Did you guys here that Matthew has a cameo in "The Kid" with Bruce Willis? I thought I overheard it on ET or Access Hollywood. I was in the kitchen when it was on, but didn' hear all of it. I saw Matthew at Bruce's premiere, and could have sworn the voice-over of the reporter said that he had a cameo in the movie. Can anyone else verify this?
If this is true, talk about friendship. I also heard that Bruce might want to repeat his role as Paul for next season. The only thing I can see with that is Paul trying to woo back Rachel with his restored confidence and taking the time to pummel Ross into a bloody pulp for dumping his daughter.
Maybe Elizabeth will report Ross to NYU next season. Then, he'll lose his job (potentially) and need a roommate to help pay rent. Since Joey has a job now and doesn't need help, Rachel volunteers to move in with him (thus starting up the "Rachel Likes To Move" storyline that was dropped, then picked up). Sparks fly and Ross and Rachel are back together for good.
Teachers who date students get fired. What happens to students who date teachers? It only seems fair that students should get removed too. Elizabeth isn't mean spirited enough to do that anyway.
Or Phoebe moves in with him, because Rachel feels too uncomfortable moving in with Ross, and Joey doesnt mind, and Phoebe feels uncomfortable living ..
Season 6 Spoiler
with an engaged couple, so she moves in with Ross, Rachel gets jealous..
Why should he? Rachel did nothing wrong as far as Bloomingdales were concerned. He was probably delighted to give Rachel time off to go to Emily's wedding. If he had fired her because Ross said "Rachel" in his vows, then the store would face a charge of unfair dismissal. If there maybe was any bad feeling, then that could be partly why Rachel left.
How about the flirting? Or the binge drinking? Or would her coffee and bagel retrieving capabilities save her job? He certainly would be delighted to give her time off, but that has little to do with this. It isn't hard to find reasons to fire someone, and Rachel has shown herself to be far from perfect in the workplace. A few complaints from "customers", a lack of sales, a bad attitude, general incompetence or a plain old "Sorry, you don't work here anymore". A boss that is out to get you will find a way to get you in no time at all.
Where in the text does it show that Mr.Waltham was concerned about Rachel's professional relationship with Joshua Bergin? All that we may suppose is that he was pleased by all the return business she gained from a wealthy customer. Joanna was so impressed with her that she fought to stop Rachel leaving.
Who was Rachel flirting with at Bloomingdales in Season 5?
In which episodes did Rachel binge drink at the store?
What evidence have you that Rachel showed herself to be far from perfect in the workplace?
I never mentioned Joshua. He is irrelevant. As is the impression she made on her deceased former boss.
TOW They’re Gonna PARTY! Joanna: That’s why I said all those things about your flirting and your drinking… Rachel: My drinking? Joanna: Oh, I must’ve said that after you left. Rachel: Said what? Exactly. Joanna: That you enjoyed the occasional drink…ing binge.
It's not true, but that is also irrelevant. It is what the hiring committee believes, and they would certainly tell other important management types about the interview. Joanna died before she could take back those remarks. As far as the higher ups at Bloomingdales knew, they had a drunken floozy in personal shopping.
Her time at Central Perk for starters.
TOW Ross's Teeth Rachel: Yeah, remember that thing I told you that happened yesterday? Well it didn’t happen. Kim: You didn’t cancel the fabric order from Taiwan? Rachel: Okay, two things didn’t happen. Remember I told you that someone made out with Ralph Lauren in the copy room? Well, it turns out that’s not true.
That is at a job she likes. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time, if the boss is looking for a reason to get rid of somebody, the boss will find a reason. Rachel seemed pretty concerned about her job when Joanna insinuated that she would fire Rachel if Chandler didn't call her back.
The same reason Ross lost his apartment and moved in with Chandler and Joey. Vindictive relatives.
No, you didn't mention Joshua, I was trying to be helpful.
Ah, I see what you're driving at. So how did she end up in Personal Shopping then? Why wasn't she fired straight away? Wouldn't Mr.Waltham have heard all this, and then had a chance to judge her for himself?
That hardly counts. She was very bad at a job she hated. Her record as a waitress might conceivably stopped her joining Bloomingdales, but it wouldn't have got her fired later on.
That is just it, *everybody* makes mistakes from time to time, but they don't get fired for it unless they make a lot of mistakes or one great big one. Maybe she made a mistake at Bloomingdales Personal Shopping although we haven't heard of one. As you say, Mr.Waltham might have seized on that as a reason to get rid of her, but then we come back to why should he?
But ROSS was the man who 'maltreated' Emily. He & Emily were going to live together in her cousin's apartment, but when that fell through, the cousin didn't want just Ross there. That wasn't particularly nice of the guy, but it wasn't vindictive. And on the basis of that, you're saying that Emily's uncle, who knew Rachel & must have liked her, would risk his own career by sacking her just because some strange man spoke her name at the wedding?
It's not reason enough on its own, just a starting point. It would probably put her on the bad employee list. (if there is such a thing)
Besides, being a drunken floozy might actually *help* sell clothes. ;) Like Hooters restaurants, but with "changing rooms".
That's why I only hinted at it. It shows that she only does her job when it is the job she wants. She didn't exactly like her job at personal shopping either.
I agree that Emily didn't like Rachel, but she's not her uncle.
Ross's attitude was different. He was right to be suspicious of Mark's motives, but wrong to mistrust Rachel (Carol is the reason for that).
I'm glad you've backed off from "vindictive". I agree Emily's relatives will have taken their cue from her, *except* for Mr.Waltham who knew Rachel for over a year, and was her boss for months before the wedding.
Ross is a stranger to Mr.Waltham. If my niece gets married, I shall have to get to know her husband, and should it all go wrong in the first 5 minutes, I shall take a dim view of him. If my niece marries my secretary's friend whom I've never met before, I'm not going to blame her for what he did, that's back to being vindictive.
Rachel wasn't a home wrecker! Even if Emily believed that, Mr.Waltham knew better. Joey had the bag on sale or return - when he hoped to keep it Rachel tried to charge him $350 for it. If you were a Bloomingdales employee, you'd find yourself in serious trouble for such unsubstantiated allegations. If you'd ever been a manager, you'd know that you don't fire people for no good reason, or your company will end up facing a lawsuit and it will be your own job that is on the line.
Daft as it sounds, that's the nearest you've come to a motive. :)
If the writers had wanted this to happen, then they could easily have written in a reason for Rachel to get fired, but they didn't. Her job was just a device for Rachel to meet a new man, and Ross to meet his wife. When Helen Baxendale couldn't continue with the part (take your pick from not getting on with the Six, falling pregnant, or something else) then they wrote out Emily's marriage to Ross.
Rachel could do with learning a few important lessons, but there was no foundation laid for any of them here.
She wouldn't go back to being a waitress, she'd go somewhere else in the industry. Even if nowhere else would have her, there's always Fortunata Fashions. If things were as bad as you say at Bloomingdales (and they were not) she'd have gone to Ralph Lauren earlier. Whatever farrago of lies & deceit you keep trying to concoct for Rachel, the fact remains that she was very good at her two jobs at Bloomingdales.
I totally disagree. It would do no good for Rachel to be punished for something she didn't do. That's not poetic justice, but arbitrary ill fortune. Rachel's crimes (to use too strong a word) were against Bonnie (plus Julie & Jill to a lesser extent) and Ross. That's where any just reckoning should come from.
That's why your whole scenario didn't happen. Been there, done that.
Emily didn't trust Ross and Rachel did nothing wrong. Ross didn't trust Rachel and Mark did nothing wrong. Both were paranoid about their partners fidelity. The difference is that Emily was right to be suspicious of Ross and Rachel. If anything, Emily would have *more* dislike to spill over onto Rachel than Ross did onto Mark.
Why does Mr. Waltham like Rachel? The only indication of this is when he trusted Rachel to take his niece to the opera. Instead, she sets her up with Ross. Look how that turned out. He is her boss, not her friend. Chandler learned the difference a long time ago.
Even if said secretary tried to go on your niece's honeymoon with that husband? I would trust the opinion of a family member over some woman who has worked under me for less than a year.
Sale or return? No, it was a demonstration of Rachel abusing her privileges at her job. Joey had no intention of keeping the clothes, or the bag originally. If Mr. Waltham overheard her saying to Joey "you're returning all of this stuff right after the audition" he might get upset. You apparently missed my reference to her plans for Christmas gifts in TOW Chandler in a Box.
It's an ulterior motive then, good for a laugh. Only the moronic ideas make it through. Classic Friends.
I believe they should have done this, and I don't care about what Rachel's job was originally intended to be used for or why Helen Baxendale left the show.
Rachel has a guaranteed job at Central Perk at all times. If she really needed money, she could always work there. ($2000+ in credit card bills to pay off)
Fortunata Fashions would just *happen* to have a position open. (Rachel didn't like working *there* either) 1 year of experience as Joanna's assistant isn't good enough qualifications to find a job instantaneously. Although, Rachel *could* track down Mark for help with her job search. (wouldn't that be fun)
The Ralph Lauren job was not available at the time.
It is not a farrago of lies & deceit, And if it is, since when has this been out of place on the show?
She worked as Joanna's assistant for approximately 1 year before they decided that her job was so unimportant that they didn't need her entire department. During her time at this job she had no problems with stealing "plug-in telephone headsets" from the office. We have already established how good Rachel is at jobs she dislikes. Rachel would have quit personal shopping if not for Joshua. (and the employee discount no doubt) Afterwards, she had other things on her mind.
This isn't some massive judgement on Rachel, it's a blow to her pride and a minor annoyance. Losing her job original job at Bloomingdales was ill fortune, losing her chance to help old ladies try on thongs would only annoy her.
Bonnie, Emily, Julie and Jill may be different people, but they all suffered from the same disease. Which victim administers the cure is not important. It would be bizarre and stupid to bring back Bonnie or Julie now. Much like the appearance of Richard in TOW The Proposal. Jill is not in the same league as the others, her "relationship" with Ross was an incredible sham and she hasn't been affected by Rachel nearly as much the other 3.
Like this show isn't repetitive. Joey worked at Central Perk this season, rehashing the bad service gag. R&R have been doing the same twisted dance for 3 seasons. Mondler is a bi-weekly occurrence.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Mislead doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
One vital thing: *Ross* asked *Rachel* to go on that trip, after he thought that all hope was lost and couldn't bear to waste a ticket. If Rachel had deliberately talked herself onto the trip, then maybe I'd feel differently, but the idea would probably not have even entered her head if Ross hadn't suggested it. (Having said that, though, she's as bad for accepting as he is for asking, however I would suspect she thought he was asking as a friend.)
I 100% agree with you. But Emily might see things differently. I don't blame her for accepting though, and I think she would have controlled her less than honourable urges in favour of being Ross's friend on the trip. Of course, there was only *one* bedroom at the hotel...
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Mislead doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
I don't doubt she would have.
Actually, the way they had her turn early S5, I was surprised she *didn't* try to get Rachel fired. That was one time that I thought Rachel really had it coming. (But that's just another example of the writers' blatant bias against Ross really, isn't it?)
Didn't say you did. :) I wonder how Ross explained it to her... lol Or if he told Emily how Rachel felt about him in TOW All The Kissing?
Tina, I could *hug* you. In fact, go find someone and ask that person to hug you, and tell them it was from me. (not some stranger on the street though, cause *that* would be strange)
Poor Ross, he deserves so much better.
The basic concept of my idea is sound right? It's pretty common...
Girl ruins woman's marriage. (from woman's POV) Woman is bitter and wants revenge. Woman uses family/friends/influence to hurt girl.
But I'm just a guy who thought it would be funny, (when Rachel changed jobs, the show lost something: Innocence?) appropriate, (she had it coming, and it's not a big deal either) and believeable. (moreso than some arcs we do see, or Ross & Phoebe;))
At the end of the that story we discovered that the boys were right about Mark's intentions - but yes, Ross should have trusted Rachel but he didn't. Anyway, this is irrelevant as well.
No they weren't! Maybe you're just exaggerating for effect again, Miss Lead, but paranoia is a mental disorder, not simple mistrust. And this is yet another irrelevancy you've dragged in.
You keep arguing in circles. We are discussing Mr.Waltham, not his niece.
Why does Mr.Waltham like Rachel? Are you female or are you gay? <jk>
In any case, as you say the fact that he trusted Rachel to take his niece to the opera shows that he liked her. And what was the result of this? Was Emily sold into white slavery? Was the girl found dead under the Brooklyn Bridge? Did she mistake Ross's heroin for cocaine and take an overdose? Did she & Ross hold up a liquor store and go on a crime rampage across America? Was she the perfect date until Ross made the mistake of letting her drink alcohol? No, she ended up in Vermont excited to see a deer just outside eating fruit from the orchard. This was not a date that went badly wrong as in so many movies. It was thanks to Rachel that Emily found love, and if anything Mr.Waltham took the credit for himself rather than blame Rachel. Even if the wedding went wrong later on, that was nobody's fault but Ross's - and it was *so* not grounds for a fair dismissal.
Oh come on, I can just imagine trying to explain to my CEO that I sacked my secretary because she accepted unwanted holiday tickets from a friend.
You are going round in circles again. Mr.Waltham knew Rachel enough to form his own opinion of her. He wouldn't have liked Ross, but he knew that Rachel was not at fault. If Emily had blamed Ross's sister for the d�b�cle, would Mr.Allesandro have fired Monica from the restaurant? No, of course not, that's how ridiculous you're being. And Mr.Waltham was so enamoured of his darling niece that he did *not* go to her wedding.
Even if you're right, there is no evidence that he did. You can't keep arguing both ends at once, Miss Lead. You have to find evidence in the text that Rachel committed crimes in the workplace worthy of dismissal, and that she was found out. There is no such evidence. On the other hand, you also try to argue that Rachel should have been dismissed on pure prejudice alone, but there's no reason for that either. Yet all along you are attempting to have your cake & eat it. Sorry, but no go.
Did I? Either I was glazing over with boredom at that point, or I skipped it to spare your blushes. I forget which now, go watch the episode again.
You're not a fan then, Miss Lead?
You might not care, but from what I hear on ATF, that's what happened. At the time that you're complaining about, the story was one of Ross & Emily's happiness, and discomfort for Rachel as she watched him slip away. Mr.Waltham was totally on board with this (we guess). It was only later that the storyline had to be changed to suit real life.
That was $2700 spread over 5 credit cards for a return ticket to London, plus who knows how much else. Do you know how much waitresses earn? Why return to a job she hates and was bad at? And in any case there would be no need, for she had a well-paid job at Bloomingdales.
Prove it from the text.
That is not true - go watch 408 "TOW Chandler in a Box" again.
She did quit Personal Shopping.
Irrelevant.
I'm not referring to any massive judgement, but to a punishment, which is what I assume you meant by "a well deserved kick in the ass".
I did say that Julie & Jill were affected to a lesser extent. Bonnie however was sorely hard done by, and an excellent story could be written wherein the woman teaches Rachel a valuable lesson about herself. I have suggested one on ATF myself, which was well received.
You know it's rather inconsistent of you to regard the return of Bonnie (in the show for only 3 episodes) as bizarre & stupid, yet describe the return of Rachel to being a waitress again (58 episodes) as comic gold.
So you *want* it to be repetitive?
The fact remains that your whole scenario didn't happen.
In the contrary, Joey was a much better waiter than Rachel was, that was the difference. And in any case it was only for a few episodes. You want to see Rachel back at Central Perk full-time.
Yawn. Let's just kill Rachel off and have done with it then, shall we?
Mark had no intention of asking Rachel out while she was with Ross. He was nothing but a friend before he did that. Like Ross in season 1. I was establishing similarities.
You know exactly what I meant, but if you're going to be nit picky about it: I never said that Ross or Emily was a paranoiac. I was not exaggerating. I said they were paranoid.
From the New World Dictionary of American English (Third College Edition)
Paranoid: 1. Of or *like* paranoia. 2. Characterized by *extreme suspiciousness*, grandiose delusions or delusions of persecution.
I'm sure there are dictionaries with definitions that are slightly different.
Emily's feelings towards Rachel are relevant to those of Mr. Waltham. Blood is thicker than the water cooler.
Mr. Waltham is apparently gay.
Who is exaggerating?
It was thanks to Rachel that Emily found love with a man who said the wrong name at the altar. I never said he should blame her. I never claimed this was grounds for a fair dismissal.
Mr. Waltham would have to be a complete idiot to explain the real reason behind it.
I ask again: Why does Mr. Waltham like Rachel? In TOW Ross's Teeth we learned that none of the Friends boss's like them. Why should he be any different? Gunther liked Rachel, but Mr. Waltham is apparently immune to that reason. Joanna liked her work, but didn't care about her feelings.
Mr. Allesandro isn't related to Emily. Mr. Waltham was so enamoured with his darling niece that he got her tickets to the opera and found someone to go with her, and then didn't go to the wedding. (bad writing)
Mr. Waltham's feelings towards Rachel would be neutral *at best* before Ross's little slip up in London.
I am not arguing from both ends. I do not have to find evidence in the text that Rachel committed crimes in the workplace worthy of dismissal. I am not arguing that Rachel should have been dismissed on pure prejudice alone. I do have to show that Rachel has done other things that would get her fired if caught. Which I have.
Glazing over with boredom? What a pity, I've been laughing at your posts.
I'm a fan, but have you seen TOW Joey's Hand Twin? Or TOW Ross and Joey Give Chandler the Freeze Out? Or TOW Carl? Or TOW Monica is not sick? Or TOW The Inappropriate Sister? Or TOW you take your pick of your least favorite dumbass plot? (I'm aware that some of the titles are wrong)
At the time I am talking about, Ross was telling Emily the marriage would not work if she wasn't going to trust him.
Rachel would return to that job for the same reason Monica started working at the 50's theme restaurant. Necessity. It wasn't all *that* bad anyway, she could talk all day with her friends and would never get fired. (whether she knows it or not) Waitresses earn enough to pay for all the dresses Rachel had in TOW No One's Ready. Besides, Friends is far from realistic when it comes to cash flow.
http://4.21.237.213/season6/624TOWtp.htm
I have more important things to spend my money on. Ross was being a wank, but he knows Rachel well enough to be right about where she would get the gift.
So you admit that she disliked the job.
No it is not. If Rachel had not been preoccupied with her feelings for Ross, she would have quit her job there.
It is hardly a punishment. It is a minor loss of dignity for the purpose of comic relief.
Bonnie seemed quite happy with her shaved head. She is a very sad person if she is still angry with Rachel for destroying her 2 week relationship.
I agreed with an edited Phoebe line that said she deserved a come-uppance, it was also "well received".
We seem to working from different angles.
4. Jill had one pathetic excuse for a date. 3. Bonnie lost a minor short term relationship and her hair. (which she liked) 2. Julie lost a fairly short, but still promising relationship. 1. Emily lost a husband.
Which of these women has the most reason to be angry at Rachel? Keep in mind that only Jill had a true grasp of her motives.
Most people who watch the show would say "Bonnie who?" Those same people should have picked up that Rachel was a waitress once, and didn't like it. After all, she had the job for 58 episodes.
Well, I think, I think, that Rachel has been in every episode of Friends so far. Perhaps you should utilize your amazing episode counting abilities and check. ;)
I'm saying it is normal behavior for the writing staff to repeat gags. Joey at Central Perk was funny, but nobody does it better than Rachel. Mondler is funny once in a blue moon while R&R have become "yawn" through overuse, as you say.
Joey was indeed a good waiter, giving free food to all the pretty girls, closing the coffee shop to go on auditions and not even bothering to tell Gunther he quit. He worked there for around 7 episodes. What do you mean by full time? She would still get the Ralph Lauren job when it became available in TOW Rachel's Inadvertent Kiss.
I hope not! Rachel is the 2nd most entertaining character on the show. If anyone should be killed off, it's Monica. That would rid us of the dullest/loudest character *and* destroy the horrid Mondler.
I know I'm going to regret asking this, but on what basis do you say that?
I was only exaggerating about what obviously didn't happen. Saying "I do not have $1 million" is as accurate as saying "I do not have $1 billion".
Because of her - but not her fault, and not her responsibility.
But you're still saying that you're surprised he didn't?
Fair enough, but grounds for an UNfair dismissal are what would stop Mr.Waltham even if he was tempted.
But he would be a fool to lie about it in court, and end up in jail.
Are the perjury laws in America as harsh as they are in Britain?
If you can prove that he's gay, then there goes a lot of the liking. :)
At that time, Rachel's boss was Kim Clozzi, and it was very obvious that she didn't like her, no room for debate there.
Mr.Waltham was earlier on. Joanna liked her too, possibly even too much.
There you go, another boss who liked her.
Apparently? How so?
Joanna propositioned her, half-jokingly.
That is precisely my point. A senior manager at Bloomingdales would be expected to behave in a professional manner, and put aside any familial relationships for the sake of the firm.
He didn't take her himself, but foisted her off on a stranger, and blaming the holes in your argument on bad writing won't wash, sorry.
There you go again, we've covered this ground already. If Mr.Waltham is going to be angry with anyone, (and I say "IF"), he would be angry with Ross not Rachel. It is a very childish reaction to lash out at all & sundry when you feel you've been wronged. The adult reaction is to *focus*.
Yes you are.
Yes you do.
That's all you have so far.
No you haven't.
Thanks, I've been trying hard to be entertaining. :)
So? You left out the hundreds of ideas in Friends that are not moronic which have made Friends the hugely popular show that it is today. For your thesis to succeed, you have to prove that every single idea in all 146 episodes so far was moronic. I seem to recall this is not so.
At this point the show had finished with Bloomingdales, next up Ralph Lauren. If the writers had wanted Rachel to get fired then they could easily have written in a reason for it to happen, but they didn't.
We saw Rachel setting off to work at CP with disgust in her heart.
None of this proves your thesis that Mr.Waltham should have fired Rachel because he was secretly in love with Joshua Bergen and the family made him do it anyway because she's a homewrecker, and a vile thief to boot.
Please quote the relevant passage.
It's hardly evidence is it? Ross suggesting during an argument that in his opinion Rachel might be planning to steal a plug-in telephone headset from the office to give to Chandler for Christmas is not the same thing as Rachel actually stealing a plug-in telephone headset from the office to give to Chandler for Christmas.
Not all. Rachel was moving on.
It is irrelevant to your thesis that Mr.Waltham should have fired Rachel because he was secretly in love with Joshua Bergen and the family made him do it anyway because she's a homewrecker, and a vile thief to boot.
I don't want to hurt Rachel. I like her. Because I like her I want her to improve. She needs to learn a valuable lesson about herself, and receiving her comeuppance at the hands of Bonnie would be an apt way to do it.
It's still irrelevant to your thesis that Mr.Waltham should have fired Rachel because he was secretly in love with Joshua and the family made him do it anyway because she's a homewrecker, and a vile thief to boot.
Nevertheless, it was the Bonnie Incident where Rachel was at her worst.
What is the relevance of this to your thesis?
So they won't say "oh no, not her again" if Bonnie returns.
In any case, this is totally irrelevant to your thesis.
So they will say "oh no, not that again" if Rachel returns to waitressing.
In any case, this is totally irrelevant to your thesis.
Don't need to. What is the relevance of this to your thesis?
I don't want the writing staff to repeat gags. I want Kauffman & Crane to take charge of the show again, bring back some of the great writers who have left, and make Seasons 7-16 the most brilliant 10 seasons ever seen.
I'm just saying that Joey was a much better waiter than Rachel was.
Oh sorry, I misunderstood you on that point. I thought you had a longer waitressing career in mind than episodes 507-516. She could coast that short length of time without returning to Central Perk. Monica & Chandler could easily support her while she looked for a new job.
Oh, so you like her! I'm *so* please to hear that. Who's your #1?
Monica was my favourite character in Seasons 1-5, and she was much better as Season 6 ended. Hopefully in Season 7 she'll return to her former glory.
He works in fashion. (Rachel made this joke in TOW The Hypnosis Tape) He admired Joshua's butt. (I don't know straight men who do this, do you?)
I know that isn't much to go on, but the guy was in 2 episodes and there isn't any contradicting evidence. The closest thing to an argument would be the *slim* chance that the cousin who was going to sublet to Ross & Emily is his child. Even that is weak since we already know of 2 gay characters in the show who have children.
Ya'think?
Right, but she was instrumental in the creation and destruction of their relationship. Neither would have happened without her exsistence. Emily would have been better off if she never met Rachel.
No, not blame, it would hurt his opionon of her though. Surely rid him of *any* miniscule liking he had for Rachel prior to that.
It's not grounds, it's motive. The less than perfect work record is method. The need for Rachel to get a comeuppance is a "artistic justification".
This would never make it to court.
I wouldn't know, I've never been in front of a judge.
Do you really believe people are never fired for personal reasons? It happens a hell of a lot more often than the groom saying the wrong name.
Exactly. If Rachel wasn't a babe, people would hate her. Terry, the other boss at Central Perk, was unaffected.
It was a pattern, the Friend's bosses don't like them. Where was Rachel spending her 11:30's on wednesdays when she worked at personal shopping in Bloomingdales?
Oh, please. Gunther is insanely infatuated with her...
...while Mr. Waltham would not be affected.
Even if Joanna had some bizarre sexual feelings for Rachel, she was a cold blooded woman and did not care about Rachel's emotions. She didn't care about firing her over Chandler not calling. Or about her feelings when Rachel was trying to get promoted.
If he is a senior manager, how would he know Rachel, a humble salesperson, well? How important is Rachel to Bloomingdales? Not very. As I already said, she was demoted to a menial job, one which does not require much amounts of talent. Mr. Waltham's superiors wouldn't care.
I wasn't blaming anything on bad writing. Merely pointing out its exsistence. A lot of people didn't go to that wedding. The attendance was much smaller than most I've been to. Flying to London is quite a trip, and since he is an important senior manager, he may have had to work.
Did I say angry? Did I say lash out? I see no reason to believe Mr. Waltham liked Rachel before the wedding. Nor do I believe he disliked her, she was simply another employee. You assume her femimine charms would do the trick, I disagree. Since he's gay. You also assume she is good at and likes her personal shopping job. She has been shown to dislike that job and to be a poor worker when she isn't fond of her profession. (like when she was a waitres)
No, I am not. You're not paying attention.
No I don't. Like you admitted, everybody makes mistakes. Most bosses overlook them. One who is williing to do a small favour for his family might not.
I have far more than that.
The headset. The bag. The non-canceled fabric order.
You fail, I am laughing *at* you. Your condescending tone, your failed attempts at humour, your style of posting and your ideas about Joey and Phoebe (& Ross). ;-)
I do not have to prove that, dumb ideas are quite common, Joey exsists to put them into action. As does Phoebe. Friends is a hugely popular show because of the beautiful people, wide variety in 6 characters and the easy to identify with age group.
You admit they could have easily found a way to get her fired. I have been arguing that this could have happened and been believeable, not that it should have happened in the Friends universe as we know it.
Better than nothing, she was being whiney anyway. Ideally, she would of grown more of a stomach.
I never claimed to have a thesis, that is your warped interpretation.
We are discussing a great many things. I am merely correcting the many, many, *many* things you are wrong about.
I did. Why should I fill USENET with that trash when you can easily read it there?
It was not during an argument. Perhaps you should watch the episode again.
It is *far* better than your defense. Ross and Rachel were funny when sniping at each other, partly because they didn't have to lie. They knew the truth about each other and exploited it for humor.
I disagree with your baseless assumption that she liked working there.
It's called defeating your argument before you have the chance to present it. If you can not see what I am defeating, that is your loss. It is part of the statement that Rachel disliked her job at personal shopping.
Bonnie is old news, a "dead" character so to speak. As is Emily now, and Julie for a *long* time. Jill is the future.
Which do you believe is funnier: Your co-worker slipping on a banana peel. OR Your boss slipping on a banana peel.
We are discussing a great many things. I am merely correcting the many, many, *many* things you are wrong about.
Forevermore, it would be damaging to her character for her to be so vindictive after so long. It's bad enough that they've done this to Rachel. I would be all for a Bonnie driven attack on Rachel in season 4, but it is just to late to be realistic now.
In season 1, Rachel had yet to do anything. In season 2, Julie would be understandable. In season 3, I think Rachel was hurt enough. In season 4, Bonnie. In season 5, Emily. (she did reappear, and Rachel handled it well) In season 6, Jill. In season 7 and beyond, a (hopefully) reccuring Jill or some other woman.
Emily was the person who had the most reason to hurt Rachel, so Emily wanting to hurt her is the most believeable route to take in season 5.
I disagree, most would wonder who she is, and what the hell is she doing shaving Rachels head.
We are discussing a great many things. I am merely correcting the many, many, *many* things you are wrong about.
I disagree. I miss that gag, and liked when Joey did a lesser version of it.
We are discussing a great many things. I am merely correcting the many, many, *many* things you are wrong about.
We are discussing a great many things. I am merely correcting the many, many, *many* things you are wrong about.
This is a great gag, it was one of the funniest of the first 2 seasons. If they were going to bring something back, this is the most worthy. I laugh every time Joey says "How you doin?", another great gag.
Ya-huh, it was the same basic concept.
I stated in one of my previous posts that she would still get the Ralph Lauren job. I guess you missed it. :(
Could they? Chandler was already supporting Joey. Monica is already supplying the others with food and though she wouldn't object to paying the rent and other bills, she would probably be adverse to paying Rachel's credit card bills when she could be working to do it herself. Rachel's total bill was at *least* $2700, plus the cost of her depression inspired shopping spree before going to London, plus whatever else she had bought before that (which would be a lot, since she had been distressed for some time before that). Judging from Rachel's usual taste in clothing, this would be *quite* a sum.
$5000? $6000? $7000? $8000? $9000? It sounds ludricrous, but this is a (formerly wealthy) slave to fashion, known as Rachel Green. Even at my most conservative estimate ($1000/card * 5 cards), the interest per month would be roughly $500. (aren't credit card interest rates *killer*?) I would tell Rachel to swallow her pride and take the gauranteed job to keep the debt down until she found a well paying job. (at Ralph Lauren)
Joey. My enjoyment of him has gone up since the show started. Rachel has remained at the same level because her increase in comic capability has been dampened by the loss of her soul. The others have all gone downhill.
Something to keep in mind: I don't believe the show should be analyzed to this degree. It isn't written well enough for it, and sitcoms *always* make allowances for the sake of comedy. Monica steals money from her friends apartments, Joey treats women like sheet warmers and Phoebe can get away with almost anything just because she's weird. But Mental Geller and Selfish Rachel have been taken too far, and both need to be corrected.
I base my liking of a chararter on how entertaining they are, as that's all I'm really looking for from these people. Monica was the straight "man", and was quite suited to her role. The Monica who was a "wuss" and had trouble with confrontations (what happened to that!?!) wasn't especially funny, but she was pleasant. This incarnation has lost that pleasantness.
Why, Oh Why couldn't they have stuck to the comedic rule of 3?
<<Did you guys here that Matthew has a cameo in "The Kid" with Bruce Willis? I thought I overheard it on ET or Access Hollywood. I was in the kitchen when it was on, but didn' hear all of it. I saw Matthew at Bruce's premiere, and could have sworn the voice-over of the reporter said that he had a cameo in the movie. Can anyone else verify this?>>
I also heard about this and read about it on one of the entertainment sites (i.e. Mr. Showbiz, EW, etc. but forget which one. It said that Matthew had three lines but stole the scene), so I guess it is true.
Paul's chances of returning to Friends will never happen, so leaves the bloodshed between him and Ross. And I'm glad that Ross broke up with Elizabeth. But where was he when Monica and Chandler got engaged?