Season 6 and season 7

I've read a lot of opinions about this past season and the possibility of another season here on the newsgroup. Several of you guys seem to be sick and tired of the show and just want the writers (i.e. Crane and Kauffman) to return to write a nice finale that can wrap everything up nicely.

It also seems like most of you don't find the show funny anymore.

I just wanted to say that I don't agree with you on that. Don't get me wrong, it's good that we can be able to discuss the show in a proper way, but recently I think we, who are supposed to be fans of the show, have been more negative about it than the critics! Take for instance last week's episode (615/616). The critics loved it, and yes, it was a huge ratings-stunt. Some said they found it terribly boring. Well, I found it hilarious. Just the sight of Phoebe and Chandler had me ROFLOL.

And all this talk about the show ending after this season... I really think it is too soon for it to stop now. There are still so many unresolved issues to be taken care of. I mean, all you R+R fans out there, do you really want this really short ending where everything is resolved during a couple of episodes? I think that that relationship has to change and evolve a bit before the writers and the producers of the show can call it a day. Because I think we all kind of expect them to get back together in the end. I mean, they're lobsters!

I think C+M need to straighten out a few things first, as well, e.g. possible marriage etc. There seems to be this gigantic C+M backlash nowadays. People are complaining about how boring Chandler is and how annoying Monica is. Chandler certainly has changed, but I think he has changed for the better.

He used to be this sarcastic guy who always commented on what the others did, but if you look at him in season 3, he's just too exaggerated for my taste. Yeah, it was kind of funny, but shouldn't the public be able to relate to the characters? Okay, I know it's a sitcom, but still...

And the fact that Chandler and Monica are together, well, I think it's natural that the characters grow up and that the storylines are changing.

If the cast decides not to return this fall, the writers need to come up with an excellent finale pretty fast as well. Maybe they've already got one on hand just in case?

But how should this finale go? I mean, they're showing 617 on Thursday. That means that there are maximum 7 (or maybe 8??) episodes left after sweeps. Can the whole R+R issue be all over by then? I don't think so. Maybe they could have done it if the writers wrote a finale like the one on Mad About You last year where we could see the characters in the future. Personally, I think that would have been a great way of ending the show, certainly much better than the Seinfeld-finale a couple of years ago.

Anyway, these are just the humble opinions of a fan who is still enjoying the show! :) (And yeah, I've seen all the episodes of season 6 except 613...)

~Ariel

I haven't really called for the end but I think that I'll comment anyway. No I don't want R&R resolved in a couple a episodes, I would like to see at least a year or two of them but the question is, will the writers ever do that? They seem to use them as bait and drag them out for special occasions - like May sweeps. I'm sick and tired of being led on again, and again, and again. Either break them up for good or try and write them together. I prefer the later. They work so well together that the writers should be able to do something with them.

Anything would be better than Seinfelds' finale.

funny - me too. I missed 613. I really did enjoy 615/16 if not for just the fountain scene alone. I also really enjoyed 614 but the writers need new ideas or they need to give the fans what they want. Unforunately, they don't seem to be doing either.

Lori

True. I don't want a sudden finale that's hyped like that. I would much rather prefer what they did with Mad About You. They took exactly one more year to slowly get to the end. I've heard lots of negative comments about that finale, but I personally enjoyed it very much.

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

In article , [email] (Ariel ) wrote:

I suppose I am getting rather tired of it. Part of it is that earlier seasons (1st and 2nd especially) gave a feeling that the characters' lives were actually progressing, and it's turned into a series of cycles round a status quo since then. Chandler and Monica have helped in the last two seasons, though.

I agree that there isn't enough time to wrap the show up in the 6th season. That's more a practical matter than to do with when it ideally *should* wrap up, though.

I tend to think that, when the show does start wrapping up, it'll probably produce some of the best episodes in a while.

Ariel wrote:

THANKYOU!!! Thats what I have been trying to say for awhile now!! I completly agree with you!

~Act

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:07:50 -0500, Activia wrote:

What can I say? I'm *really* relieved that I'm not the only one feeling this way! :)

~Ariel

~*~*~*~*~*~*

Monica: Fine! Judge all you want to but, (points to Ross) married a lesbian, (points to Rachel) left a man at the altar, (points to Phoebe) fell in love with a gay ice dancer, (points to Joey) threw a girl's wooden leg in a fire, (points to Chandler) livin' in a box!!

I know I cant believe the fans are being so critical of the show! People seem to be so scared of change..it even comes out here...Just because the characters are changing..doesnt mean that the quality of the show is going to go down! *just an add on to what you said* ~Act

Activia wrote:

Personally, I never wanted things to stay the same. I welcomed change in the characters and show. The problem for me is that when the change is for the worse in a number of circumstances, the overall quality of the show slowly deteriorates as a consequence.

Last season was definitely an above par season viewed in comparison with season 4 and parts of season 3. This season has been swaying back and forth between average and a little boring. I can only think of one, two, or maybe three episodes from this season that I personally can classify as well-written, funny, and overall entertaining.

I'm sure that this show will continue to crank out some very good episodes here and there. However in my opinion this show will *never* again reach the brilliance of seasons 1 and 2. This is mainly because the writers seemed to have traded in the heart and soul that the show once had for "Seinfeld" type humor. It is my belief that people never really tuned into this show to begin with

because it was funny(even though it usually was). They tuned in because these were people we could all identify with. We saw aspects of them in ourselves. We cared about them. We wanted things to work out for them in the end. We felt this way because these characters seemed so unbelievably real to us. This is a formula that the writers never should have "changed" because in my opinion this is what is responsible for the success of the show.

Chris

Chris wrote:

Why do you say they arent realistic anymore? I think in some ways it is even more realistic..I agree that I turned in to the show because it was realistic and you could easily relate..but I believe this is still true..adn yes they have changed..but so does everyone..so that makes it more realistic...its realistic just in different ways..it is still easy to relate to. I could take some of this seasons episodes for examples.. ~Act

Activia wrote:

Because they aren't. *Most* people don't act like this in real life(look for their hand twins, have vapor rub sex while their sick, etc..) If you can honestly say that you think these characters are more realistic now then they used to be than power to you because you can see things alot deeper than I and probably most people can.

If you mention anything involving vapor rub I think I'll hurl. :)

Chris

Chris wrote:

Not EVERY storyline is an everyday realistic depiction but it wasnt in the first few seasons either...I mean how many people would LET Pheobe sing at a coffee house or even get a Music Video made. How many people do u know that would poke an UNG with a long pole..my point is its not all incrediably realistic that makes it funny..but its realistic enough to relate to.. What about TOW phoebe runs weird? I know a lot of people that run weird. TOW Ross's Denial..having a typical fight about a room I KNOW that has happened a lot..I think the balance is still there..those are just a few examples. ~Act

Activia wrote:

I realize that. I never implied that was the case. My point was that this season and last

season we've been exposed to way more situations that were cartoonish and goofy than those that were relatable and good-hearted. I don't think there was an equal balance at all. This balance is one of the things that I think made this show unique and helped it thrive. I don't see it there anymore. The show has become so much more joke-driven than character-driven.

Chris

Chris wrote:

....who knows what season 7 has to offer..I think last season was balanced..ok I'm getting ready to agree that we disagree.. ~Act

Activia wrote:

Probably a good idea Activa(cool name by the way). All I know is that there's a reason why alot of people are being critical and it can't be because everyone is just crazy.

Chris

Chris wrote:

Thanks..ok sounds good..thanks for helping me see someone else's opinion.. ~Act

I like the smell of Vapor Rub... :)

~Ashley* Vapor Rub. Vapor Rub. Vapor Rub. Vapor Rub. Vapor Rub.

Moron Cow wrote:

Plus Chandler has always got turned on by stuff like that.. ~Act

*Gets out the Vapor Rub* Uh... I'm sick...

~Ashley* If I ever really met Matthew, I would scare the living day lights out of him.

Moron Cow wrote:

LMAO..I'd think I would be too nervous to go near..I would just look.. ~Act

You have to realize that sometimes fully realistic isn't funny. That's not necessarily my objection, but that's why sitcoms can only last so long.

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

Adriana loves Matt wrote:

As we discussed later..there have been many unrealistic situations this season too.it just is all in the balance..and thats what Chris and I disagree on. ~Act

Chris wrote:

One other thing..who's to say they wont make some really good episodes that are realistic?????..and not just one here and there..but many.. ~Act

Activia wrote:

Well, nobody. But I'm still waiting for it to happen. Also let me clear something up, I never said that the storylines we get these days are *completely unrealistic*. My opinion from the get go has been that they don't do the touching, good-hearted, realistic stories as well as they used to.

Chris

Chris wrote:

There have been some touching stories though..TOW the joke was pretty touching at the end... ~Act

Activia wrote:

Yes it was nice by season 5/6 standards. But place that episode next to say, TOW The Candy Hearts or TOW The Birth and you can see a pretty substantial difference in the quality of the mood and writing.

Chris

Chris wrote:

There could be more touching episodes ahead for one..and for 2 if it was all touching..it would be more of a drama then a sitcom ~Act

TOW the Birth and TOW the Candy Hearts were both very funny, comic episodes. It's just that the humor was combined with heart and an affection for the characters. A show does not have to be a drama to be warm and intelligent. And I don't like my sitcoms any other way.

Touching?? I can only say one thing: TOW The Morning After.

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

In article , [email] (Adriana loves Matt) wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion Adriana, but for me, Rachel dumping Ross was not a patch on Chandler sending Janice back to Gary.

Tennant

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Well, for me, Chandler sending Janice back to Gary wasn't a patch on Ross and Rachel breaking up. Both were touching, but I think the main difference for me was that with Ross and Rachel it was absolutely real, genuine emotion (I have quotes so *don't* argue with me :)), and at that point you could see that David and Jennifer were just as devestated as their characters were. That wasn't there with Chandler and Janice - it was still touching, but to an extent you could tell it was just acting - no such buffer was there with Ross and Rachel's breakup.

In article , Tina Nellis wrote

How could you see this Tina? What clue was there, that they weren't just acting? Aniston & Schwimmer are both extremely good at it. Or could it be that your own emotional investment in the story was willing you on?

I hasten to add that I felt the *drama* of the breakup was very good.

I think this is really a criticism of the performances of Perry & Wheeler - good, but not quite in the same league as the other pair, which I'm inclined to agree with. But as for the 'touchingness' of the scenes, let's just say it's a matter of personal preference, okay? :)

Tennant

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

No, it was honestly there. Maybe you wouldn't have felt it as much, but it *was* there. Like I said, I have quotes so don't argue with me. :) Both David and Jennifer have said that the other actually made them cry for real during that scene, and I've also got something popping into my head now about how it was so real, and yet also surreal, that in a way they felt like they really *were* breaking up (although I can't remember where I read the latter one). I also believe that they both named it their favourite episode on ET once - well, Schwimmer did at least.

I didn't mean it as an out and out criticism, but yeah, I guess that's basically what I'm saying. Actually, no, not the performances, but the chemistry wasn't quite right, I felt. I've always thought they worked better as the couple Chandler didn't want to get into, not as the couple Chandler *does* want to be in.

In article , Tina Nellis wrote:

That's very interesting, Tina. :)

Well yes, we now know that Marta Kauffman planned to bring Chandler & Monica together about two seasons earlier than it finally happened...

We all watched R&R breaking up in silence, as the scene was so sad - but when Chandler's poor little finger waved goodbye to Kathy, everyone was so touched we all went "ohhh", even the guys (who then laughed, embarrassed).

Tennant

I agree with that. Chandler and Janice appear to have been written to have funny breakups. When he left her so that she could go back to her husband, it was kind of sad, but in my opinion, it just wasn't near close to TOW The Morning After.

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

In article , Tennant Stuart wrote:

Or Chandler's finger waving goodbye to Kathy through an air hole.

Tennant

And in less than five minutes running after her, there's not even enough time for the effect to kick in. I think I was more touched in that episode by Joey and Chandler making up.

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

Chris wrote:

Another thing. Sorry I just keep thinking of other things..Most people voted that they liked season 5 the best..so who's to say season 7 wont be the best? I'm sure you werent crazy about every single season..some people like soem things more then others..maybe they are trying to accomidate us all. ~Act

Activia wrote:

What "scientific" poll was this? I've seen polls where the majority liked season 1, polls where the majority liked season 2, polls where the majority liked season 3..........you get the point?

Again, nobody. Anything is possible in theory. However, I certainly wouldn't feel safe putting money on it.

They are not trying to accomodate *anybody*. That's not how the creative process works.

Chris

Chris wrote:

ok..fine..its not a scientific survey.just what I came up with..and yes sometimes they do that..because its a buisness and thats what business do..they usually find what people like and stick with it.

Activia wrote:

I really don't think that's how T.V. works. If that was the case, Ross and Rachel would have gotten back together two seasons ago, Monica would have already married Chandler and had a baby, Joey would be a movie star etc....

I would word your opinion a little differently and say they experiment with stories and see how the audience responds. A little similar but definitely not the same thing.

Chris

Chris wrote:

Thats what I meant..you're right I worded it wrong. ~Act

Just to defend Season Five here ... internet polls are obviously unscientific, but you can come to some conclusions about the quality of the season based on the marriage of audience numbers to critical reaction - and throw in industry recognition by way of award nominations. Personally, I disliked only two things about S5 - TOW Rachel Smokes (which committed the cardinal sin in my book of simply not being funny at all) and Ross: not the character, but the execution by David Schwimmer. It was fine with me for Ross to go a bit nuts (or more than a bit, depending on your POV) - very therapeutic for him and a bit fun, but rendered painful (once more - just my opinion) by DS' over-the-top, happy-pill, manic-depressive interpretation. And I don't think the change in his character was done all that heartlessly, either. He got plenty of support from his friends - from Rachel, who backed off to let him work on his marriage; from Chandler and Joey, who realized they had done an ill thing by trying to kick him out of their place; by the group, when his marriage failed. DS has corrected this with better acting this year - one of the truly great things about S6, and he is more complex and less predicatable than he used to be. I totally prefer this Ross (again - my OPINION) to the early-years Ross who: believed his affection for Rachel gave him a claim to hers (she does this now, but he started it); tried to force his agnosticism on Phoebe; forced his presence on Rachel at her work in TOW Ross and Rachel T.A.B. (had he been a woman, he would rightfully be called a clinging nag); etc. Remember that this is a fairly closed group, and the opinions here don't necessarily reflect the opinions of the general public. People generally come here to gripe (and why not?-as long as you concede that dissatisfaction with the show is, while definitely rampant here, not necessarily true for most of the millions of regular Friends viewers). You may even find that a majority of people aren't all that bothered by the on-and-off R&R thing, or the new Monica (though that is hard to imagine - I think, again, the problem is with the execution, not the character). Certainly, none of my three-dimensional friends complain. While I agree that S6 lacks depth of character study, I don't blame the quality of the writing, which I find still sharp and immensely entertaining. I blame a lack of focus. For whatever reason, the Friends writers write best when there is at least one long story arc to build around (i.e. Ross' affection for Rachel in the "glory times" of S1-mid S2). The self-contained, non-episodic episodes of Friends don't give them time to do much more than present shallow renderings of the characters, or amplify character quirks (I find this to be true of myself when I write short stories vs. longer forms, so I don't blame them much). Focus is easier to gain than quality of writing: check out Two Guys and a Girl, Jesse, Just Shoot Me (if you can stomach them) for evidence of sitcoms written tepidly, but with affection for the characters. I hope I haven't offended anyone who like these shows - it's only my opinion. I'm not here to gripe, I only "lurk" here to get spoilers so I can feed information to my poor sister who is at a private Catholic college in SoCal where there are no TVs in the dorms and has to wait for weeks for me to send her five or six episodes of Friends at a time so she can go off campus to watch them - it's truly torture. SHE's got a reason to gripe. I'll probably kick myself for getting sucked into this debate, but at least I won't be boring everyone with such long posts again - I have to start a 25-page seminar paper this weekend and will be (thankfully) sequestered with that for some time.

<Ida has written an intelligent, well considered post that is thought-provoking. I do not wish to argue most points. >

..except this one.

Ross believes in evolution. That does not necessarily mean he is agnostic. There are millions of people who can reconcile the idea that evolution is the method by which God created the world, and I am one of them.

Claire Abraham wrote:

I believe that god created water, and sand..but the rest by evolution..just my belief..From the facts I've seen. ~Act

My Sunday School teacher, who doubled as the (primary) school Science teacher always argued: "God made the earth in seven days. Evolution took millions of years. Who's to say *how long* God's days actually are??". ;)

Jac

LOL, my pastor says that *now*. :)

Larissa

'God created man and man being a perfect gentleman returned the favor' - Inherit the Wind

You cant prove the existence of God through facts cause religion is based on faith not facts. If you ever did prove the existence of God through facts you'd destroy the universe. So quit trying to destroy the universe jacqui. =)

Me? I wasn't trying to do nothing, honest.

"...'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'. 'But what about the Babel fish... ' 'Oh', says God, 'I hadn't thought of that', and vanishes in a puff of logic. Man goes on and for an encore proves that black is white and gets killed on a zebra crossing."

Jac (not word for word as I lent the book to a friend, but that's the gist of it)

Claire Abraham wrote:

Had a friend some time ago who argued that if God allows us free will, then evolution is the ultimate in free will. Likewise, he contended that "God's image" is not the physical body but the creative, judging spirit -- note that the first thing in the Bible we hear of God doing is creating and judging the result. Such a spirit could reside in many physical forms.

I want to throw my support behind Activia in this one (for what that's worth). Not one show I've ever seen that lasted more than 3 years did so by remaining the same. Personally, when I watch Season 1 episodes now, although I was crazy about them when I saw them in first-run, I find some of them bordering on corny (Nana and the gang at Java Joe's - come on). I wish there was a little more depth to the current episodes, but, maybe since I am just a little younger than the characters, and have gone through the same sort of transitions as they have over the last 5.5 years, I still find the show very relatable, and I have high hopes that if the writers get just a little more focus (and grow up a smidge) the quality of the show can improve again greatly. By the way, my sister is very similar to Monica, and she tends to have boyfriends exactly like Chandler - guys who have a sense of humor about being the submissive one in the relationship - but you have to accept the quirks of people you love.

"Ida S." wrote:

Again, I'd like to clarify that I *never* said that things should have stayed the same. Am I crazy or am I the only one who read my initial post? :)

Chris

Chris wrote:

I read your initial post you said that they changed for the worst. But, I disagree..for one Chandler grew up and can commit now. I dont feel like going into all the characters...because I'm having da ja voo..or how ever u spell it. ~Act

Activia wrote:

Right. I did say *that* and I totally own up to it. That's not the same as saying "I never want things to change". And I said that there are *some* things that have changed for the worse. I never said *eveything*.

Chris

In article , Activia wrote:

I'd tell you it's spelt "d�j� vu", but I've answered this one before.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

Damn thats the closest I have ever gotten to the spelling of that!! maybe..just maybe my spelling is improving. ~Act

"Ida S." wrote:

Thankyou! ~Act

No one in this newsgroup lately has been criticizing the show because it doesn't "remain the same". That kind of critique popped up occasionally several years ago, but it is not a current criticism.

I can remember a few years ago constantly arguing that trying to recreate season 1 over and over again is not a good thing.

As a matter of fact, most of the critique around here is based on the fact that the show is *not* changing, not really. Variation 10 on "Ross goes out with someone who is not right for him, Rachel gets jealous and wrecks it, then turns a cold shoulder" is not my idea of change. I've been critiizing *because I want to see change*. These characters aren't really changing at all anymore. The last characters to change were Monica and Chandler.

James Squire wrote:

Everyone has been critizing the show on how Ross changed for ONE. For 2..all the characters have been changing..what you were saying wasnt changing was the story line between Ross and Rachael..THATS IT ~Act

Activia wrote:

The keyword in the above is the word "how". Yes, indeed, we have criticized *HOW* the characters have changed, *not* *THAT* they have changed. Unless I'm mistaken, you criticized people for wanting the characters to stay the same. That is not true.

I don't mean that none of the characters have ever changed. I mean that since Monica and Chandler came out of the closet as a couple, I don't see much of anything about any of the characters that has changed. I also should explain that for me, simply changing living arrangements or jobs does not count as change. I'm looking for changes in personality or attitude, and I haven't seen any. I do see a lot of "reruns" though, and not just in Ross and Rachel.

James Squire wrote:

I was commenting on HOW they changed..not just that they changed...and now your going back to how they HAVENT' changed this season..which I have also explained. ~Act

Activia wrote:

I was referring to one of your original posts on this thread in which you said:

"I know I cant believe the fans are being so critical of the show! People seem to be so scared of change..it even comes out here...Just because the characters are changing..doesnt mean that the quality of the show is going to go down!"

I am simply trying to point out that no one here is scared of change. No one here thinks the quality of the show is going to go down "just because the characters are changing".

When???? I have no idea what you are referring to here.

This was what I was referring too ~Act

Now you have me completely confused.

Referring to when? In your last message? Your last message referred to how *you* already explained this. Which leads to my next question:

Explained what? Why none of the characters has changed since TOW Everyone Finds Out? Or why you think I am wrong about that? Either way, I have seen no such explanation here. Please help me out.

James Squire wrote:

I have said in previous posts that the characters have changed this season.

I'm not sure...I'll have to look through like 10 of them or so lol

Spoiler Space just in case:

I'll repost it in a sec..let me look..after looking through 50 or so posts I found parts. 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. -which we see this season..she has never before spoken outwardly on what she "sees".

ok..I'll write the rest again..

First Chandler and Monica. Everyone has been commenting on how much they've changed this season so I dont need to go there. Pheobe I've explained above. Rachel has become closer to phoebe I think. Ross..everyone also been commenting left and right about how he has changed this season and last. Joey has learned an important lesson with his roomate Jeenen(dont know how to spell her name sorry) He gave up his relationship with her for his friends. ~Act -if you need further explanation on Ross Chandler or Monica..just ask.

Activia wrote:

I *know* that, I was asking for *how* you think they've changed, which you answered below.

By the way, I presume that we can agree that you were wrong originally in saying that people in this newsgroup are afraid of change? You'll note that I'm complaining because there hasn't been any real change, and you are disputing my assessment, claiming that there has been real change. Obviously we both are in favor of change, right?

Yeah... it doesn't strike me as much of a change though. But it's possible I haven't been paying close enough attention this year.

You mean going down hill? Actually I don't what has really changed about these two characters between this year and last year. They were having stupid fights last year too. And I'm not sure what you are referring to about "everyone has been commenting ..." I see people getting tired of them, but I don't see any real change being talked about.

At this point, I'd like to interject what Claire said. I didn't say it myself, which is my fault, but I guess what I'm really looking for is growth and maturity. How have Chandler and Monica grown and matured this season? I don't see it. The only change I see is that the stupid fights come more frequently now, which to me is not a real change in character.

Indeed, and it is possible that she has grown and matured a bit.

This I don't see at all. Just because they live together doesn't mean they have grown closer. Can you give me some examples.

Must have missed this too. You mean because he seems less depressed? I don't know about this, he's still acting stupid, he's just not getting into as much trouble over it. What are people saying about how Ross has changed this year over last?

Again, it didn't seem like that big a deal to me, but perhaps you are right on this one. It would represent a small amount of growth and maturity.

Of course, Joey tends to "grow" like this and then snap back into his original self again in the next episode. Seems to me he's grown like this a handful of times.

Yes they have because there's no continuing story with him.

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

James Squire wrote:

There was a post saying that they wished the charcters were the same they were in season one. That was what I was referring to about change.

Ok. I have some examples. They have matured especially chandler I'm not so sure about Monica though. Chandler has made a commitment by moving in. Maybe its not that much of an emotional commitment as some might think, but the season 4 and some of 5 chandler would never make this kind of commitment to a women. Also, I know I keep going back to this one but this is a very important quote to me because it has a lot of dynamics and different ways to interpret what it means. TOW the joke when Chandler says that he loves maintaining Monica. This to me shows growth in that he has experenced great feelings towards her. Chandler in the past never outwardly spoke about the emotional feelings he had. TOW on thanksgiving (season 5)*forget the actual name of it* he blerts out that he loves her then denies that he said it because he is afraid to speak of his feelings. Yes, he finally does say it later in the season but that was nearly a stepping stone. This season I feel that he has expressed and said more of his feelings towars Monica.

Well I've explained Chandler but with Monica I would have to think about it. All I can say is it is the first lasting relationship that she has had and the most commited. I thought about it for a bit and it hit me. Tow when Chandler cleans the house for her and moves everything around. She doesnt freak out! Which is surprising for Monica. She has grown through this that she can let some things go..She isnt as obsessive compulsive. This is ONE example I'm sure there are others. If I went through more episodes I could pick them out for you if you want.

Ok the one we say last night TOW the Unagi, Tow where Pheobe runs is important to show the relationship between the 2 because when Rachel runs like Phoebe she actual begins to understand Pheobe a little *which is scary* unlike most of the other friends. As Chandler said in the TOW the porn video "and even Pheobe who has always been much of a question mark" Would you like more examples?

Well I was referring to that he has been freaking out or seeming and being insane-like. I would have to look at Ross closer though. I think Ross is just having a bad time in his life right now which happens to some people.

I havent seen him "snap back" this season. Unless you have a specific example.

~Act

Activia wrote:

One post provoked you to say, "why are people (plural!) so afraid of change?" ??? Trust me, most of the people who truly wish things to be like they were in season 1 don't post here anymore. They used to, and this used to be a major complaint back and forth. But not anymore AKAIK.

Personally, I think if he was truly committed to Monica he would not have moved in with her, but I suppose that's another conversation ;-)

I suppose it does show some semblance of commitment, although I think it might be negligible (though I must admit I do not speak from experience). I think we were seeing such commitment last year. Let's remember that moving in meant forcing Rachel out. Maybe that's why it took so long. I kinda think there was a bigger change last year than this year. Not only that, but "moving in together" is kind of automatic for these people, something that is just done as SOP. It really doesn't strike me as a huge step.

But then, that's the problem with a relationship that is built ass-backwards. As is typical on this show, they started out with nothing more than the one component which is most in need of the protection of a strong commitment. Ever since then, they have been scrambling trying to build that protection haphazardly.

Perhaps. Actions speak louder than words, though.

But she was less obsessive compulsive last year. If anyone has learned not to freak out about this relationship between last year and this year it would be Chandler, not Monica. She has always calmed him down about stuff like this. This is a change that happened last year, not this year.

Yes, frankly, that one doesn't do much for me. Of course, the part that really didn't work for me was the idea that it was actually more fun to run the way Phoebe was running. It *may* be fun to run that way at the age of 3 (even then, I'm not so sure), but frankly, I approve of Rachel's initial reaction on this one. Only in PheobeLand could running that way be considered fun.

Who knows, maybe getting to know Pheobe is actually a way to devolve rather than mature ;-)

Exactly, which means he hasn't changed from last year, it's just that less stuff is happening to him to provoke outbursts.

I'd have to look for some, and I'm way too busy right now to do so ;-) What I'm basing my comment on is that I can't think of a single episode in which Joey doesn't eminantly show his stupidity and/or his lack of ethics in relationships, other than those rare exceptions. Joey's the kind of character that you learn not to expect much from, and if he sticks pretty much to character while the other 5 are being dragged down, Joey can actually be the favorite character, especially if there's a few touching moments thrown in. He's sort of like Frank Burns from M*A*S*H, except that Joey is a lot more likable and a lot less cartoonish.

James Squire wrote:

I THOUGHT there was more then one.

I havent been here that long dont forget.

I'd have to strongly disagree with you on this one. Actually concidentatally that topic came up today in class. Moving in is a way to see your "mate" in situations you dont usually see them in and they wont be "polite" like they would when they are dating. Also it is the first time you start to share things with your partner, chores, bills, buying new things. I really wish the writers would put more of these aspects of them moving in together on the show, but I must insist that this is still important. A lot of people do move in together before getting married because its not quite as big of a commitment but yet more of getting to know the " real them" better. When people go strait from dating to divorce there is usually problems. I'm speaking from expierence on this one. I have seen many move in together first(including family). I'm not sure where you are from but maybe other countries dont do this as much. Also some people have strong values against moving in together first.

Why do you say it is an automatic for "these people"???? We have NEVER seen any of the characters move in with their bf or gf before. There is a difference between being roomates and living together.

I"m not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that the only reason why they got together is so they could have a strong commitement? If you are I would have to strongly disagree again. Tell me if you are..

Its more then her not being obsessive compulsive its her feelings towards chandler and her obsessive compulsiviness, also this season I havent seen her being extremely competitive.

That's not the point. The point is that Rachel started to begin to understand Pheobe

Rachel thought it was fun once she started running like that.

The season isnt over yet.. I've seen less development in Ross then the other characters.

That's just Joey, its his brain more thats the problem in this case. LOL But he has matured more.

~Act

Activia wrote:

OK.

That's why I said, "trust me".

As I just stated in the latest survey, I'm from the good old USA. I know plenty of people who did it the old fashioned way and are doing just fine. I also know people who started out living together and have gotten divorced shortly after getting married.

Excuse this interruption, but this takes the cake: Jennifer Anniston appears in an episode of South Park???????????????

Now back to our regularly scheduled debate...

The point is that a true commitment can allow two people to learn all these things after they are married, because two people who are truly committed to each other can handle just about any bump in the road that comes along.

I understand where you are coming from, but I must ask, exactly what commitment have Monica and Chandler made with each other? I've heard a stray promise or two here and there, but nothing much that sounds like a commitment. Yet they are living together, sharing the same living space requiring some sort of commitment somewhere, as you pointed out. I don't see any commitment at all. I see two people flying by the seat of their pants, being artifically kept clear of any real calamity by reality-impaired writers.

You could say that ;-) But I'm trying not to just blindly appeal to them. I'm trying to make a case for them. Sure, Monica and Chandler could conceivably succeed and even be the better for having rehearsed the marriage first, but I truly think it is a dangerous proposition. They like Ross and Rachel have put the cart before the horse, giving their bodies to each other. In real life, one reason why a Ross and Rachel have such trouble moving on with their lives is because their sexual union lingers on as a reminder of the relationship each of them is trying to escape. Rachel's possessivness makes even less sense without this understanding. In a very real way, she has "had" his body (because he gave it to her). No wonder she really doesn't want anyone else to have it, while she leaves it up to ... what? fate? luck? that someday she can have it again.

If you are about to point out that she doesn't always sabotage his dates, I would respond by saying that she only fails to do this when she is sure there is little chance anything serious will develop, and you may remember from TOW Two Parts (116 & 117) that to Rachel, "serious" means "sleeping together".

Anyway, in real life, there is little to stop the same thing from happening to Monica and Chandler. They might well be a more stable couple than Ross and Rachel, but it is still a real possibility.

Maybe that was a poor choice of words on my part. I agree it has never happened, and significantly it did not happen with Ross and Rachel, one of whom was thinking 5 years down the road and the other who refused to think past Saturday night. Chandler and Monica do seem like a more stable couple in that regard.

What I meant was that for these people, jumping in the sack together is SOP, and as far as I'm concerned that is an even more serious step than simply moving in together.

I mean back in London with all the boffing. That's what I mean by putting the cart before the horse. Not that it's ever going to matter ;-) but personally, I am not the least bit interested in giving my body to a member of the opposite sex until I am already party to a mutual, life long commitment with that person.

Maybe. I dunno ...

My point is that such understanding in this cae doesn't impress me much. I'm from Missouri, the "Show Me" state. I need to see more than that

Ok, I guess I walked into that one ;-) I still don't get it though.

I dunno, it's still an open question for me.

James Squire wrote:

Those are more exceptions then rules. I should go find soem statistics about this.

So how does this prove anything? Or go against what I was saying?

Now you are critizing the writers. The fact of hte matter is we dont see those scenes when they are discussing bills, ect. what I mentioned before this doesnt mean that they arent happening.

How does this have to do with the commitment issue?

This is another issue to whether Ross and Rachel still want to be together, has nothing to do with the commitment issue that I can see.

I didnt say that they COULDNT break up just if htey did it would be more serious because they are at a higher commiment level then Ross and rachel were so it would affect their characters greater and their whole group. Because quite frankly any couple could break up over something.

How does this have to do with the issue that we are debating?

~Act

Activia wrote:

I'm not sure where you are going to find statistics on this.

By advocating for living together first, you are saying that waiting until marriage to live together will not work. I am disputing that.

Have it your way. The fact remains that if these two have actually made a commitment to each other, the writers have a responsibility to show us *some* evidence that this has happened. So far, I don't see it. I don't believe it happened off screen either.

Ross and Rachel never made a commitment to each other either, they just obeyed their animal instincts and jumped into the sack. Later on, Ross asked Rachel for a commitment (using questionable timing and selfish motives but nevertheless for understandable reasons) and Rachel said "Let's take a break." Then Ross, properly inebriated and depressed, gave his body away to the Copy Girl who had absolutely no appreciation for the havoc she was causing. Ever since then, Ross and Rachel have always had something between them. They can't do without each other, but they can't seem to get it together either.

And all because there was no thought of actually making a mutual commitment.

I never said you said they couldn't break up. Moreover, when you say, "if they did it would be more serious because they are at a higher commitment level", you are actually agreeing with me because Chandler and Monica don't seem to be aware of that serious commitment level they are at: they haven't actually made such a serious commitment to each other.

I answered this above.

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, James Squire doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

I have to argue with this here, even though I *think* you're using reverse psychology or something strange like that. :)

They *did* make at least an emotional commitment to one another. They just didn't make the *ultimate* commitment, the legal one where they stood up in front of everyone and said that they wanted to be together forever. (Well, actually they did, but it was probably in front of Elvis. :))

A popular theory is that Ross may have been planning to ask Rachel to marry him the night of the 'break', and that was possibly part of the reason why he got so depressed. In my own 'shippy world, I like to think of it like that. :D

Tina Nellis wrote:

No, not really. Not that I'm aware of anyway.

Perhaps, but when exactly? I guess I am not much interested in unspoken commitments here, and perhaps I should have said that. And while I'm ultimately talking about the ultimate commitment as you mention, for starters at least I'd settle for just a spoken commitment between the two of them. And I find it extremely hard to believe that such an exchange would be relegated to off-camera action.

Never thought of that, it certainly is possible, and you are right it would explain his depression, though it still wouldn't excuse what he did during it. Actually, I've never heard this theory before, where did you hear it from? Just curious.

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, James Squire doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

All over the place - fanfics, past speculation, etc. I'm surprised you've *not* heard it, actually.

James Squire wrote:

I'm sure they are out there.

No I'm not saing that it will never work meerly that it they are better off living together first. They have a better chance of staying together because they see what its like to be with that person ALL of the time before t hey make the full commitment. And you dont know EVERYTHING about the other person or what they are like when they first wake up or how they are paying bills..this can make life miserable if you strongly disagree on a key point.

You cant REALLY say that though because you have never seen them pay bills ect. because that would be boring.. I think they could have some interesting plots with it between the 2 but they havent chosen to show us YET.

I still dont get how this pertains.

how do u know this? I need some proof.

It looks more like your beliefs then an argument for the debate. ~Act

Activia wrote:

I haven't seen a lot of people who move in together and who have a lot of problems with their relationship actually break up because of this. They just go on and on in their misery and most amazing of all, some end up getting married, anyway! Their excuse: they "love" each other, in spite of the hell they live in. The "moving in" experience doesn't serve to open peoples' eyes often enough.

A couple more points. After people move in together, a lot of the incentive to get married can be lost. Take C & M, for an example. I don't know whether they would ever want to get married due to their current situation (if this were actually real life and not a sit-com). I think Chandler's fear of commitment is the reason he wanted to move in with Monica without the legalities. When it comes right down to it, there's no real commitment required to move in together.

The second point is, with living together, a lot of the pre-marriage romance is lost. People who opt to stop the dating experience in favor of the live-in experience lose that special romantic time together, of actually "courting each other". Pre-marriage is a special time for romance. It builds a stronger marriage later. I'm not saying that moving in together in advance of marriage means automatic failure. But it isn't conducive (sp.) to a solid marriage, either.

I don't know why seeing them paying bills would show they have made a commitment to each other.

Act, I know I'll probably fail to change your opinion (which is also widely held by many other people). But maybe I've given you some things to think about. :)

Laurie

The only thing it makes me think about is how stupid all of this is.... The IS an Emotional commitment between Chandler and Monica, there was also one with Ross and Rachel! I've heard someone say that there was one with Ross and Rachel, but not with C&M, Nuh-uh not true.

Oh, and Moving in is some kind of commitment.... It's hell to move things.. and CHandler hates Packing :)

~Ashley* Shut up! All of you just shut up!"

Activia wrote:

OK, sorry for misrepresenting your position...

However, my point remains, because what I meant to dispute was your assertion that "they have a better chance of staying together" if they "live together first".

I'm sorry Activia, but if you are right this is a *really* depressing view of relationships. What kind of commitment is it really, if you have to see every last detail, behavior, etc., of the other person before you will commit to them? You make marriage sound like a requisition or a procurement.

I'm saying a "true" commitment can withstand whatever surprises come down the road. And the only "true" commitment I know of in the context we are talking about is the one two people are called upon to make when they get married. It's called giving yourself to another, and accepting that other, warts and all. It just seems to me that if you insist on studying the other person thoroughly first, there really isn't any committing going on. You *may* very well end up with happily ever after, and if so, more power to you. But I do not recommend the approach.

I am *not* talking about seeing them pay the bills. I am talking about them making a verbal commitment to each other. As I said in another post in this thread, I find it very difficult to believe that such a moment would be relegated to off-screen action.

I don't know how I can make it any plainer. We are talking about why is it better to "live together" first, which certainly is going to include sharing the same bed. The fact that Ross and Rachel never actually "moved in together" on a long term basis is irrelevant. According to Ross' count, they "moved in together" 269 separate times, and according to Rachel's wishes in TOW Old Yeller Dies, it could be said that they took your advice. You are about to point out: "See what I mean? They tried it out first, and found out it wouldn't work, so they didn't get married. I'm right!" First of all, I still believe they are meant for each other. Second of all, my point is that neither one of them is able to get on with their lives and put this "living together" behind them. If they had thought first about the idea of making a real commitment to each other, *before* trying it on for size, they might actually have never broken up but instead might be headed for marriage. As it is now, neither one of them shows any potential for marriage, except with each other. And I don't think you can just chalk this up to the whims of the writers. Yes, the writers are in control of the characters, but that is true of every piece of fictional entertainment we ever partake of. And yet, we judge a good portion of it to be realistic and believable. I ask you, is there anything particularly manipulative on the part of the writers to account for Rachel's possessiveness of Ross? I find it entirely natural.

Obviously I have no such proof, but do you honestly think these writers would just presume that Monica and Chandler have made a commitment to each other and keep that hidden from us indefinitely? If so, it must not be very important for them, which amounts to asking, "why *should* they ever make a commitment to each other? Why can't they just play house and have fun with it?" To me such a question comes from people living in fantasyland, and I presume that the Friends writers do live in the real world.

Activia, I have done nothing *but* argue for the debate here. Not once have I said, "I believe thus and so, therefore it is true and I am right and you are wrong."

Am I arguing for what I believe? *Of course!* So are you. I even admitted it. There's nothing wrong with that, not for you nor for me.

Ross and Rachel, and Chandler and Monica... Lets see... lets say they are together at the same time..

Both very in love Both extremely commited Both very cute Both pretty much the same.

But see Chandler had a reason with the whole Richard jealousy thing. He knew he could NEVER live up to him.

CHANDLER:"I was there... I know he's the love of your life."

Even though it was pretty irrational for him to think that. It was even more irrational for Ross to think that Rachel would leave him, her first ACTUALY love, for a guy she just met. Both couples are/were both very very in love. (I'm a softy when it comes to romance)

~Ashley*

Moron Cow wrote:

Good insight! I hadn't thought of that one. It does give us R&R fans something to think about.

Here's a word that may clarify the situation. The characters haven't *grown* or *matured*.

Claire Abraham wrote:

That does sound more to the point. Thanks Claire.

Well, thats not possible. They are gonna keep playing Ping-Pong with Ross and Rachel. And there are some people who like everything (Like me) and people who just can't like anything (No example)

~Ashley* Ping! Ping! Pong! Ping! Ow!

Moron Cow wrote:

I meant more of one episode accomidate one group and another accomidate another group...or by seasons....but I'm like you I like them all :o) ~Act

I swea, some of you peeps just steal the words right out of my mouth! And CHandler winding down is good for Matthew Perry's film career. He is able to step out of Chandler's shadow this way, and someone's financial income is more important than our entertainment :)

~Ashley* "God, these burritos taste Like crap! .... that's kinda redundant isn't it?"

Also when the characters change..they change in more then one way at once..so it can open new doors to see more of the characters different dynamics. ~Act

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:31:34 -0500, Activia wrote:

I agree! All the characters have changed, but I think it's particularly great that Chandler has changed. Putting him together with Monica was a great thing to do, because that has added so much to both characters.

~Ariel

Ariel wrote:

It's definitely added some depth to Chandler but I don't think it's done squat for Monica besides make her cartoonish and on numerous occassions, very irritating.

Chris

Chris wrote:

Cartoonish?? I know a lot of people JUST like Monica! ~Act

Activia wrote:

I've never met any girl who acts the way she has in the past season and a half. But if you do you have my sympathies. :)

Chris

Chris wrote:

Another thing...why would any (major) fan of R & R like what is happening to the show now? C & M fans would have a fit if the same thing was done to their favorite couple. I personally don't enjoy the way we get toyed with.

Laurie

Laurie wrote:

I'm not going to lie and say that has nothing to do with my criticisms, it certainly does, but it's not the only, or even the main reason for my criticisms.

Chris

Chris wrote:

Same goes for me. ~Act

Laurie wrote:

Toyed with? Clarify.. we were having a discussion. ~Act

Exactly. The only thing that keeps me going is spoilers which make their situation sound good (and then turn out to be FALSE...no hard feelings!) and the hope that they will eventually get back together and the episodes we get to see them together in after that will be worthwhile.

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

In article , [email] (Adriana loves Matt) wrote:

Could these dashed expectations be one reason why some are disillusioned?

Tennant

Of course, but they are definetely not the only reason. I kept away from spoilers for a while (not for *too* long because it's really hard) and I was still disappointed with what the writers did to them.

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 agree with that too. Monica has become very annoying. The way I see it, when you're watching a rerun, if you think you prefer the character that way than now, there might be a problem. I really never felt that way with Ross when everyone here did, I knew it was something that was at least explained by his problems and would grow out of partially. Monica just seems to be getting worse though.

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

In article , [email] (Adriana loves Matt) wrote:

I agree with this - the others have stayed the same or matured or suffered, but Monica is just not the same person any more. She doesn't seem to be so bad in S6, but when I see a rerun from S1-4 she was just *so* wonderful.

I have a theory that this is due to the improvement in CCA's eyesight, but those who visit the set tell me that this can't be so - in fact it's all an attempt by the producers to make the character more likeable...

Tennant :(

I completly and tottally agree!!!! I love them together!!! ~Act

Change can be good. I mean, look at Rachel. She has changed A LOT from season one, and is my favorite character (well, tied for favorite with Joey..but the poor guy never gets a plot!).

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

In article , [email] (Adriana loves Matt) wrote:

Do you mean that he has never had a storyline that stretched over a number of episodes? What do you regard as the minimum amount - two?

Tennant

Sorry I wasn't specific. I meant that Matt, who IMHO has done some of the best work on the show over the last two years, never gets much of a story, he's usually just there for one liners regarding the other characters plots. I mean, yeah, he got a job and got the gang to Vegas, but that was quickly dropped. Same goes for his last girlfriend (although I was glad they didn't keep Elle!). I just think we should get to see more of him.

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

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:20:48 -0500, Activia wrote:

Exactly! It wouldn't be normal if the characters had stayed the same way all the time. People say they miss the characters from the first season so much, but it would have been weird to have them all like that again. it's inevitable that the show changes after so many seasons. I say: Go for season 7. Don't stop now! :)

~Ariel

Monica: Fine! Judge all you want to but, (points to Ross) married a lesbian, (points to Rachel) left a man at the altar, (points to Phoebe) fell in love with a gay ice dancer, (points to Joey) threw a girl's wooden leg in a fire, (points to Chandler) livin' in a box!!

Not only would it not be "normal" but it would be boring! Change is what makes life exciting..and also makes TV and the movies exciting...so its time to look ahead instead of keeping your nose in the past! Look forward to the future of the show..and what it can become.. ~Act

OK, so it is only a sit-com after all, but don't you just think of them as friends any way? I know that we are happy just to have any old episode on as background TV while preparing dinner etc, and the new episodes are a special treat. It does need to go at least one extra series, if not for the simple fact that things do need to be finished off well. The thing that I would love to see is for Joey and Phoebe to get together - she has always had a soft spot for him and wouldn't it be nice to see? Why not pair them all off - at least it will be one way to end it all off - not very realistic, but don't we all live in the real world, so why would we want to watch the real world on TV??!

In article , [email] (Ariel ) wrote:

Exactly so Ariel - the negative attitude (of some) surprises me too.

Dare I suggest that *some* fans are�so emotionally wrapped in R&R that they would prefer the show ended, rather than that their agony be prolonged?

BTW, I'm not saying that I believe that that's so, but that does not mean that that suggestion is not true - he said Phoebishly. :)

Tennant

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:37:49 GMT, Tennant Stuart wrote:

Hehe... I think you've got a point there, Tennant!

~Ariel

Monica: Fine! Judge all you want to but, (points to Ross) married a lesbian, (points to Rachel) left a man at the altar, (points to Phoebe) fell in love with a gay ice dancer, (points to Joey) threw a girl's wooden leg in a fire, (points to Chandler) livin' in a box!!

What some people fail to appreciate is that these two characters have been on the same treadmill for the past 3 or 4 years. Their storylines together show little originality if any. Furthermore, the writers have prevented these two from ever reconciling totally by artificially throwing odd roadblocks in front of them.

Now, the writers have every right to write the characters they want to write. If they wanted to have a Ross and Rachel that are no good for each other, just do not belong together, and don't realize it, there's nothing wrong with that. And I suppose they've done at least a half-assed job at this, but that's not saying much. In the world of movies, this one's no more than 2 stars out of 4. The whole problem is that Ross and Rachel *aren't* wrong for each other. What we have here is a case where the writers do not know their own characters very well.

And that has been the basis for most of the critique around here, not emotional attachment or fear of change.

Nor does that mean that it is false ;-)

I would like Kauffman and Crane to return to write, but not the finale, just write in general.

it's good that we can be able to discuss the show in a proper

That's how I felt about the cast being criticizes for rumors about their demanding more money without knowing why. We have no right to judge until we know details as far as their negotiations are concerned.

And all this talk about the show ending after this season... I really

Thank you!! I advocate for one more season though. I think that would be perfect to wrap up everything nicely. As a Ross and Rachel fan from the very beginning, I've wanted the writers to get them together again so we can watch them, it's not really a matter of will they get back together ever because I feel they will at the very end, I would just like it to be sooner than then. Anyway, I went a little off here. Since I want one more season, I want them to at least start showing signs of them getting back together this year so that next year they can take it slow. I agree that it can't be resolved in what's left of this season. I wouldn't it want it to be either. And plus, I'm still hoping to see the day that Matt gets a good plotline. =)

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

In article , [email]

They wrote episode 616.

Tennant

I'm aware of that Tennant, but how much have the written in the past few seasons?? (and not just the major episodes like hour specials).

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

In article , [email]

208 TOW the List 306 TOW the Flashback 316 TOT Morning After 503 TOW the Triplets

Quantity - not much.

Quality - speaks for itself.

OTOH - they broke Ross & Rachel up, got Ross & Phoebe horizontal, then broke Ross & Rachel up again - does this say something to anyone? ;)

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

I thought of something..can I ask you a huge favor? ~Act

In article , Activia wrote:

depends...

Tennant

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Nope, not a great deal. Because the writers who get the credit for an episode basically depends on whose name gets drawn out of a hat (they *all* write them together, basically), if they liked Ross and Phoebe more than Ross and Rachel, they would have kept them going longer. As it is, the R&R episodes you mention were part of an ongoing plot (however rickity it is these days), where the R&P part of the one you're talking about was a cheap ratings stunt that was over in two minutes and never discussed again.

And besides, I think Monica and Joey would make a *MUCH* better couple than Ross and Phoebe, if we're going to go down the route of unusual couples.

Tina Nellis wrote:

I don't know. As ironic as this sounds, I've always thought that Ross and Phoebe had this cute little connection because they are so different.

Chris

In article , Chris wrote:

I reckon that if you look below the surface, Ross & Phoebe are rather similar, and would make a cute couple. Maybe even Rachel & Joey.

Tina will now strongly disagree with this heresy... :)

Tennant

In article , Tina Nellis wrote:

This isn't what I was suggesting actually - those episodes (209/306/316) credited (see, I take your point) to Kauffman & Crane suggest that they are not R&R fans. This might explain a great deal.

Tennant

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Well, if they weren't R&R fans, they wouldn't have created them in the first place, would they? If they're not R&R fans, it's their own damn fault.

In article , Tina Nellis wrote:

LOL! Tina, you crack me up!

(Tennant recovers, does a quick backpedal, and then) That's a good point Tina, but what if K&C *aren't* R&R fans, and it *is* their own damn fault?

Tennant

I think they probably all used to be R&R fans, and just got sick of them. I mean, think about it - if you were working more than anyone should ever have to work, and spent like 80 hours per week on R&R, you'd get sick of them too.

Larissa

Tina getting sick of R&R??? =)

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

Tina?? Never...

~Ashley* "It is as BAD as it seems and they ARE out to get you."

Sorry, that "you" should have been referring to the average person. You're right, it doesn't fit Tina. :)

Larissa

In article ,

IMHO, Tina is rather more sensible about R&R than some C&M fans I've had the misfortune to come across...

Tennant

our referring to me, aren't you? :)

~Ashley* "Chicken anyone?"

In article , [email] (Moron Cow) wrote:

Not in the slightest Ashley - there are C&M fans far worse than you, or I, or anyone else on ATF, and Tina knows who I'm talking about. These people are so rabid that they give nice C&M fans like ourselves a bad name. Mind you, it is *very* interesting that you should assume that it was you... :)

Tennant

Well, most people find me totaly crazy, insane and bitchy! :)

~Ashley* "What's it doing!?!? Why is it making the wacy motions!!! Turn it off!!!!"

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Tennant Stuart doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

I'm rather more sensible about R&R than some *R&R* fans I've had the misfortune to come across... :)

<snip>

Whoa, whoa, whoa! You obviously listened a little to closely to Lee's and my random banterings... :) The hat thing happened *once* that we know of, and that was to see who got the "story by" credit, not the "written by" credit.

Larissa

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, PeachLilli doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Yeah, but they all still basically write them together, don't they?

Normally (unless they're in a huge time crunch), one or two writers will write the table draft of an episode together, and they get the "written by" credit. Then they take it to the main writers' room where they have a few table reads and everyone revises it.

Larissa

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, PeachLilli doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Yes, see Tennant - it's not like fanfic, where one person writes it and takes whole credit for writing something (unless they have beta readers, in which case the beta readers get credited as well). :)

Back to the original point - I believe they plan out a season in advance (actually, no, I've *heard* they do that, I don't know whether I actually believe it going on this season :)), so the R&R breakup was planned from the beginning of S3. They just so happened to coincide with sweeps, which is why I think they had Kauffman and Crane write those particular episodes.

In article , Tina Nellis wrote:

Well *I've* said this, because Chandler talks about the girl at the Xerox place in the first episode of Season Three, but people tell me that that's not so, it was just a throwaway line. Interestingly, Chloe is not the only woman that he refers to. The full quote is :

"You know when you're in bed, with a woman. And, ah, you know, you're fooling around with her. And you get all these like, mental images in your brain, you know, like Elle Macpherson, or that girl at the Xerox place."

(Chandler - 301 TOW the Princess Leia Fantasy)

Tennant

In article , [email] (PeachLilli) wrote:

Which episode, Larissa?

Tennant

Sorry, I was told not to say. :(

Larissa

My point exactly.

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