funny. Just curious what everyone else heard. . .

You're right. She said, "I can't not look at it." As in she couldn't keep her eyes off of it.

Cici

On 9 Feb 2000, Cici wrote:

Yeah, it was sort of like a car wreck on the side of the road. You can't not look at it, even though you know you shouldn't look at it.

I looked at my tape, and I think she meant the ring! Look again..you'll see that she's not looking at C&M, but at the ring...that definitely fits R's personality AND makes more sense to be referred to as "it"--I think she would say "them" or "this" if it was the situation and not the ring.

AshEmryLAW wrote:

I wondered that myself for a bit, but it seems to me the "it" is referring to the scene being played out by C&M. (i.e. the proposal). Like if you are looking at the aftermath of a major car wreck (to steal another poster's analogy), and your passenger yells "Don't look at it! Watch where you're driving!!" The "it" is referring to the entire car wreck scene. That's how I interpreted it anyway. . . .

I thought it was really a coup for C&M fans. In the space of one episode, C&M ventured beyond where R&R had *ever* been (i.e. a proposal), and C&M are fairly new, and the proposal was totally unexpected. If you watch some of the really old shows, you can see Chandler displaying an underlying attraction to Monica (i.e. sitting with his arm around her, consoling her when she's down, etc). Early in the C&M relationship, they were *only* friends for many years before the love-interest blossomed. R&R were "friends" but not necessarily by mutual agreement. It seems to me that Ross remained friends with Rachel to keep his chances alive for something more (which he would rather have), where as Rachel was pretty much disinterested regardless of the relationship (again, very early in their relationship -- i.e. high-school/college). I think C&M have a better chance at developing something substantial based on their foundation as just friends, where as R&R can't seem to get their act together and decide what to do (again, based only up to 5th season). I'll have to get back to y'all after 2/18/00, when they FINALLY show TO In Vegas(1&2) in syndication, after which I can start watching all my taped (but unviewed) 6th season shows. (Yes, it's been tough, and my wife is about to kill me for watching the same re-runs over and over and over. . . )

I personally would like to see R&R together, but I agree with something I had read here long ago that they have teased and teased this so much that the final re-uniting (if any) would need to be so earth-shatteringly well written that I doubt Kaufman/Crane and their current crew could pull it off to my (and I suspect many others') expectations. Seems to me that if they do try to get R&R back together, they are going to have start working on it 2 or 3 shows prior to the actual event, and do a lot of explaining during the course.

Actually, I would like to C&M together also, but that is based only on 5th season shows. It sounds like they take a dive in quality during the 6th season.

Is it really that hard to write good comedy for couples?? Does it get boring for the audience? It seems writers like to take characters right up to that point of mutual attraction/courtship, and stay there as long as possible, when in reality, this period in a relationship is one of the shortest items in the relationship timeline, in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it's easier to write interesting shows due to the instability of the relationship at this point in time.

OK. Now that I'm thoroughly off topic, I'll stop.

In article , Randy Hinds wrote:

yup, i'm pretty sure she did.

-mags

I agree, "Can't NOT look at it"

Stew

Knous123 wrote in message news:[email]...

times

look

can't not

at

Stew wrote:

Good. I'm glad I'm not hearing things (yet). Actually, I personally think it's funnier with "I can't not look at it" rather than "I cannot look at it".

I think so, too. And just to confirm, I also heard "I can't not look at it." In addition, that is what the closed captions read.