I've noticed that several actors who have appeared as guests on the show have also made appearances in movies with the main cast members. We all know that Bruce Willis and Matt Perry have become good friends, and that that was one of the catalysts for Willis' three episode stint, but I was wondering if anyone else knows of other instances where this was the case...
Here's what I've been able to put together so far, in addition to the Willis-Perry tandem:
Courtney Cox and David Arquette- The two worked together in the Scream movies, but I am not sure whether that was before or after David appeared in an episode as Ursula's stalker. Obviously the two hit it off, but did either of them have in influence in the casting of the show or the original Scream?
Matthew Perry and Carlos Gomez- Gomez played Monica's poetry writing date, Julio, in one episode when she still worked at the diner. He was also in the Matt Perry movie 'Fools Rush In' as Chewie, the other man chasing Salma Hayek. Anyone know of a possible connection there?
It seems like there may be a Giovanni Ribisi connection that is slipping my mind at the moment. Does anyone know of any other pairings?
Bob Balaban, who played Phoebe's long-lost father, was in Three to Tango with Perry. Michael Vartan?, who played Richard's son Timothy, was in The Pallbearer with Schwimmer. (He was also in Never Been Kissed with David Arquette.)
And also in "The Myth Of Fingerprints" with Noah Wyle, who played Dr. Rosen in TOW Two Parts, part 2. Anyway, you can link anyone to anyone without more than six degrees of separation. Like you, doubtful behind your screen, I know someone(1), who knows someone(2), who knows someone(3), who knows someone(4), who knows someone(5), who knows you(6). There was a movie about that, starring Will Smith, rightfully called "Six degrees of separation".
Adeline. ====== "S'il fallait coller une pastille rouge sur le front de tous les connards, le monde entier ressemblerait � un champ de coquelicots"
"If every jerk was supposed to wear a red sticker on their foreheads, the whole world would look like a meadow full of poppies "
Um, yeah, I think most of us knew that. The original poster just wanted to know who else had guest-starred on Friends as well as costarred in a film or somewhere else with another cast member, and if maybe that's how they got the Friends gig to begin with.
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 15:26:12 -0400, "Lauran Mitchell" wrote:
This is just what I mean. Wouldn't want anyone to get off on a fun tangent of their own, right? It's called thread drift, and it's been the start of many great newsgroup discussions. But you want to stifle that. Yet it's OK if you are one of the group's high priests as long as you're talking about broken penises and Coke vs. Pepsi vs. root beer.
But let anyone start talking about something actually Friends-related and the old-timers don't want to hear it, because it may have been discussed three years ago and now it's "old".
Maybe the long-time regulars should take a break from the group for a few days, just to let the new people catch up without being made to feel like less of a fan because they don't have every episode archived and all the scripts printed out.
In the previous post, the mostly harmless Delmont Reeves claimed:
Hellooooo, from which decennium are you? We're in the naughties, where we don't do "paper", we put everything in relational databases ;-)
J/K ofc, you're absolutely right..newcomers deserve the right not to know every little detail. And start R&R vs C&M wars. Or ask wtf R&R/C&M stands for ;)
Um, I think you need to read my post more carefully. Adeline was trying to explain the Six Degrees of Separation, which has nothing to do with Friends. I was simply pointing out that it's pretty common knowledge, i.e. the game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.
As for your feelings that we who have been around for awhile are condescending and impatient, yeah, some of us are, but not all of us, and not all the time. *You* need to be a little understanding as well--hearing the same thing over and over again gets a little annoying. I try to ignore the TOW questions & whatnot, but we're only human.
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:58:31 -0400, "Lauran Mitchell" wrote:
There's the attitude again! "Um," (condescending right from the get-go). From what I've read here, a lot of people don't know a lot of things that ~should~ be pretty common knowledge (how to measure cups, VHS as a cassette format, proper terms for oral sex, etc.). It did nobody any harm for Adeline to explain the Six Degrees reference. I'd be willing that more than a few people hadn't heard of it before.
So, it's annoying to take time to answer questions that people actually ~want~ to know the answers to? Oh, that's right, you'd rather ignore those questions and put your energies into chastizing someone like Adeline who offers help.
This is a group dedicated to discussing a show about friendships above all else. You'd think some of that "Friends" vibe would rub off...
I'm sorry for coming off so nasty lately, but it seems like the helpful people get slagged in this group, and the prolific posters can do no wrong under any circumstances, no matter how rude they get. 60 responses to Tom Barnet's thread bashing Tennant is just insane! And 25% of them are from Tennant himself! That post should have died a lonely death. But no, all the Tennant-is-God lemmings came to his defence. The sooner you stop feeding his monstrous ego, the sooner this group can settle back into being a fun place to visit.
Try this out next time you feel the need to write an "umm...~we~ already knew that" type of post: go ahead and write it. Get it out of your system. Then delete it. I'm sure you have a few choice words for me right about now!
When I first began lurking here it was a very friendly community. Something worthy and representative of the friendships in the show.
Entertained as I am, reading these stupid catfights between Delmont and Tennant and occasionally Jacqui, can I observe a few things, perhaps even helpfully?
1. As best as I can tell, the whole Delmont/Tennant snit started as a simple personality clash. Tennant, for what it is worth, you *are* a bit on the obsessed side of the Friends trivia game, and sometimes - via the cold medium of email, emoticons have very limited utility in this regard - you can sound a bit like a know-it-all. Delmont, as near as I can tell, Tennant not only annoys you, but he pushes every single one of your "buttons", if you know what I mean. By the way, Tennant, I noticed that early on Delmont was trying his darndest to compliment you, but at some point, that tone changed and Delmont went ballistic. A bit of an overreaction, I'd say. Come to think of it, Tennant has pushed a button or two of mine in the past, and I can sympathize with Delmont a little (in my weakest moments, I *still* wait for some recognition that Tennant was wrong about the UK getting extra scenes of Friends episodes that were *never* shown in the US).
2. But, Delmont, really! "Like water off a duck's back..." - ever heard of that phrase? Can you possibly deal with this tiff without pretending that there's some kind of bloody spanish inquisition going on?
3. Speaking of which, Delmont, I must say that if you are trying to impress me with your expert knowledge about what fellatio does and does not mean, then you have me confused with someone who gives a damn. I am sorry to even see the subject come up in the first place. As far as I am concerned it is not a subject for public discourse, nor is it appropriate on a sitcom at the beginning of the prime time schedule for that matter.
4. Try to have a little understanding for those of us who have been in this newsgroup for the past 4 years and who may on occasion lose our cookies over the 15 millionth time the TOW question is asked. By the way Tennant, there is *already* a FAQ, and TOW is *already* in it. Last time I checked it was at www.friendstv.org, but I may be mistaken.
5. As much as Tennant strikes me as odd sometimes and may on rare occasion get on my nerves, I find that for the most part I have better things to do with my life than to go on some smear vendetta against him, calling him names, making out like he is the King of ATF - yeah, right! If it ever came to that, there are at least a few of us who have been around here a lot longer than Tennant has, and I'm sure he'd be the first to tell you that, Delmont.
6. Maybe you are just overly sensitive. That last comment about how you can link anybody via 2 steps (you started a discussion about 6 degrees of Friends) looked to me like a quite innocent comment with no malice intended, yet it appears that now you will rip into every single one of Tennant's responses to you, no matter what he says.
Please, please, please. Chill out a little. Friends episodes will be available from Columbia House in about 10 years on VHS, which is good enough for most people. Trying to get a DVD player that plays multiple regions is an interesting experience, but it doesn't appear to me to be worth any major heartache. What consenting adults do with each other in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom and not be fodder for locker-room style gossip. Volume, liquid ounces, blah, blah, blah, who cares? I know, Tennant has a way of egging people on sometimes, but I'll bet it's completely unintentional. The thing is, most of the time, I find him kind of funny in a quirky sort of way. It's called "Getting along with others." You might try it some time.
I tried twice to respond to your post, but my computer has a freezing problem this morning, so I'll give you a brief synopsis:
I'm sorry I came off as condescending. I wasn't trying to. I will try and remove the "ums" from my future posts, and think before I write. Newbies are welcome here (though they should check the FAQ).
To Adeline:
Sorry if I made you feel bad when I wrote that most of us here already know about the Six Degrees of Separation (though I don't think I was exactly "chastising" you, as Delmont put it). What I should have said was, "Yeah, I've played that game many times. Never seen the movie though."
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:12:50 -0400, "Lauran Mitchell" wrote:
OK, but simply saying check the FAQ doesn't help! I've made my sig a link to it...since not once during the time I've been here (over a month) has anyone bothered to post it (but, man, people sure do mention it a lot.)
And thank you for your thoughtfulness. A kind word can go a long way to making the "freshmen" feel welcome.
Okay, maybe I was being snippy, but if I can bother to read the FAQ before posting then so can others. Most people probably do, he added hastily. And I *have* answered the question on many occasions.
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:46:13 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:
Well, you have to know where the FAQ is to read it first, correct?
In the past ~40 days, not one person has posted a link to the FAQ.
A few have tried, but they botched the link (note the hyphen): http://www.friends-tv.org/faq.html
This link has been posted twice in reference to the episode guide: http://www.friends-tv.org/epguide.html but there was no mention of a FAQ also being available nearby.
I have added a signature to my posts. But since I don't post that often, perhaps a sig with the link would be best placed in your posts, since 1 in every 5 messages here is from you.
On 29 Jun 2000 05:23:33 GMT, [email] (JamesS1889) wrote:
(Don't hold your breath!)
Mostly accurate, except for the bit about Tennant pushing my buttons. I suppose it appears that I had "gone ballistic" because of the way I responded to his posts, but it was a calculated effort on my part to treat him exactly the way he treated me.
It's not as bad as that! I wanted Tennant to quit shadowing every one of my posts without having to kill-filter him (because he can be entertaining on occasion). So I chose to hound him just as he had done me. And he's backed off, so I have achieved my goal.
Oh please...that whole bit was part of my Tennant baiting. Jacqui just got caught in the crossfire. If you or anyone else thinks I am obsessed with foisting esoteric sexual trivia upon the group, let the record show "It ain't so!".
The distinction between what is supposed to be family hour (the first block of US prime time) and the rest of the night is all but gone. Especially considering that syndication places those same shows (edited for time, not content) even earlier!
That link sends me to a search page. I don't know if the FAQ is gone, or moved, or what happened.
Hardly! The "water off a duck's back" comment describes me much more accurately.
That was certainly my intent. Part of my 'eye for an eye' routine. As you can see, I have now gone back to responding to his posts in a normal manner. Maybe he will start doing the same with me. If not, I will drop him into the KF and enjoy the rest of the group.
It's no heartache at all if you get a computer DVD drive. I had planned on buying one anyway, so it only made sense to get one that could handle the widest variety of discs.
I'm done with the Tennant-bashing. There was a stretch of a few days where he would respond to ~every~ one of my posts, editing the meat of the content for the sole purpose of being nit-picketty about one sentence or two. You try coming back to the group one day to find that one person has carried on like that with all your posts!
So I decided to treat him exactly the same way. I still think it's funny how when ~I~ do it, I am accused of carrying on an inquisition, but when he does it, it's "quirky", "innocent", and "completely unintentional"!
Oh. Thanks for clarifying that, it was a little hard to tell.
Whatever. I'm having a little trouble identifying. Personally, I think I'd love the attention. If someone responded to every single one of my postings, I suspect I'd feel honored and swell up with pride. Not that that's any better, but I'm just telling you what my instinctive reaction would be.
If you say so. My allergy to the topic remains intact regardless of your intent. And, no, I'm not saying that I personally am hurt by such talk - if you must know, personally I am beyond rescue as far as that kind of talk is concerned. I am as red-blooded as the next guy and have done my time at the drugstore magazine rack. It is *precisely* because of all this that I turn my nose up at such talk. The fact that I am reminded of my own weakness is irrelevant to this discussion. My aversion to such talk (TV somewhat moreso than here) comes from my conviction that it describes actions which are wonderful, beautiful, special, great, and a whole bunch of other adjectives --- ONLY WHEN LEFT UNDESCRIBED, at least in public. To describe them in public is to sulley them.
Sorry, but your intentions with such talk don't make a bit of difference to me.
More's the pity.
I said I might be mistaken. I was darn close, wasn't I? I see by your signature that you figured out the rest of it. Good job.
OK. I see some fence-mending has already begun, so I'll take your word for it.
Well, not yet, but then I haven't gotten through all the new postings yet.
"Eye for an eye" is SOP for human beings, so I'm not going to act like it's some huge offense or anything. But don't expect me to be overly impressed by it. It's a fairly primitive response (we humans are not nearly as evolved as we claim to be).
I just mean it doesn't seem like one of the crucial events in life. I can wait for Columbia House, but that's just me. Actually, I do have a Computer DVD drive, it came with the laptop I bought. But I have no idea if it would play DVDs from the UK or not.
As I said, in my case, I'd be jumping for joy, not that I'm unhappy at all with the amount of feedback I am getting currently.
I didn't accuse you of carrying on an inquisition. I said you were acting as if one was being perpetrated on you.
On 01 Jul 2000 17:30:55 GMT, [email] (JamesS1889) wrote:
Had the responses been decent in tone, I would not mind one bit. After all, the whole point here is to chat back and forth. But he went after each of my posts, snipped the wheat and made snitty responses to the chaff (the equivalent of replying to a post only to point out a spelling error). And then started carrying on with others in the same thread about how he was pissing me off. It's obvious that he was attempting to "push my buttons", as you put it, because I had earlier bruised his puffed ego by correcting a couple of his posts (before realizing that he is ~never~ wrong), so he set off on his nit-picking spree. As of this morning, he's still insisting that playing UK DVDs on a US TV is as easy as plugging the cables into a different set of jacks on the TV. I consider that to more than just a simple error, considering that both Tina and I have given the "techie" reasons why it's not possible. He could potentially cost someone a few hundred dollars if they go off ordering the UK Friends DVDs because good old Tennant said they'll work on US TV sets.
I have no problem with your reasoning, but the topic had been addressed long before I jumped in. There were a few who didn't even understand the joke in question, and they were being given inaccurate information when it was explained to them. I am a stickler for being accurate, especially in a usenet forum, when we have the entire net at our disposal. This group seems especially "into" accuracy (such is the nature of trivia!), but only when it suits them.
Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Delmont Reeves doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...
And while we're on this subject, DVDs won't work in an ordinary CD-ROM on a computer either, as I have seen stated at some places these last few days. You're more likely to blow up the computer, or at least the CD-ROM.
I don't know what would happen if somebody did that, I would *hope* that the computer wouldn't blow up, but I'm not going to try it! Anyway, you are right Tina, DVDs should only be used in DVD-ROM drives.
Thanks for your support James. Delmont may brag however he wants, but the simple truth is that he's being ignored as the minor troll he is.
I so agree with you James. I must confess I've enjoyed some attention in the past, such as the very funny thread about me being a lesbian.
However, I'm saddened to see the pride with with Delmont boasts of bashing a fellow member of ATF, least of all me. You will note that I have edited most of this post - not to be nitpicketty but for the sake of brevity. The full version is still there in the thread.
IIRC James, a lot involves your suddenly including that *never*. The UK definitely had scenes in episodes that were not shown in the US on first run, this is the reason Eric Aasen gives for his refusal to add them to the transcripts. However, they were later shown in the US on rerun. This confused me because of the many examples of stuff deleted in syndication that was shown in Britain, wherein I *did* so acknowledge I was wrong.
However the central thrust of all my concerns was that the Star Trek fan community were up in arms about the shortening of episodes to 42 minutes, thus I feared that Friends episodes would be shortened to 21 minutes.
You persistently refused to acknowledge that the Trekkers were right on the grounds that the studio sponsored sites didn't admit this, and you steadfastly refused to co-operate in any campaign to BKC/WB/NBC to get them to keep Friends at 23+ minutes, on the grounds that it just wasn't happening. You would not time any episodes even though Friends S6 was in progress in the USA. Then S6 began in the UK, and the episodes were all 21 minutes long, exactly as I feared, exactly as I predicted.
Where was your reply?
Yes James. I was careful to read the FAQ *before* posting a single question to ATF. I also carefully read the posts for a while before getting involved, to see what the group was about.
As insults go, that was just about the funniest I've ever received. :)
Of course, indeed so. My first post was in January. But I watched Friends from episode 102 onwards (after people told me how good 101 was), I've been a massive fan ever since Rachel waited for Ross at the airport in 124, and we've hosted a Friends discussion group ever since 401 when the show went to a subscription satellite channel in the UK.
Delmont alternates between seeming to be nice & being extremely insulting, a sign of the troll. OTOH, you & Claire Abraham have had many arguments with me but you two always remained polite, and I hope so have I.
I don't quite know about egging people on, so I'll accept that I do since you say it's completely unintentional. If you & Claire can get along with me, and I keep trying to, I'm not going to worry about Delmont & his ilk.
I'm sorry, but I still have not seen one example of this other than one episode in season 4, which never came up in our discussion. You were wrong about 116-117. I don't remember what some of the other examples were, but 422 wasn't one of them.
I continually asked you for specific examples, including scene dialogue, and I'd even accept avi or mpeg snippets if you have them. I never got a reply.
Tennant, my initial impressino when this first came up was that you were claiming that first run episodes were running shorter here than in the UK. The possibility that the studio or the network might decide that episodes in season 6 should be shorter *than they were in season 5* - regardless of where they are being shown - is something that I *never once* rejected.
No, I refused to acknowledge that the Trekkers were right on the grounds that the whole thing makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would the studio or the US networks do this? Why would it be in their best interests to do this?
I never once based my objection on anything at the studio sponsored sites. I did refer to the fact that I had not seen anything on this at the most prolific and most widely recognized *fan* sponsored sites. The URL's you pointed me to were obscure, and confusing at that.
There is still miscommunication going on here, and I'm not sure what the cause of it is. If the episodes played 21 minutes in the US and in the UK, that simply means that Warner Brothers or NBC or both decided to up the advertising revenue. That is hardly what we have been arguing about. Those Trekker sites claimed (according to you) that Paramount was making a full-length episode for you guys and then cutting it by a couple of minutes for the US - first run, second run, whatever - and *that* is what I have been rejecting, because, as I say above, it makes no sense to me.
See the above.
I didn't mean to imply that you didn't. But you suggested that someone needs to make a FAQ, and I was simply pointing out that it's already been done. Sorry I wasn't more clear.
That I acknowledge.
Oh yes. We seem to miscommunicate sometimes, but I have nothing against you personally.
It's just a personality thing, probably. We all have our quirks.
That's right, I was wrong about 116-117. The transcript for those episodes lacked so many lines that were in the version I had on tape that I thought that the American version was shorter. Once you convinced me that this was the fault of the the transcript, I checked with Eric Aasen who informed me that they were two of 15 episodes by that transcriber which fell below par, and that while he and Dan Silverstein had adjusted many of them, some still remained. He invited me to do something about it, hence my new versions of 116 & 117 which are as bang-up accurate as I can make them. If you can spot the tiniest discrepancy, please email me and I'll see what I can do. Of the remainder, Adeline Le Borgne & myself have a new one about to appear.
Did you perhaps not receive a posting? I seem to recall listing dialogue that was missing from transcripts. If you want an example now, check the teaser of 114 "TOW the Candy Hearts" for starters. And there was the tag to 422 "TOW the Worst Best Man Ever" which Eric Aasen says was missing from the American version upon its *first* run. Sorry, no avis or mpegs.
I wasn't CLAIMING but ASKING, since I don't live in America.
That's not the impression I got. Obviously I misunderstood.
Well James, out of lack of enthusiasm I don't really want to open up a an argument that has already been done to death on ATF, but IIRC the idea was that shorter programmes allowed more time for commercials.
That's not what I recall, however I take your word for it now, James.
They were the URLs of popular sites that broadcast these warnings. IIRC you categorised these sites as unofficial, which maybe I misinterpreted as not being studio sponsored, do you think?
Well James, acquaintances do have proprietary tapes of DS9 & Voyager that run longer than detailed analyses of these episodes in America. All I asked was for people to do this exercise on Friends in America, but all I got was an insistence that the exercise was unnecessary. I can't time anything in the USA as I do not live there, which is why I've never made such claims.
Okay, but this was yet one more miscommunication between us.
Thanks.
Thanks James, that's very generous of you. And me too. :)
Ah yes James, quirks, that what it is. My quirk is that I tend to analyse too deeply sometimes, but I am trying to keep it down a bit, except when you guys egg me on. I'm currently rewriting my whole database to work in new & exciting ways, and after the "How Many Times Did The Characters Say Their Own Names" fiasco I hope to issue some *correct* figures soon! :)
I may have missed it. 114, unfortunately I may not have on tape from its original airing. I had a friend who was pretty sure he had all of first season on tape somewhere but had never bothered cataloguing (or archiving) it. He's one of those that never tapes over anything. He once gave me a bunch of tapes, but unfortunately there were no first season Friends episodes in that batch. At this point I don't know if he still has the rest or not, he's moved at least once since then.
I know that NBC reran several first season episodes during season 4, but something tells me 114 wasn't one of them. Probably the best I can do is look at the script and see if I can picture what the scene looked like in my head.
422 I did acknowledge, and it did show up in syndication, as you mentioned. Actually, I'm surprised there aren't more since NBC seems to do that kind of thing a lot, especially when leading up to a sweeps period.
My glitch. That should read, "that you were asking if first run episodes were running shorter here than in the UK." That is still slightly different than questioning whether episodes were running shorter here in season 6 than they ran *here* in season 5.
Boy, we certainly were miscommunicating ;-) I think I see the problem. My argument was not with the possibility that WB might shorten episodes, but rather with the possibility that they might shorten them *only* for the US and show *longer* versions to the UK.
Again, *that* I understand. The "this" I am talking about here is not "why would they show us less than they have in the past?" but rather, "why would they show less of episode 503 (for example) to us than they would to *you*?"
That may have been a poor choice of words on my part. Somehow over here, even just within the context of a fan community, the word "official" often gets used, even though it has nothing to do with the studio.
In the case of Babylon 5, http://www.midwinter.com/lurk (cheap plug ;-) is the official fan website for the show. It is run by fans, and the studio has its own "official site". Actually, in this case, even those involved with making the show, including the creator, tended to use the offical fan site, which may be kind of unusual as these things go.
In the case of Voyager and DS9, I know about the www.psiphy.com sites, and they look pretty darn fan "official" to me, though I don't know if they are the only ones accorded this status. My impression of the URLs you sent me was that even in a fan context these were fairly fringe in terms of fan ascribed validity. I could easily be wrong about that, it was a bit of a snap judgment. I just expected that if there was some great controversy about Paramount, the psiphy sites would have something on this, and they didn't. Those sites seemed a lot more popular than the ones you sent me.
"Propietary"? Not sure what you mean by that. In my line of work, "proprietary" means information that belongs to the company is not to be shared with others. Is that what you meant by it? If so, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are trying to say.
Ooh dear, 114 is brilliant! There's quite a few surprises in it, so I won't spoil them for you, even though it's from Season One. Sadly you've just missed it on syndication, it was last shown on June 16th.
Well, if I were you James, I'd wait until I could watch the episode... :)
Well, this is what happens, James. :(
Okay James, I think we understand each other now. :)
Well, let's hope that one day the US & UK get *much*longer* versions... :)
Ooh dear James, you've made me realise that I'm guilty of that, referring to the "Official Friends FAQ". I've just checked with the actual thing, and the second line reads "This document's official home..." which must be what I was thinking of. So what does "official" mean? I never thought that the Friends FAQ was published by the studio, just that it's the FAQ that those who know about it acknowledge. The similar goes for the Star Trek fans.
Aah, good example James. I think we just have to realise that "official" does not necessarily mean the studio, and be more careful with our words. :)
Well, all I can say is that I'm not a huge fan myself, I just watch the shows but do have friends who are big fans, and those were sites they suggested. I know enough to say "Trekker" not "Trekkie", but not enough to judge one nice looking fan site against another.
In Britain we use "proprietary" to mean that it's something we have bought as opposed to made ourselves. Most of these TV shows that you guys have to record we can go out and buy in the shops on tape or DVD.
Oh, I've seen it before, and I've got the syndicated version on tape so I can watch it anytime I want to (as soon as I get it out of storage ;-)
He, he. You're going to cry foul, but in my own mind way back then, I wasn't counting these, because at least it makes some sense. (A) the tag is not all that important, (B) The tag is a natural place to hype the sweeps period, (C) 9 times out of 10, the original tag shows up in the Summer repeat - 422 being the one exception I know of so far, and I really am disappointed at that one. As I type this, there is a 1% chance that I really don't have the summer repeat version of 422, so it may have shown up there after all, however, it is also possible it didn't because NBC might have been hyping the beginning of the new season at that point.
Now, if you could show me lines from the middle of act one or act two that were seen in the UK but never seen in the US, *that* would truly be logic defying and therefore fascinating.
Oh, don't hold your breath ;-)
It's kind of an elusive thing. It doesn't necessarily have to happen that way, but sometimes for unknown reasons, a consensus rises up from the grass roots, and pretty soon enough people refer to it and it just "becomes" authoritative. Who knows why or how this happens, but it does. I think the friends-tv site might have emerged out of an early Friends Mailing List (pre-newsgroup?), and I know there was a 2-way relationship between the fans on that list and the people working on the show.
Right.
OK.
Ah. One more question. Can you buy propietary tapes that we in the US might call "bootlegs", as in "tapes of questionable origin"?
I shan't cry foul, if someone persuades Eric to include the missing tag. :)
All I can do is quote lines from various shows that are missing from their transcripts, which proves nothing. What we need is for an American viewer to quote lines from the transcripts that are missing from the shows. This happens all the time on syndication, it would require tapes of first-run.
Well, a "bootleg" or anything "of questionable origin" is not proprietary by definition. I've never seen any bootleg tapes, but bootleg VCDs have been around for some while, indeed some have been advertised on ATF.
screen, I know someone(1), who knows someone(2), who > >knows someone(3), who knows someone(4), who knows someone(5), who > >knows you(6). There was a movie about that, starring Will Smith, > >rightfully called "Six degrees of separation".
Which was exactly my point. =)
Adeline. ====== "S'il fallait coller une pastille rouge sur le front de tous les connards, le monde entier ressemblerait � un champ de coquelicots"
"If every jerk was supposed to wear a red sticker on their foreheads, the whole world would look like a meadow full of poppies "
And now that a post that i began as an attempt to bring some interesting, fun conversation for everyone has dissolved into yet another war between factions, i shall go back to lurking, and continue to dream of the day when everyone can keep their happy faces on for more than a few minutes at a time.
On 28 Jun 2000 05:11:53 GMT, [email] (Suprcallie) wrote:
Tate Donovan (Joshua) and Jennifer Aniston both appeared in the short film "Waiting For Woody," and also provided voices for the TV cartoon "Hercules". This was around the same time that they worked together on Friends (and were dating in real life). However, I have no idea if there's any connection other than an odd coincidence.
And as an odd aside, Tate also made a guest appearance on "Family Ties", a few years before Courteney Cox was a regular.
Leah Remini, who made a guest appearance as the pregnant girl who Joey comforted at the hospital, was up for the part of Monica during casting!
On 28 Jun 2000 05:11:53 GMT, [email] (Suprcallie) wrote:
Vonni Ribisi played Jeff on 'The Wonder Years' around the same time David Schwimmer played Karen's college roommate/boyfriend.
They were also both guests on 'Blossom' - Vonni in the pilot, and Schwimmer later on in a couple episodes as the older mechanic that was dating Six.
He was a regular on 'Davis Rules' with the actress who played his fiancee/home-ec teacher Alice on Friends (Debra Jo Rupp).
Vonni's sister Marissa also guested on Friends...and he also appeared on Friends before his Frank Jr. character was introduced (he was the kid who left a condom in Phoebe's case after she sang "Smelly Cat").
He was a regular on 'My Two Dads' with Paul Reiser; Lisa Kudrow made occasional appearances as Ursula on Reiser's 'Mad About You' series. Morgan Fairchild guested on 'My Two Dads' and played Chandler's mom on Friends (it's a stretch to make connections with these, eh?!). And as last bit of a reach to make a connection - he was a guest on 'Ellen', a series which shared some directors with Friends (Robby Benson, Alan Myerson, Gail Mancuso). Maggie Wheeler (Janice on Friends) was a regular on 'Ellen'. And to take this on a real long ride, Maggie Wheeler was a guest on 'Everybody Loves Raymond' along with Nora Dunn, who guested on 'The X-Files' with David Duchovny, who "hosted" a softcore porn series on Showtime Cable, where Matt Le Blanc guested in one episode!
You can link anybody to anybody in just a few steps, the average is about three. The softcore porn series was "Red Shoe Diaries", which featured Matt Le Blanc in *two* episodes.
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:08:42 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:
Of course you can, that doesn't make it less fun. But since ~I~ am the one who made the post, you are going to rail on as though I just snuffed your favourite wiggly gerbil. Had one of your dear loved ones here posted the exact same message you would jump in with your little smileys and dull comments about root beer and Greek trivia lessons, and other yawn-inducing tripe.
On 28 Jun 2000 05:11:53 GMT, [email] (Suprcallie) wrote:
Vincent Ventresca, Fun Bobby, was in Romy and Michelle.
Richard Linklater's SubUrbia had Giovanni Ribisi, Steve Zahn (Duncan, Phoebe's non-gay husband) and Nikki Katt (who was the second real estate agent in TOW the Bullies).
Hmmm ... talking about Duncan, maybe the reason Phoebe makes all those jokes about Chandler is because she's attracted to him in the manner of her attraction to Duncan ..?
It's an interesting theory, Clev. Duncan was really straight, but maybe Phoebe was in denial about his sexuality and now she's doing the same with Chandler. A rival possibility is the other way round - since she's attracted to Chandler but can't have him, she pretends he's gay.
An obscure kind of link is in "Gone in 60 seconds" there is Frank Jr and also Michael (who went on a date with Rachel when Julie and Ross were getting a cat)