NBC "Friends" to Stay on Another Season

On 22 Dec 2002 09:09:54 GMT, [email] (Jamie) wrote:

This sentence is the key one:

"Although Aniston drew strong reviews last summer for her performance in "The Good Girl," none of the actors has established a solid career

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in the movies. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If they all had good movie careers going they wouldn't be reliant on big *regular* Friends pay cheques, and would have kissed Friends goodbye, but as it is, they will string it out for another season to maintain a good regular income, anything you hear from them to the contrary is BS and untrue. Hope they look after their money, as after this season thats it.

BTW whats all this about 6 *actors*, there are only *3* actors in the Friends cast, the rest are *actresses*.

Nope - I have a friend who is a major stage actress - and if you asked what she did she'd call herself an actor.

Lauren

On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:13:49 -0000, "Lauren" wrote:

Then she would be wrong, as she is an actress as she is a woman and not a man.

<< Then she would be wrong, as she is an actress as she is a woman and not a man. >>

Sorry, you are the one who is wrong:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=actor

actor is refered to as a PERSON not a MAN.

Lora

LoraJNotHome wrote in message ...

I hate to tell you this but the dictionary I just took down from my shelf specifically says that an actor is a male theatrical performer. There has been an effort to make it into a unisex (not you and I sex) word but I have never seen anything that has made that official.

In the end, who really cares? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

"Rick Deshazo" wrote in message news:AlnN9.25$%[email]...

have

_The Oxford English Dictionary_ defines this use of "actor" as:

"One who personates a character, or acts a part; a stage-player, or dramatic performer."

No reference to gender.

Using "actor" for both genders is not exactly new--it dates back to the 16th century.

There's an interesting write-up here:

<http://www.chicklit.com/words/words2_page2.html>

Belphoebe

On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 21:30:41 GMT, "Belphoebe" wrote:

Thats because in the 16th century all the people playing parts were men, as women were not allowed into the theater profession.

"Christopher" wrote in message news:[email]...

shelf

has

dramatic

16th

"In the mid-seventeenth century, when women first took to the English stage, they were referred to as actors, although the word actress (or actrice, both feminine forms of the word actor in the sense of one who does something, as opposed to a performer) had appeared as early as 1589."

<http://www.chicklit.com/words/words2_page2.html>

That should have been 17th century--my bad.

Belphoebe

On 22 Dec 2002 17:06:30 GMT, [email] (LoraJNotHome) wrote:

Thats just PC gibberish.

<< Thats just PC gibberish.

Christopher >>

Please show your sources.

On 23 Dec 2002 17:01:22 GMT, [email] (LoraJNotHome) wrote:

America, where it all started.

Where what started? Acting is at least as old as ancient Greece. Woman on stage began in England after the Restoration (1660).

Brad

In article , [email] (Christopher) wrote:

No, you would be failing to keep up with the times. Most actors now, male and female, prefer "actor". I mean, come on, it's not like you can't tell their gender by looking at them.

Once upon a time people called a female author an authoress. Doesn't that sound silly and dated?

wg

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:46:03 +0000 (UTC), [email] wrote:

No, its the correct term. PC gibberish has corrupted the term, to appease all the feminists.

You must be so sad that women aren't still in the kitchen where they 'belong'

Brad

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:42:45 +0000 (UTC), [email] (Brad Filippone) wrote:

And you are so PC brain washed, you don't know the correct term anymore.

Now that everyone's overdosed on Teletubbies, Christopher had a cracker and said:

Here's another one for my "most pointless arguments on ATF" collection. Only this time it also goes into "OT, but not labelled as such, and horribly gone wrong" as well

Merry Christmas everyone (Slade or Oasis, you pick your preference)

Andr�

In alt.tv.friends on Mon, 23 Dec 2002 at 13:59:58, Christopher wrote :

I just use the short version because I'm too lazy!

I refer you to the Screen Actors Guild - the union which represents actors and actresses.....there is not a seperate Screen Actresses Guild.......The President of the Screen Actors Guild is Melissa Gilbert, a female. the SAG History includes the following except "Both idealism and outrage motivated the Founding Fathers and Mothers who created the Screen Actors Guild. Idealism, in that they believed they could succeed in doing, as Ralph Morgan once said, "the greatest good for the greatest number" by building a respected organization to protect actors."

On 24 Dec 2002 11:11:58 GMT, [email] (Satinladee) wrote:

Well you wouldn't get a guy called Melissa.

West coast gobbeldegook.

Christopher ([email]) wrote:

Performers of both sexes have been refered to as actors for many years now. It's only for awards that the sexes are differentiated.

Brad

Am i the only one who wants this season to be the last one. Don't get me wrong, i love the series, but dragging it out only deflate the value of the series. IMO, the series went downhill since the fourth season. The jokes are repetitive, and the plots are getting stale. They should end it when it's still good.

Now that everyone's overdosed on Teletubbies, Swervin had a cracker and said:

YES! I am *so* with you on that one, especially the "going downhill since S4" part. Only thing they'll do now, is to come up with loads of stupid difficulties for C+M trying to get pregnant, and even dumber new obstacles for R+R. Or, we'll get a carbon copy of S6 + S7, only this time Ross proposes at the end of the season and we get another year of wedding preparation stories.... Seriously, a tenth season is going to kill the show IMHO - and that's what they tried to avoid by ending it after this year :(

Andr�

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 01:54:33 +0100, "Cookie Dude" wrote:

Yes I agree, but it does allow the writers to give each character an exit, to finish everything off. Expect lots of sentiment and hollywood slush, both in the stories and in Friends news.

[email] (Jamie) wrote in message news:...

*groan* I still think they should have called it quits a few years ago. These episodes are hardly deserving of $1 million an ep. And yet I still watch. It's some sort of "Friends" related penchant or something.

On 22 Dec 2002 22:55:37 -0800, [email] (Leonessa) wrote:

Yep its called ratings. If Friends had not been up among the top of the ratings for the end of the ninth session, WB would have pulled the plug, I predict the audience for the Final seassion will be there just to see how all the story threads are all squeared off.

for the love of god, fight about something worthwhile, or waste away your life doing something else