Hello...

OK, I'm going to start things off on the wrong foot by asking the burning question that's been on my mind since last season... WHY didn't NBC end it after season 5 when the characters were still likeable and had some dignity? I know this is going to upset a lot of people, and maybe even bring out that too-frequently used word, "troll," but I seriously have to get this off my chest! I've reviewed the messages on my server, and I can't believe there hasn't been more discussion of this. (maybe I missed it all.) I'm as big a fan as anyone, but last season had me seriously questioning why they were continuing with it. Particularly when I heard about the kind of money the stars were demanding, I thought NBC should just end it gracefully instead of letting these beloved characters continue their downward spiral.

I'm particularly bothered by Ross, who early in the season had become as crazy as Phoebe used to be (but it's a lot less cute on him than it is on Phoebe), and Phoebe, whose craziness has gone from cute to creepy. Who is the genius (NOT) writer who is making Phoebe do things like randomly repeating "I'm so drunk" and trying to steal the wedding ring from Chandler's pocket?? Who is that gross girl? Certainly not the Phoebe I know and love. Ugh.

Chandler has matured a lot this season, but he's also a lot less funny as a result, and while snappy one-liners can only take a character so far, I'm realizing that Chandler has nowhere else to go. He was created to be a vehicle for one-liners, and trying to add dimension to him just doesn't work, although he was my favorite Friend back in his funny days. Monica just seems get more shrill with every episode, and her neatness neurosis is just irritating now instead of cute, especially when Chandler was literally scared of her after he moved all the furniture.

This is not to say I didn't find something to enjoy in each episode, but I'm facing the fac that the show's glory days are over, and I'm just fearing how far they'll let it slide before they get the picture and realize it needs to end. In spite of all my doubts, I will still be watching tonight's premiere, more because I simply don't know how to do otherwise than because I'm expecting great things from it. I'm not saying it's horrible (Martin is horrible), but it's certainly not what it was, and in my opinion, it's no longer "must-see-TV."

Tess

<snip rant>

Hi. Welcome to alt.tv.friends. We've had this discussion before at length, and you've pretty much summed everything up very well.

Poor Ross...where did he go? :)

Have fun posting. :)

Mike the Real American Hero wrote:

Oh, so no uproar after all? Rats! Guess I'll have to go find another group to pick a fight in. ;-) :-D

Ahh, I never liked Ross that much anyway.

I suspect that about five years is about the longest you can really take a sitcom and keep it good before you get to a point where you've got to do serious character development to keep it interesting, and sitcom characters just don't do development that well. The inherent flaw of all sitcoms, I suppose. It's by definition about a particular situation, and so it's intrinsically limited.

Tess

Tesseract wrote:

Hey! Ross is my favorite character!!

Hi Tess,

I think the answer to your question is one simple word - MONEY. The fact that the actors are demanding more money, and that the show's characters, plot lines, and sophistication are suffering are all irrelevant. As long as it makes a dime of profit, they'll do whatever it takes to keep it going.

I'm not sure I agree totally with your statement about 5 years being the longest before you need to do some character development. One of my favorite sitcoms "Married With Children" lasted 13 years (or was it 11? Can't remember now. . ), and I don't think anyone would argue that there was any sort of character development.

Someone pointed out a while back that one of the mistakes the writers made was getting Ross and Rachel together so early in the series. I kind of agree. The courting years are always the most interesting for people to watch, and provide plenty of ground for comedy.

I also think they broke them up a little early also. Now, faced with 2 more years of material required, they're going to be scrambling to make it interesting, without "crying wolf" and teasing us with another Ross and Rachel reunion.

Keep in mind I have not seen 701 and 702 yet, which aired last night.

Randy Hinds wrote:

There was an important qualifier, though. I said I thought about 5 years was the longest you could keep it GOOD! You'd get significant argument from me over whether it was ever good. :-) Since I didn't watch it once I decided it was awful, I wouldn't be able to tell you whether it got significantly worse over time. I don't think you can deny though, that there's a finite number of scenarios you can run within the framework of a sitcom and still have it be fresh and spontaneous.

One of MY favorite sitcoms, the Simpsons, has been on the air almost as long, about 10 years I think, and clearly is suffering from age. The show's own producers admitted that it was several years ago that they ran out of truly novel ideas, and they had to start relying on a parade of guest stars, increasingly grotesque caricatures of the characters, and even making jokes about the fact they run the same jokes over and over to try to keep the audience laughing. The Simpsons' good fortune is that there's a whole new audience for the Simpsons that seems to be eating it up. They were lucky, but they're still not going to last much longer.

Tess

Tesseract wrote:

Awwww. Now come on. There are just as many "Bundy-isms" are there are "Chandler quotes". =)

Ya, I agree. And I think the bulk of those scenarios (which are appealing to the 18-49 age group) are during the "courting years". Ironically, this time is usually one of the shortest periods in a person's life.

Ya, I can see it also. I watch the Simpsons occasionally. . .

Tesseract wrote:

Awwww. Now come on. There are just as many "Bundy-isms" as there are "Chandler quotes". =)

Ya, I agree. And I think the bulk of those scenarios (which are appealing to the 18-49 age group) are during the "courting years". Ironically, this time is usually one of the shortest periods in a person's life.

Ya, I can see it also. I watch the Simpsons occasionally. . .

Its been done to death, so much so that nobodies brought it up in ages.