They have crossed a bridge in TOW The Secret Closet to where I can't see them not eventually getting those two together now. Do you guys honestly think they are going to get Ross & Rachel together after Joey gives Rachel away? Please!
It may initally start out that Rachel will refuse Joey's feelings when she first learns of it here in the next few episodes, but I have no doubt in my mind now that the writers will have her start to fall in love with Joey after she realizes what situation she left in her old apartment.
I do feel sorry for Ross having another kid of wedlock, but I think most viewers will agree with me now that Joey deserves the girl a lot more than Ross does.
"Anonymous" schrieb: I don't understand people, who have their newsreader tell a fake or no name, but use an e-mail address which reveals it, or at least seems to. You should have inserted some spoiler space or at least ep# IMHO, but as it's too late now, I keep it unchanged.
J&R? It's more likely that after R&R now live together, they'll get closer -- again. This is what happened to Joey, too, but contrary to R&R only one-way.
I think it heavily depends on whether there'll be a 9th season or not. Although I'm quite sure it had been decided long ago that R&R are gonna end up together. At least I hope so.
It's also possible that Joey finally realizes that all he wants is a real relationship, not necessarily with Rachel, who's pregnancy was just the trigger that revealed^Wactivated J's feelings.
I don't care what most viewers think, as long as the authors think my way. ;-P Actually it's no question of deserving neither.
I agree. I think it's exactly like when he had a dream about being with Monica. It's not that he's in love with Rachel, but subconsciously (on another level) he knows he's missing out on having a real relationship.
A great idea just hit me: Joey will find true love, but not with Rachel. Instead, some other woman will come into his life; and that woman is --
I didn't think it wise to respond to Mike, who is absolutely certain that there's only one possible way this could turn out, but I'll be happy to respond to you.
It certainly is not over. *Nobody* has any reason to jump up and celebrate (except fans who are very impressed with how well this all has been written lately.) This could go one of at least four ways I can imagine, (including Rachel, after a heartfelt struggle, choosing to remain independent) and it most certainly is not over yet. Heck, February has not even begun!
I guess your name is Claire, right? I don't know where you get this idea that I am totally intolerable to the opinions of others. Yes, I strongly believe the writers are now going down the course that I had thought they would throughout this season, but that doesn't mean we can't intelligently debate about this.
My issue with you is your tendency to not practice what you preach. You constantly point out that I take this show too seriously after I make a comment about the show, yet when I do the same thing to you after you are trying to find hints of an R&R getogether, you think I'm totally offended by you or something. I'm not at all.
I'm all for posts that stick to the content to the show, and in the future I promise not to make it personal.
By the way, if you are not actually Footballguy, then I rescind my earlier comment completely. You've been quite pleasant on this board and there's still a chance I'm getting two different people confused.
Ofcourse, its all just beginning. I said what I did, cos some R&R fans seem to be think that Rachel moving in with Ross will lead to an inevitable R&R reunion while Joey rots in his apartment. :)
Well, Priya, I'll tell you what. I'm going to give you the list of Devil's Advocate questions I gave on Angel's board, because I'm not sure I really want to see *any* of the characters "rotting" at all.
Let In the past episode, they made a big deal that being out of the fatherhood loop is a big deal for Ross. Let us hypothesize that Rachel and Joey will be a couple by the season finale. Will the "out of the loop" fatherhood issue suddenly disappear? Will the writers just decide that Ross' need for contact with his daughter just isn't worth worrying about, because Joey is so sweet and Ross is a geek? Will Rachel be able to continue to live with Ross while dating Joey? Will Ross be able to keep his affair with Mona? If he loses Mona because he's trying to be a father to Rachel's baby, and then Rachel goes off to be with Joey, then Ross could end up out of the fatherhood loop AND without a girlfriend. Is that a conclusion that is suitable? Does the character really have so little audience support that leaving him with absolutely nothing is OK? Has he become the villian?
Will we get a situation where Mona and Ross happily date while Rachel lives with Ross and bears his child while dating Joey? It would make all the characters happy, but is it actually feasible?
What if Joey tells Ross how he feels, and Ross gives Joey the green light to date Rachel? That might seem to make everybody happy. However, Ross is still left as a second string dad. Will the writers make this problem vanish, or will they make it so we all think Joey deserves to be the full-time dad of Ross' daughter, and Ross deserves nothing? If Joey's sacrifice last week made him more deserving of Rachel, which is an intriguing idea, would Ross' decision to give Joey his support make him more deserving of NOT losing the ground he just gained as his daughter's father? Is the audience supposed to be happy that two attractive folks got together and jettisoned the Group Jerk... who is still the child's father, and who used to be a character the audience loved? Is there any way to keep this from being sad and unsettling?
"abrahammy" wrote in message news:Duo78.7252$[email]...
[snipping excellent series of questions]
together
Well said, Claire. I do hope the writers back off from the "Ross = intolerable Jerk" paradigm and revive those elements of his character that made the audience root for him in earlier seasons. I hope they manage to steer clear of the various "sad and unsettling" scenarios.
I don't want any of them to 'rot' either. I'll have to be more careful on the abjectives I use. :)
I have a kid. And if this was a real life situation, I'd root for Ross but this is only a sitcom. I'd rather watch two people who have better chemistry than watch a couple who argue stupidly about whether they want to know the sex of the baby or not. Speaking of that scene, the writers clearly showed Ross in a bad light there and in 814, they show Joey as the underdog drumming up support and sympathy for Joey. Ross may very well become the villain, if the writers start leaning heavily on Joey.
814 was supposed to make us wonder all what you've said above :). The moveout was simply to grab more attention to the plot which is already on fire. This was my point to begin with. And you were right, *nobody* should celebrate cos it could go either way yet.
Priya, don't think I'm arguing with you for any reason than entertainment. This is a fun diversion after an unusually long day..
Are you saying then, that Ross has the superior position in principle? And that you are rooting against him, not because he's wrong, but merely because Joey is more appealing? Should the values of TV characters resemble that of real people, or is it OK to champion shallow values when it involves fictional people rather than real ones? By the way, I really appreciate that you are saying, bluntly, that you know there's a moral problem but heck, it's just TV. I appreciate the honesty.
Speaking of that scene, the
Yes, I agree with that. Is is grounds for taking away custody of his child? Of course, if the only morality in TV is that the fun people should be together, then maybe the answer is yes. In which case, would it not be better for them to just push Ross down an elevator shaft? Has he ceased to be valuable to the show?
and in 814, they show
Is this because they want Joey to win...or because Joey's position is so morally untenable he MUST be more appealing in order for the audience not to regard him as roadkill? Does he have to be more appealing in order for us not to hate him for what he's contemplating? If the situation were exactly reversed, would we all be about to stone Ross?
TV is for entertainment. If all TV shows started showing morally correct realistic stories, things would get somewhat boring, don't you think? People watch all those soaps which seem to have disconnected themselves from anysense of morality and realism. Shows like the Springer Show have so many people watching it. Do we expect people to take these shows as the examples to leading our lives. No. I read a long time ago, that some board had declared Friends unfit for family viewing because its shows the six of them bed hopping and other reasons I don't remember now. This is a sitcom in its last year, they need all the controversy to keep people watching.
No, thats not grounds for taking away custody. Who's talking about custody here? But if they keep showing Ross this way, it will definitely be grounds for justifying the Joey/Rachel story. I think Ross has already been pushed down the elevator shaft with 3 divorces and severe character mutilation. How believable is Ross's three divorces? A friend of mine who had only seen till Season 3 was so shocked that he's been divorced three times. She couldn't believe it cos the Ross we knew in Season 1 who was so upset about one divorce, couldn't possibly go through two more. I know this is your argument, the guy has been getting a raw deal all along, it wouldn't be fair to leave with another kid he doesn't have custody of. It wouldn't be fair and I'm not a Ross hater but yes, I'd prefer fun people to get together on a TV show cos like you said, we all watch and discuss this show after a long day for nothing more than entertainment.
A bit of both, I think. They need to show the feelings he's developed are believable. They have to justify Joey's position showing his turmoil for being in the position that he is. My husband who is just a casual Friends viewer, thought that a Joey/Rachel story would be sick before he saw 812. He has since agreed that it was handled very well and it may be okay. Your husband who prefers Survivor over Friends likes the idea of J&R. These are the average friends watchers. These are the people they are targeting. These people haven't been looking at the so called foreshadowing. To convince the average viewer for this story's legitimacy, they have to show Joey's feelings in the best possible manner. Ross already has the edge as the baby's father.
No, he doesn't. He thinks Joey would be a dishonorable jerk if he did that - and thinks that it's the kind of thing Ross would do instead. He doesn't want Joey to end up with Rachel because he thinks it's wrong and destructive to the group. Remember, even after the decision is made, Ross has to be around this new couple ALL THE TIME. It will be easier if Schwimmer leaves the series in season nine.
These are the average friends watchers. These
Oh, I agree with that. I think that might be why they felt it necessary to show Joey in a more favorable personal light - because the ground he's standing on is very shaky. But you just identified something - my husband, as a casual Friends watcher, doesn't want a character he likes to screw over one of his friends, even an awkward, geeky friend. Now, my husband certainly does not speak for all the casual Friends watchers! However, I thought the SNL skit which suggested this pairing indicated they were running out of ideas was a good commentary on what some other casual viewers thought.
I think your point of view on this is well thought out and supportable. It does not reflect my perspective on it, but it's one of the most well-considered pro-J&R positions I've read.
Thanks Claire. I've read your other posts and I know you mentioned that your husband holds reservation about the outcome of this plot. So does my husband. What I was talking about was that they liked 812, which introduced this new plotline. These casual viewers who couldn't imagine a J&R pairing were okay with it in 812 and will be watching to see how it turns out. This is what they want. How these people will take to this story down the line where one friend may be screwed over, really depends on the execution of the story.
Tennant mentioned that the writers or BKC have said that, somebody is going to get hurt whichever road they take. So the secret option number 3 where neither Joey nor Ross ends up with Rachel, may not be in the works. Perhaps they're just bluffing to keep us watching. :)
I have to seriously question one's sense of reality on this show when they find two imaginary characters getting together as sick. This is just Matt LeBlanc playing a character, falling in pretend love with Jennifer Aniston who is also playing a character. If David Schwimmer and Courtney Cox were to suddenly engage in an all-out French kiss, the only people who would find that disturbing are people who literally see them as brother and sister, and can't seperate that from reality.
Quite simply, the motivation for me to want to see a Joey & Rachel pairing is just because Matt LeBlanc is at his acting best around Jennifer Aniston, and Jennifer is at her best around Matt. There is definitely a lot less competition between Matt & Jennifer than Jennifer & David when it comes to trying to stand out in a scene they have together. That is why it's so pleasant to see a Joey/Rachel romance blossoming, because quite honestly in real life, Jennifer's personality is much more compatible to Matt's than to David's.
I think the joke of the whole skit was how overdramatic they were making the promos, with what the sad Enya song and misty letterbox screens of Joey and Rachel flashing. Even I thought they were overdoing it.
If casual viewers REALLY thought they were running out of ideas, I don't think the show would be averaging 29 million viewers since this story began.
I really think casual viewers don't really care who ends up with whom! Just as long as it is done well, people will continue to tune in. You may hack off a minute group of people who are either hardcore R&R or J&R, but obviously the writers and BKC have planned for that, otherwise they would have never started this in the first place.
Although, it does seem J&R is slowly creeping into the mainstream like R&R and C&M once did.
Trust me, my husband looks at the shows characters for what they are..fictional. He's never bothered who ends up with who. A Joey and Rachel was a surprise to him and he didn't think it would work. I might add that MLB thought that the idea of his character and Rachel together seemed incestous to him because he thinks Rachels like a sister to Joey.
If David Schwimmer
I think David Arquette would be pretty disturbed in the above scenario. If CCA and DS kissed on the show as their characters, it would be SICK. But if they kissed on another show or as themselves, I'm not bothered.
Agreed.
This is exactly what I said. Its all in the execution!
That wasn't really what I was saying. In most really well done, effective comedy shows, the decision to reflect the values of real people or to run counter to them is a deliberate choice, and once the choice is made the writing strategy reflects that choice consistently. Seinfeld was an example of a really good show which chose to put its protagonists in situations that ran directly counter to the morals of regular people. Costanza was a slimeball, and he was very funny - but the audience knew he was supposed to be a slimeball, and things rarely worked out for him. The same thing can be said of the two women in Absolutely Fabulous. I can't watch that at all myself, but it's very effective for a particular audience. The two noxious women rarely really triumphed in life.
By contrast, other great sitcoms made a real attempt to show their protagonists struggling with ethical dilemmas or their own inner demons. Frasier and Niles are pretentious oafs, and Niles did something very morally questionable when he and Daphne ran away. There were, however, consequences for those actions, because the writers of Frasier have been wonderfully consistent about having plausible outcomes from any given setup. And while they have made their characters do some bad things, they have never, ever been so lazy as to encourage us to write their primary protagonists off completely. Neither did All in the Family - and lord knows Archie was a flawed man. Neither did MASH, neither did the Mary Tyler Moore Show, and neither even did such lesser fare as Family Ties. All were written to show plausible consequences for most serious actions. We have characters in each of those shows who, like Ross, may not be characters the audience are supposed to like. However, Frank Burns and Ted Baxter share one important thing in common that Ross does not have:
The audience was always intended to be annoyed by them. They were never intended to be the heroes. Neither one was generally expected to carry story arcs or allowed to get the most desirable girl. Neither was corrupted by gradual writer laziness. They never did really admirable acts. They never got to be in great scenes that made the audience cry. Ross does not deserve to just be shunted off carelessly because this particular group of writers is incapable of writing effective scripts for more than two characters at a time.
You make a very good case that Jerry Springer and that ilk manage to be entertaining rather than being realistic. Some folks like Jerry Springer. I can't watch it. Some folks may be perfectly happy to watch Friends turn into Seinfeld. That's fine. It might even be a funny show. It will probably not be nearly so much to my taste as the early years were, and I probably will respond the way I did in season seven - I will stop watching again, contented that I can still look forward to Frasier. You may think that's just fine, and I guess it is. I personally do not really want to watch a Friends world in which it is OK, even popular, to steal the great love of your best friend's life and become the de facto father of his daughter because you are cuter and cooler than he is. I don't want to watch a season in which we watch Ross flinch, whimper and turn away every time he sees Joey and Rachel together, and I don't want to watch a season in which he is banished. Others may think it's just great stuff and be glad they ditched the dead weight.
child?
to
If Rachel marries Joey, Ross has lost primary custody of Ruth.
But if they keep showing Ross this way, it will
It's not. It's kind of sick, actually, especially since the second and third time he was not even permitted to have a real marriage.
A friend of mine who had only seen till Season 3 was so
Fair enough. We just may have different tastes as to what we can tolerate. I understand a lot of people just love Absolutely Fabulous.
"abrahammy" wrote in message news:OXk88.16286$[email]...
Exxxaactly!
I'd also like to add that this whole "Seinfeld" way of writing was great for Seinfeld. But Friends is NOT Seinfeld, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, etc. I just can't "put away" my moral reasoning (and why should I have to just to enjoy a TV show? ) It's the type of show that Friends is. It's not a farce like Married With Children. It "pretends" to be written in a semi-realistic way with realistic people (somewhat). We're supposed to care about *all* the main characters (yes, all SIX) and what happens to them. That's what has made this show work so well. The show "pretends" that it exists in a world with consequences and real values (most of the time). I just can't watch THIS show if I have to suspend all my values to enjoy it.
"abrahammy" wrote in message news:Duo78.7252$[email]...
Devil's
here's another question (though I have to admit it's rather lame, but I think it should be considered): why do you think the writers wrote this pregnancy for Rachel in, especially since there was no need to make Rachel pregnant (like Jennifer Aniston getting pregnant)? And even more, why do you think Ross was made the father? It certainly wasnt because they were planning on hooking Rachel up with Joey. I think they are leading us to an R&R re-union. I'll admit that in a way I'm an R&R fan, but not a very strong one. They were very cute together, that's why I liked them. At the end of the day, I started watching Friends, because it was very funny and entertaining - and they certainly are short of funny moments in Season 8!! It feels like watching some soap, where they have a funny line every now and then, but nothing more. For God's sakes, if they dont come up with some funny stuff, I'll make my way to their studios and eat all the books they've written for the upcoming episodes... When I watch Friends, I want to laugh and not ponder about moral questions... Who can seriously think this is a good setup for a comedy show? At least one out of three of the main characters is going to get seriously hurt by this and that just can't be good.
Just my 2 ? Cents (in case people get messed up ISO code, it says Euro Cents)
I would have agreed with you prior to 805. But since then, its hard to say who's going to end up with the girl. Ross and Rachel have a baby and get together again. If they didn't pull Joey into the story, what's there in the story to keep 30 million people coming back every week?
he just serves as a "Julie", to make things complicated, when they are basically simple. Nobody seriously thought, that Julie could get between Ross & Rachel in Season 2, right? Now with the baby it seemed to easy, there was no tension, a lot of people certainly thought that "this" was it, the re-union was finally there. But by 803, when Ross found out, or 805 (just to relate it to your post), they still had like 20 episodes to go for season 8. So they threw Joey and Mona in to keep us glued to our TVs. Either way, now that Rachel moved in with Ross, I think we might be in for another R&R flashback episode (like TOW the invitation) and all I really want is some fun Joey and Chandler stuff. Whatever happened to those "Best Buds" bracelets from season 2 (3?)?
In case anybody is curious, I don't think this at all, nor do I hope it. I have always been a R&R fan, and I realize you are probably not talking about me specifically, but if it weren't for the baby in Rachel's womb whose father is Ross, I would have no problem with Joey and Rachel hooking up. Even with the child, I don't have anything against Joey pining for Rachel.
And I have always said (for at least the past 4 years) that contrived reunions don't work for me, even if it were Ross and Rachel. It has to make sense.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I'm one R&R fan who is not jumping up and down in joy right now over some perceived reunion lurking in the very near future. If they can make it make sense, perhaps. Even then, that would still leave Joey hanging, and I wish nothing of the sort on him. I guess what I'm saying is this is a complex situation, and I'd hate to just see Joey's problem just swept under the rug, just as I'd hate to see Ross' problem (how to be a father to his soon to be born child) just swept under the rug. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889
I didn't write that comment with anyone particular in mind. I just found that to be the general opinion of many R&R fans. Ofcourse, the baby, Ross's baby is the crucial part to the whole story. If Rachel weren't pregnant or wasn't pregnant with Ross's baby, the Joey/Rachel plot would be very easily dealt with.
I was a former R&R fan. I stopped being one from the time they started bickering. In 802, when the father was revealed as Ross's. I was disappointed but was prepared to accept a reunion it if it was done properly. In 803, I liked their sonagram scene and thought that they seem to be moving in the direction of an R&R reunion. But, they've been moving away from that since 805 throwing Joey into the mix. Perhaps something to do with Season 9 negotiations. With more money and such strong story possibilities, I can't imagine the actors not wanting to sign for another year.
Let's hope they don't sweep anyone's problems under the rug, be it Ross or Joey. If this is the last season, then it might be tough to be fair to all the character, though.
Weren't you ready to throw in the towel after 811 ? and now you're almost the complete opposite. I wouldn't be celebrating this early, we still have 9(?) episodes to go. A lot can or can't happen in those 9-10 episodes.
No I am not football guy. I do read his posts at Angel's message board, but I think I would just be wasting time posting there. Where do you guys get the idea that I'm him? Do you guys think it's possible that there can actually be more than one fan on the internet of a certain couple?
Ha Ha Ha Ha. That's funny, Footballguy (or should I say johnsonwalker). It's funny, because not only do you sound exactly like Footballguy, but you even post almost identical messages to him.
I found this on Angel's Friends Board:
Footballguy: "Do you really think that I'm the only fan of Joey and Rachel on the entire internet?" Sounds familiar, doesn't it (hint-read above quote).
Footballguy, if you want a fresh start over in this newsgroup, that's cool. But there is no need to lie about your recently banned from Angel's self.
That's funny...I thought text didn't make a sound.
Well, CLEARLY you proved me wrong with such evidence. I think I remember Footballguy saying once that he thought Joey and Rachel should hook up. And what do you know, I have said the same thing!
They have probably had a miniscule more foreshadowing than when Monica and Chandler got together.
I would point to parts in 802, 805, definitely 807, 810, and 811 as some indications that this might have been coming. And of course, they did have a LOT of screen time together in the 7th season, so at the very least the development of their close friendship has been there, if not romantic development.
Anonymous felt the need to spout this load of claptrap...
Actually, they had quite a bit of foreshadowing - the idea was in the writers heads for that by the end of the second season, and I recall at least two very strong hints from that season alone. Allegedly, the actress who played Kathy in S4 was cast because she closely resembled Monica. I never liked the couple much, but I can at least give them the fact that in hindsight there was a lot of genuine foreshadowing.
I'm not really bothered about whether J&R get together or not. But I must admit that I think it's a bit of a shame the writers felt that two straight male/female roommates couldn't have a platonic relationship for more than about a year. It's a bit of a tired cliche, to be honest.
I'm pretty sure there wouldn't have been any of Joey's romantic feelings for Rachel, if she wasn't pregnant. It's just the subconcious wish for fatherhood (protector gene?) and/or a real relationship. At least, if I were an author, this would be my excuse. Nevertheless it was platonic for Rachel all the time, and IMHO will be, thus the cliche isn't really fulfilled (yet).
Tina Nellis felt the urge to spew out this pile of ostenation on us...
Please...The only times they foreshadowed Monica and Chandler was season 3 in TOW The Flashback, and when Chandler proposed the idea of dating in TOW The Jellyfish. Joey and Rachel have had way more development than that.
I don't get what's the cliche here. I've had girl roommates before, and I have never felt the urge to have romantic feelings for them. It just turns out that it is possible that the perfect mate for both Rachel and Joey to spend their life with might just be the person they are living with.
Erm... well, I know Chandler and Monica fans who would in no way agree with you there. Ask at Angel's board, I'm sure you'd find many.
The cliche is just that - that supposedly, a male-female roommate couple cannot live together platonically. Which I know from experience is just a load of pants.
And as for the whole "soulmate" thing - the writers don't think in terms of "soulmates", they think in terms of what's going to be interesting enough to bump up ratings. These people *don't* *exist*, they do whatever the writers decide to tell them at the time. The only thing that determines whether characters engage in romantic relationships with one another is ratings.
Me, I personally just don't care one way or the other. The whole saga bores me, the only reason I'm still watching is because of Rachel's pregnancy. I was just making a point, no need to get all scrunchy with anyone.
On 6 Feb 2002 07:33:30 -0800, [email] (Anonymous) wrote:
You're right that Joey and Rachel's relationship has come a long way since she moved in with him in 618 TOW Ross Dates A Student, but Chandler and Monica had *a lot* of foreshadowing before they actually slept together in London. It became particularly evident in season 3 and season 4 (306 TOW The Flashback, 322 TOW The Screamer, 325 TO At The Beach, 401 TOW The Jellyfish, 417 TOW The Free Porn come to mind plus many others). The writers were preparing the characters for the London episode, and looking at it now, it's pretty obvious where it was leading.
Joey and Rachel started to shine last season, and as soon as she dumped Tag in 714 TOW They All Turn Thirty, they became even closer. I don't think Joey's feelings came out of nowhere, and even though Rachel only thinks of him as a very good friend at the moment, Joey is special to her.
Well, in all honesty, I guess TOW Could Have Been might have been considered foreshadowing - though, come to think of it, Joey and Rachel didn't actually end up together there. I genuinely think that, whenever a male and female character exhibit closeness at some point in the show's history, if they later couple, there will be those who find evidence of foreshadowing. If they put Ross together with Phoebe, some folks will claim foreshadowing. If Chandler breaks up with Monica to go with Phoebe, people will find foreshadowing. And my lord, if Joey ever goes gay with either of the other two men, the foreshadowing specialists will have a FIELD DAY!
On 2 Feb 2002 10:08:47 -0800, [email] (Anonymous) wrote:
I don't know who Rachel will end up with in the end, if she ends up with anyone, that is, but I know that Joey is in this plot for a reason.
He might be in it to make Ross and Rachel hook up again, but I doubt it, since his role in such a set-up would have been to make Ross look like Rachel's true prince. Instead, we have had the exact opposite where Ross has been stuck in mediocre/awful storylines which have made him look like an idiot, while Joey has been the friend and comfort that Rachel needs now that she's pregnant.
There's something more to this than the big RnR reunion, I'm sure of it. If the producers now choose to make Ross and Rachel fall in love again since they live in the same apartment, they may risk losing a lot of viewers, or we could get another backlash. This could of course be said about Joey and Rachel hooking up as well, but the idea of the two of them together has undoubtedly made many people interested in the show all over again.
At this point I don't see Rachel getting together with any of them. She and Ross are nowhere ready to start a new relationship, while she is still totally oblivious to Joey's feelings. If she has to end up with one of them it would be Joey, though, which would give Ross a good opportunity to leave the series. The producers have said that they might be able to continue the show with five people, but I doubt it. But if something as unexpected as that happens, this alternative might be the result of the whole R/J/R saga.
Yeah, to stir up controversy and have us on the edge of our seats. Joey is absolutely the most compelling and interesting opponent for Ross they could possibly have considered.
MMMMM..... the show had new life breathed into it the moment Rachel said she was pregnant, and Joey was acting as an effective foil for the R&R tribulations for months before he suddenly showed up in love with her. Remember, Joey has only really been an active romantic part of this season for two - or is it three? episodes, and we all knew we were witnessing a renaissance before the first month of new episodes was out.
That is an extremely reasonable conclusion, and I am leaning the same direction.
If she has to end up
Yes, if Joey gets Rachel, I would not be surprised to see it's because David has bailed. I think the whole Joey thing could have been conceived with this real - life crisis in mind, in which case the producers really, really found they had a situational lemon and made lemonade.
The producers have said that
That's the best explanation anybody could possibly give me for why they went this direction.
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:49:41 GMT, "abrahammy" wrote:
Well, yes, and I doubt they're going to drop Joey in a couple of episodes in order to start preparing for the big, inevitable RnR reunion in the finale. I just hope they know what they are doing here. Joey might end up being really hurt by the outcome of this drama, and I don't want to see him turn into a Mental Tribbiani now that we already have a Mental Geller.
That's true, but judging by the interviews, TV-promos, clips and general hype here in the USA, it's Joey and Rachel's relationship that is the main focus on the show right now. Matt LeBlanc was the one on The Tonight Show a week ago, while Jennifer Aniston has been in the spotlight all season. The casual viewers will probably be tuning in to watch *Joey* tonight since the episode is being promoted as an episode that will revolve around Joey's feelings.
Besides, I believe that Joey was one of the big reasons why the ratings have increased since Christmas. I know that Survivor has something to do with it, but like I said in another post, the target groups of Friends and Survivor are not exactly the same. Friends wants the demo-darlings (18-45), while CBS has a reputation of attracting viewers in all age groups.
I'm sure David wants to quit. Numerous reports and rumours point in that direction, and who can blame him? In fact, I think it's perfetly understandable that both he and Lisa want to quit after this season. They're stuck with filler-stories (especially Lisa), so I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to finish it all this season.
Yeah, one has to look at this while considering the actors' wishes. David Schwimmer wants to quit, and nobody should force him to stay if he just wants to do other projects.
OK, Johnson Walker, if you are not Footballguy (which I know you are), why don't you prove it.
Footballguy's IP address was banned over at Angel's Friend's Board, so he cannot post there. If you truly aren't Footballguy, then you should be able to post on that board. To prove that you are not Footballguy, why not post something in on the discussion board at Angel's, and add a "told you Hudman" at the end (so we will know it's you).
If you can successfully do this, then I guess you proved you aren't Footballguy. But if you can't, then we will all know who we are dealing with.
You know, I was kind of thinking that Johnson Walker was really,
consistently more pleasant to talk to than Footballguy was, even if he does
have a very similar writing style and makes all the exact same points using
the exact same phrases and the exact same logic. While I got to the point
where Footballguy's demeaning manner, sneering and eye-rolling made me very
annoyed, I've usually enjoyed talking to Johnson Walker. I don't quite
understand why Johnson answered to the name "Mike" or offered to make sure
he didn't make the conversation personal... Johnson has always been
personally civil. I actually kind of liked him. It was only Footballguy
that got insulting. That is, if they are different people and all. :-) Ya
know, I kinda hope Johnson keeps being the intelligent stand-up guy he's
been on *this* board, and maybe, just maybe, if we don't bait him and piss
him off out of spite, he will. What happened elsewhere is elsewhere.
Jesus, you guys really need to get lives if you have nothing better to do than to try to play detective on screen names... And I love being described like this in the third person. Where are you getting that I answer to the name Mike? My name is Paul for God's sake.
And in his defense, and I know I'm biased here, but quite honestly Footballguy was no more a jerk on the Angel's Board than you guys were to him. It just so happens that he was grossly outnumbered on that board, and that's why I never wanted to get into the fray with him. I'm sure my opinion would have been pissed on like his was, no matter how civil it was.
Nothing I do or say is going to change your mind, so I won't even bother. You believe what you want to believe, ain't no skin off my nose.
I'm surprised Tennant hasn't been "accused" of being Footballguy yet.