Inter-Sitcom Crossovers/References

Tennant Stuart wrote:

There's a "Seinfeld" episode during which George and his fiance Susan were seen watching an episode of "Mad About You" on television.

But on a "Mad About You" episode, they reference Paul Buchman subletting his apartment to Kramer, and in another Mad About You episode, they show Paul meeting Jerry on a NYC street. Worlds collide.

Also, in another "Seinfeld" episode, Jerry goes on the Tonight Show with George Wendt and Corbin Bernsen, as the actors who played characters in "Cheers" and "L.A. Law" and not as Norm and Arnie, so those universes definitely do not overlap, which would have to mean that in the "Seinfeld" universe, "Frasier" *must* be a TV show.

Shame. Dr. Crane could have done a thing or two for George Costanza.

I don't think there's ever been any kind of Seinfeld/Friends crossover. I could never have seen him agreeing to it.

Dave

It *could* have happened, though. Since "Mad About You" and "Friends" are in the same world (i.e. the character "Ursula" has often appeared in both shows), and since Seinfeld may be in the "Mad About You" world (depending on how one resolves the paradox you mentioned with George watching "Mad About You", but Kramer subletting from Paul Buckman), it's possible that there could have been a Seinfeld/Friends crossover.

'Course, since Courtney Cox was in a Seinfeld episode, that would be another paradox. :-)

In article , "John Twernbold" wrote:

That's not a paradox, Courteney Cox is not Monica Geller.

The same goes for Susan Sarandon/Cecilia Munro, Bruce Willis/Paul Stevens, and Elle Macpherson/Janine Lacroix.

Tennant

On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Tennant Stuart stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Damn - you beat me to this one!

In article , Paul Hyett wrote:

Grin. It would have been nice if Joey had compared Cecilia to fellow actress Susan Sarandon, and she said "That bitch!" or something. :)

Tennant

What about Third Rock From The Sun, when Mary Albright (Jane Curtin) dragged the Solomons to a 'Susan St. James Retrospective'. (Kate and Allie)

No, you've missed the point. The paradox is that *Meryl* is not Monica Geller, yet both characters were played by the same actor. Get it?

<<<No, you've missed the point. The paradox is that *Meryl* is not Monica Geller, yet both characters were played by the same actor. Get it?>>>

But Seinfeld (as well as many other shows) has had actors appear more than once in different roles (Carol Liefer, for example).

In article , "John Twernbold" wrote:

If I take a deep breath, and put my fingers in my ears, and screw up my eyes, and try very very hard, then I can *just* about understand that...

..it's still not a paradox, actors can play more than one part - this didn't faze audiences 400 years ago, so should cause no worries now.

Tennant

[sigh]

I suppose it depends on how anal-retentive one is in defining the term "paradox". If we use a general definition of a paradox being a contradictory situation, then the scenario I suggested (somewhat tongue-in-cheek, might I add; didja' notice the smiley?) certainly qualifies. Shall we also define the word "is" at this time to prevent future confusion on your part?

What newsgroup are you posting from, and are its regulars all as mind-numbingly pedantic (and devoid of a sense of humor) as you are? ;-)

[mock surprise]: Nooo! Say t'ain't so!

In article , "John Twernbold" wrote:

As soon as you resorted to making insults I stopped bothering with you.

Tennant Stuart

Tennant Stuart wrote in message ...

Hey Tennant.. it's customary to type *PLONK* and make believe you've killfiled him.

You're welcome,

homerr.. bachelor#3

In article , "homerr..2K" wrote:

Lol, thanks Homer, I'll remember that! :)

Tennant

LOL, which part were you insulted by, being called "pedantic" or "humorless"? You seem like you'd wear either description with a certain amount of pride. :-)

And really, the former is well-deserved since you decided to analyze and critique a simple one-liner I made at the end of a post, which although intended as a throw-away joke was still basically correct despite your attempts to prove otherwise. (I believe this is the part where I taunt, "Nyah, nyah", right?)

The latter description of you as "humorless" is rather ironic, given your inability to understand a bit of gentle ribbing (complete with smileys for the humor-impaired or easily-offended) in a message crossposted to newsgroups devoted to television COMEDIES! Who has to explain to you the jokes in such shows?

I think your personality makes you perfectly suited to write a publication which you could title "The Nitpicker's Guide to Comedy", where you could point out that chickens don't really cross roads, and lightbulbs can always be changed by just one person. ;-)

John, if you *ever* decide to change your style as a result of a Usenet complaint, I promise I will killfile you immediately and never look back.

LOL! Damned if I do, damned if I don't... ;-)

John Twernbold wrote in message news:Mg0T6.81066$[email]...

I think that he just means that because the characters are different, Courteney Cox Arquette could maybe play both parts a la Lisa Kudrow as both Ursula and Phoebe, and David Schwimmer as Russ and Ross. Elle MacPherson has been mentioned in Friends as herself but she gueststarred in it playing a fictional character. It might be kind of cool if they said: "Hey, you look so much like..." or whatever. I don't know. That's just what I think about it.

Right, I understand that and agree. But even in fiction there's a certain amount of consistency and logic. For example, Ursula and Phoebe are identical because they're twins, not because they're played by the same actor. And Ross and Russ were so strikingly familiar (even despite the use of face-altering prosthetics) that it was the focus of that plot thread. Every paradox in fiction can be explained away through some clever writing. Monica and Meryl could have turned out to be identical twins, etc.

The point is that absent such explanation, it's still a self-contradictory situation. And therefore, a paradox. Whether it could be explained away through some fictional device is largely irrelevant since there was never a Friends/Seinfeld crossover.

In any event, my comment that started all this was simply a humorous one-liner at the end of a message. It's not something I'll submit for publication as a serious piece, nor is it a knee-slapper I'll take on the road. Just a conversational remark, and I'm quite amused that Terrent has found it necessary to analyze and critique it so deeply. That guy must be great fun at parties... :-)

John Twernbold wrote in message news:v0tT6.93416$[email]...

Which one is the evil one though? Oh dear lord!

We should have a huge party and find out! Sorry, I'm that way inclined today.

[Doctor]: "You know, isn't it interesting how the left--or sinister--twin is invariably the evil one. I had this theory that... Wait a minute. Meryl's scar is on the wrong side. She couldn't have been the evil left twin. That means the evil twin is, and always has been... Monica!" [Monica]: "Oh, don't look so shocked..."

Super! I'll bring the chips. Uh... no "double-dipping", please. ;-)

In article , "CandiGrrl" wrote:

Thanks Mari. :)

Tennant

In article , "CandiGrrl" wrote:

You are very wise.

Tennant

On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 00:13:29 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

Does this mean that Jerry Seinfeld is not Jerry Seinfeld?

(Sorry, too easy.)

Sophie

In article , [email] (Sophie) wrote:

Indeed so, two people with the same name, but different lives.

Tennant

Sure. Independent Jerry and Relationship Jerry.

Dave (worlds are colliding.)

<<<'Course, since Courtney Cox was in a Seinfeld episode, that would be another paradox. :-) >>>

And Jason Alexander appeared on Friends this past season.

On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, John Twernbold stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

No more than Chandler & Joey being Die Hard fans, then meeting Bruce Willis as Elizabeth's father. :)

Yes, and Bruce Willis played himself in MAY. He was making a Die Hard sequal 'Die already'.

It'd be cool if someone tried to map all this out visually, like with flow charts or Venn diagrams or something.

In article , Dave wrote:

A much better example is Eddie Cibrian, who played himself in the third episode of "Sabrina the Teenage Witch", then only three weeks later he played her dream date at a school dance. Still not a paradox.

No thanks, though I once did a flow chart of the events in the TNG episode where Data's severed head went through time to San Francisco & back...

Tennant

On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Tennant Stuart stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

And I've still no idea who he is, outside of this context.

In article , Paul Hyett wrote:

He starred in "Baywatch Nights", plus the soap operas "The Young and the Restless", "The Bold and the Beautiful", and "Sunset Beach".

Tennant

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Tennant Stuart stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

That explains why I don't know him then!

On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 00:25:08 BST, Tennant Stuart wrote:

The humanity!

Sophie

In article , Dave wrote:

But how much of MAY did you see George watch? If it was just the titles (like "Cheers" in 423 "TOW Ross's Wedding 1"), or the theme music (like "ER" in 505 "TOW the Kips"), then the content of those shows in that other universe could be entirely different.

Since Jerry Seinfeld played a character very like himself, there's no conflict there.

Not really, maybe in the Seinfeld universe "Cheers" is an autobiographical show where George Wendt was cast as Norm because he looks just like him, or "Cheers" could be an entirely different show altogether that happens to have a different character named Norm played by George Wendt.

Well, both Niles Crane & Chandler Bing have appeared in "Caroline in the City", and both Cosmo Kramer & Chandler Bing have appeared in "Mad About you", so it's possible if you want it badly enough.

Yeah, after "Friends" stole all his thunder. :)

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

But Jerry the character was a comedian trying to become a big success, whose sitcom was cancelled right after the pilot. Paul and Kramer laughed at the idea of Jerry trying to make a go of his TV project. The real-life Jerry Seinfeld was a successful comedian with a wildly popular TV series. I had no doubt that when Paul got all excited about meeting Jerry on the street, it was this very successful "real" Jerry, not some schlub who used to live across the hall from him.

_Seinfeld_ also negated the _Mad About You_ connection in their "backwards" episode, where Jerry, Elaine, George, and George's then-girlfriend go to India for a wedding. The episode started at the "end" and then moved back--e.g., "earlier that day," "the day before." In the tag, it backtracked to the day Jerry moved in--and met his neighbor Kramer. This negates _M.A.Y._'s version of events, which had Paul B. living across the hall from Jerry before subletting the place to Kramer.

Jonathan Silverman played Carol's obstetrician in TOW the Birth, but DS played Ross on an episode of _The Single Guy_, with JS playing his usual character on that show. (JS and DS are good friends in real life.) Jessica Hecht, who plays Susan on _Friends_, was also a regular on _The Single Guy_, but her character was just conveniently out of town on that episode to avoid that whole look-alike issue.

Mardi

In article , "Mardi" wrote:

Ah, but they did *explicitly* say so, or are you just assuming that?

Maybe it was Jerry the character, but Paul had some other reason to get excited about meeting him.

Well since "Seinfeld" was a crap show full of continuity errors, we can simply disregard any crossovers in that show as being non-cannon, while allowing the crossover *from* "Seinfeld" into MAY. :)

Tennant

Tennant moved on in and said: <<<<<Well since "Seinfeld" was a crap show full of continuity errors, we can simply disregard any crossovers in that show as being non-cannon,.........>>>>>

Heretic! Every word of every Seinfeld script is Truth. There is no room for interpretation.

I smell a scism coming on.

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

These sitcom folks could use you as a public relations person--you seem to have a definite penchant for coming up with the most generous explanations for what less generous viewers would consider continuity breaches. . . . :)

But, yes, I was referring to the impression I got from the way it was played out. Can you imagine how silly it would be if it were presented as, "Wow, look, there's Jerry Seinfeld, the extremely successful sitcom actor and comedian," or "Look, it's Jerry who used to live across the hall from me; he's not very successful but I'm excited to see him nonetheless!" Also, Jerry showed no signs of recognition, not even as a guy he vaguely remembered seeing in his building.

Aw, I like _Seinfeld_--and also liked _MAY_ until the really bad last-season episodes.

Mardi

In article , "Mardi" wrote:

Grin. It's just that to prove a paradox, like a continuity error, you need more than just an implicit assumption. And don't forget that in the various sitcom worlds, the sitcoms that they watch might have the same titles or theme music as our own, but be very different in content.

Like I said, you need more than an impression to prove a paradox.

Think yourself lucky, I've only seen the first 5 seasons of MAY.

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

to

explanations

I don't know what standard of "proof" you'd require to show that the writers either forgot or didn't care about their earlier connection to _Seinfeld_'s universe. To me, it was clearly one or the other, but I suspect you'd never consider it "proven."

By the way, did you ever see the _MAY_ episode in question (Paul seeing Jerry Seinfeld on the street)? I don't remember for sure what season it was in, but my sense is it was sometime after season five.

I've seen other posts where you summon what I consider a generous interpretation to smooth over what others--including me--consider an inconsistency. There was one in the "For the boys" thread, which I won't detail here for lack of spoiler space. But I agree with the author of the article who thought the writers had continuity problems there. (Let's not start an argument on that particular point, though, because I don't think either of us will convince the other).

I'm curious: were there any storylines or occurrences in _Friends_ --not limited to crossovers--that you considered out-and-out inconsistencies or continuity errors; any for which you did not develop an explanation? Not attacking you here, I'm genuinely interested.

Mardi

On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Mardi stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Have you got a year to spare? :)

In article , "Mardi" wrote:

Actually I don't take it as seriously as some people around here seem to think (not you) it's just that on the subject of alternate realities there is a lot of room for alternataive explanations, I am just being flexible, that's all. We have a kids sitcom "Marian & her Merry Men" which posits that Robin Hood was an idotic figurehead and Maid Marian was the real leader - anyway, the writers have great fun constructing what seem to be anachronisms which turn out to be no such thing. For example, somebody throws a rock and a villeger complains that it has just dented the bonnet on his Rover, but then you see it's a dog with a damaged hat. (I think you guys call the bonnet on a car the hood).

No, I haven't seen it, but according to the IMDb it was episode 701 "Season Opener", shown on 22nd September 1998.

Like I said, I'm just being flexible. :)

Friends is actually packed full of continuity errors due to being edited out of several sets of takes, but most people fail to notice them. What in fact they most often notice are plot holes, and on the whole the show not too bad when you consider the running time now exceeds 60 hours.

But yes, there are inconsitencies, as you'd know if you read my reviews, and indeed my piece on 714 was subtitled "Ripping Out Candles" which was a reference to problems with the established back stories of Rachel to a ceryian extent, and Monica even more so. But of course what happened was some people found fault with the other four characters, totally missing the fact that their stories were set in earluer seasons.

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

Mmm hmmm. I have a feeling that if you'd seen it, you'd agree about "which Jerry" it was--but of course I can't *prove* that. ;)

Well, I'm glad we can agree that the inconsistencies exist. I'd only read a few of your reviews (having been away from the ng for years), and in the ones I'd read you seemed to excuse/explain whatever inconsistencies there might have been. I looked up your review for 7.14, and I couldn't agree more about pulling out b-day candles. This is one of my peeves with the show. But you seemed to be inclined to come up with explanations for these, too.

BTW, do you remember in TOW the Birth (May 11, 1995), Joey said he was 25, while Monica said she was 26? Then in later seasons, Joey was made to be the same age as Ross and Chandler. In season 4, for example, in TOW They're Going to Party (Dec 11, 1997), all three guys say they're 29. I always figured Monica and Rachel were the same age (they were the in same high-school graduation class). Phoebe, who has said her mother died when she was 14, mentioned in TOW Joey's Bag (5.13; Feb 4, 1999), that her mother had died 17 years before. In 3.05 (TOW Frank Jr, Oct. 17, 1996), Phoebe tells Frank Jr. her birthday is February 16. So, depending on how precise she was being, that would have made her turn 31 or 32 in 1999.

So, based on those clues, the characters should now be:

Monica: 32 Rachel: 32 Phoebe: 33 or 34 Joey: 31 or 33 (depending on whether you accept his TOW Birth age or TOW They're Going to Party) Chandler: 33 Ross: 33 at some point this year

Mardi, putting those candles back in!

In article , "Mardi" wrote:

Don't forget that he can be a famous Jerry, even one with a successful sitcom, but in the world of MAY that doesn't mean that the sitcom is the same sitcom that is in our world. That might sound silly, but we are talking about what happens in a sitcom, where this can happen.

If you read my review closely, you'll see that there were no conflicts for Ross, Joey, Phoebe & Chandler, since their birthdays were set in Seasons 4 or 5; as you can tell by the careful redressing of the sets, and the old hairstyles & costumes. For example, on Phoebe's birthday, Monica wears the same dress that she wore in 401 "TOW the Jellyfish".

Rachel's birthday was not set in the past, so she had become two years younger, but there was enough vagueness about her past for the writers to get away with what was a most entertaining episode. However, I did point out that Monica's birthday was unnecessarily set during Season 7, and her age was definitively set in 122 "TOW the Ick Factor", so there was an inconsistency here. I suspect CCA wanted the same deal as JA.

If you don't mind Mardi, I'd rather not get dragged into this discussion yet again for what I guess would be the sixth time. The points you raise have all been said many times before, and I do apologise for my lack of enthusiasm to discuss them yet again. Suffice to say that some of what you say is accurate, but some of it needs to be looked at afresh. For example, in 409 "TOW They're Gonna Party" all three guys do *not* say that they're 29, take another look. If you wish to go into detail, I have a spreadsheet which gathers the evidence in a more organised way, and you are very welcome to have a copy. :)

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

AAAAAaaaauuuuuuugggghhhh! Okay, let's drop this then. The sitcom will never be wrong. Gah!

Yes, I guess I missed that.

Not so vague that we're supposed to think she skipped two grades, Monica flunked two, or Monica flunked one/Rachel flunked one. And the friends-tv.org FAQ writers seems to believe that Rachel should have been 31 by the end of season 6, though they mention her 28-year-old cheerleader comment means she was turning 29 in May 1998--making her 31 this year (already shaving off a year, probably). Yes, I did read your commentary on this point, but I think it's sort of a bending-over-backwards to make the writers not mistaken or fudging.

I understand--I've had this discussion several times elsewhere, but never with respondents so eager to defend the writers so meticulously. Usually it was, "Yeah, but the show's funny and I don't care. What's your problem, anyway?" ;)

Suffice to say that some of what

Chandler says he's 29. All three chime in on their need to relax more now that they're "older," and after Ross's Kenny-G comment, Joey says, "We're 29, not women." I guess you could argue that Ross isn't 29. Monica, in the season-four finale, refers to him as her thirty-year-old son when the drunk mistakes her as his mother.

If you wish to go into detail, I

No, thanks--I've spent too much time on this already!

Mardi

"Mardi" wrote in message news:F_NT6.57683$[email]...

Whoops--that last was supposed to be "skipped one."

Mardi

In article , "Mardi" wrote:

No, what I'm saying is that the writers came up with an idea for a great story based on the life crisis of turning 30, so they went ahead and made it. They didn't make a mistake, that knew what they were doing, and even acknowledged it in the "ripping out candles" moment. Who cares if two of the girls get a little younger for the sake of such a fine episode? Does it bother you that the three children in The Simpsons never age at all?

Ya, it's a case of been there, done it, done it, done it, done it, done it.

Chandler was approaching 29, and was emphasising his age. Joey was 29.

This is the difference between "all three guys say that they're 29" and Ross not saying that he is 29.

And she was quite correct when she did so, and the ages of all three guys were quite in agreement with their 30th birthdays as shown in episode 714.

Okay Mardi, but what it shows is how the references correlate with their ages on a month-by-month basis, and it is often the failure to take this factor into account that leads so many people astray.

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

Me, I care! Hey, I was 27 when the show started, and had no choice but to become one year older *every* year since--if I do, they should, also. :)

Does

Not usually, since they're cartoon characters. Sometimes when they get into flashbacks, things get a bit buggy. But that's not the best comparison since the live actors on _Friends_ *do* age, as do their characters. Once it's been established that the characters age, I'd prefer that they continue to do so, consistently, every year (like 34-year-old me!). BTW, I remember Marta Kaufman mentioning the turning-30 episode idea in an interview 2-3 years ago. I wish they hadn't waited so long!

Sigh. Yes, I took Joey's "we" as inclusive of all three. I plead guilty.

Okay, you've talked me into it. Send it on over, then. :)

Mardi

In article , "Mardi" wrote:

I know how you feel, but that's half the fun of fiction.

Well, it's my guess that they reckoned the could get away with it for Rachel, but CCA wanted the same for her character, so she was getting away with something that you & I cannot.

Me too.

Okay.

Sure thing. :)

Tennant

"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...

I disagree--I've always appreciated authors who keep these details consistent (I even ribbed John Updike for being inconsistent about Mim's age in the _Rabbit_ series when I met him at a reception a few years ago!). And there's Faulkner changing Quentin's age for no apparent reason from _The Sound and the Fury_ to _Absalom, [address] So, yeah, I'm this anal about literature too (moreso since I'm writing a doctoral dissertation about it).

Yeah, we agree! ;)

their

this

Thanks. ;)

Mardi

In article , "Mardi" wrote:

Once again, I'm not really disagreeing with you, I think it all just depends on the situation. It is good for details to be kept consistent, after all you will have noticed how I love to correlate these details, but OTOH if someone comes up with a great story to tell, then I shan't mind if the rip out a few candles, as long as it's deliberate.

I'm impressed to hear about your dissertation, tell me more. And what was John Updike like? I thought that the movie of "The Witches of Eastwick" was good until I read his novel, which was amazing.

Grin. :)

Were you able to extract the text as a CSV file, and drop in into your favourite spreadsheet program okay? And if so, does it make any sense to you? Mind you, it's a bit clearer when you colour it in. :)

Tennant

But not his ratings. :-)

On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Dave stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Oh well, I'll just have to be content in the knowledge that Friends is *far* more popular in the UK than Seinfeld.

In article , Paul Hyett wrote:

Nah - it's *F*A*R* more popular than Seinfeld ever was. :)

Tennant

Duh. It's still in first run.

Dave (apples and persimmons)

In article , Dave wrote:

Duh yourself. Seinfeld was never popular in Britain, though the TV critics all loved the show & kept recommending it. But that's not unusual, for most American programmes fare badly over here, compared with the high standard of our own channels. But Friends is different, for a US sitcom it's huge.

If you go into a video store here, you will find row upon row of videos and DVDs of all sorts of TV shows for sale, many of them older material, so being out of first run is not a hindrance. Yet as you search those shelves, you'll find that two sitcoms are missing - Seinfeld & Friends.

Why?

Because nobody wants to watch Seinfeld for free, let alone pay money for it, while Friends is so popular it has its own racks of shelves.

Tennant

I shouldn't be surprised. Much of the humor in "Seinfeld" is rooted in American culture and in NYC/Jewish culture in particular. There are plenty of areas in the US that don't understand the show either.

It appeals to a lower common denominator.

Because Seinfeld hasn't been released on DVD or video? Or are you talking about bootleg video stores?

It all depends on who the show is trying to appeal to, really.

If *I* had an extremely successful show in *my* country, and it fared poorly overseas amongst the masses but was lauded by their critics, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

In article , Dave wrote:

Yeah, but the same applies to "Friends". For example, just recently I had to ask what "Pat, I would like to buy a vow" meant - it turned out to be a refernce to "Wheel of Fortune", its host Pat Sajak, and a vowel.

That's not how I see it, but it's best if we simply agree to differ. :)

No, legitimate stores. You can find lots of sitcoms & dramas on sale outside America, there's no prblem about stuff being released.

Fair enough, I don't wish to spoil your devotion to your show. :)

Tennant

On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Tennant Stuart stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

I'd buy shows like Frasier, Cybill and several others on DVD if I could.

In article , Paul Hyett wrote:

I haven't seen Frasier DVDs on sale, but there are Frasier videos.

Tennant

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Tennant Stuart stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

Not all episodes, just a 'best of' selection.

On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Dave stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

There has to be a reasonable level of demand before anything is released commercially - companies are funny that way! :)

For Seinfeld in the UK, that demand is far too low to be commercially viable, and I've never even heard bootleg copies being requested.

There are also shows which the networks didn't like, but prove hugely successful in reruns - Star Trek being the extreme example!

Paul Hyett wrote:

Ha ha, you are so funny that I'm killfiling this thread.

A guy can only laugh so much, you know.

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:...

"The high standard of our own channels"? And they say British comedy writing is dead. (Not that US networks are much better, but at least they don't have gardening and maekover programmes all over primetime.) I blame the let's-put-it-at-2.15-or-11.30-it's-only-American schedulers myself - how big would "Friends" have been here if ITV had bought it?

I personally would think that any "Friends" fan with a VCR wouldn't really need to pay through the nose for videos of it (except to complete gaps, mind). But then I don't watch "Frasier" so what do I know?

CindyLover

I guess i'm as dumb as phobe or joey because i don't have the foggiest.... are you all really arguing. Is this an english guy and an american guy or what? Why are you all arguing about a show that has broken al records and isn't even on anymore. I have all 177 episodes of seinfeld and i hope when friends goes off there will be a magazine with summaries of all the shows in order so that i can tape the the same way. Why are you being so one dimensional? Yes, im talkin' to you. You don't wanna get on my bad side. Stop fighting. I just got ran off a soap opera ng because i'm to opinionated or something or maybe it was because i was confused. Can you imagine that?