Once again, they have failed to recognize Friends as one of the BEST comedy shows on television today. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that is ABSURD. I've been a loyal fan since the show began, and while they have had their ups and downs, the show still remains MUST SEE TV. Rant over.......
Stephie wrote:>Once again, they have failed to recognize Friends as one of the BEST comedy
Last month I asked the USA Today television critic,Robert BIanco, in his online column why the Golden Globes were traditionally such an odd and inaccurate reflection of the "best" in television. His reply was... "A better question, if you don't mind my editing, is why anyone takes the Golden Globes seriously. They are a joke."
As far as the tv nominations go, I agree with him.
Nope. Friends isn't getting the attention because it isn't as good as it used to be. It still beats the almighty over more than half of the other shows on TV, but being in the top half isn't award territory.
"Friends" did not get nominated because it didn't deserve to be. "Friends" is not that good of a show anymore. Most of the characters have changed for the worst, the storylines are uncreative and predictable, it's not THAT funny anymore, and it no longer can be considered an ensemble show(For example, when legitimate entertainment websites and magazines start referring to the show as "Chandler and Monica").
In my personal opinion, a show's spot in the Neilson Ratings is not always a reflection of the quality of that show. I can think of at least two shows right now that are just completely superior to "Friends" when it comes to quality and both of them always place lower in the ratings. Both have them have also won one or more Emmy's, Golden Globes, etc.. People still watch "Friends" because it's "Friends". It's a mainstream, media-hyped sitcom with mainstream, media-hyped stars.
"Legitimate" was probably the wrong word. Well-known is probably better. Anyways, two that I can think of off the top of my head are US Magazine and the E! site. Someone also recently posted a link to an article on this group regarding the February Survivor 2/Friends timeslot. The very first sentence in the article says alot. It's not that old so if you do a search for it it's probably still on your news server.
I didn't say anything about the Golden Globes being a *complete* indicator of
quality television. I just stated what I felt were possible reasons why the Golden Globes chose not to nominate "Friends" and why other award shows will probably choose not to nominate them.
First of all, I'm not someone who is gonna come on here and make something up and the fact that you are implying that I am really does not sit well with me at all. Second of all, I've always respected your opinion Tennant, even when I didn't agree with it. But the fact that you're gonna come on here and call my opinion rubbish, well, quite frankly it really pisses
me off.
You'll have to clarify. What do you mean by "come nowhere in the rest of the world"?
Please don't be so touchy. I wasn't talking about you Chris, but the people who refer to the show as "Chandler and Monica".
Outside the US in general (and Britain in particular because I live here) there is really only one American sitcom. If you go to a video store and look for tapes of the show on the shelf between "Frasier" & "Futurama", you will *not* find it. That's because "Friends" has a display stand all to itself, with as many tapes on sale as all other US shows put together.
This is not just ratings measuring the performance of the huddled masses, it's people with a disposable income voting with their credit cards.