[Y'know, I look back on what I wrote before, and I get the distinct impression that I was arguing a lot of points just for the sake of arguing. :-) However, some of what I wrote, especially about sitcoms in general, I will still stand by today.] FRIENDS Newsgroups: alt.tv.friends Path: uchinews!ellis!esti From: esti@ellis.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: What I *don't* like about Friends... Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 02:30:24 GMT While I really enjoy watching Friends (it's the first non-animated sitcom I've watched regularly in *years*), and there are many things I like about it, it's occurred to me that there are some aspects of the show that don't ring true and/or are potentially annoying. (Disclaimer: I've only seen about half the episodes-- I didn't even know about Ross's crush on Rachel till a few weeks ago!-- so there may be some key episodes I missed that would change my mind about some of these. Barring that, however, I hope these issues get addressed in season 2.) * The women just don't seem as real as true as the guys. Maybe it's because their characters are somehow subtler than, say, Chandler's, so I haven't picked up on the depth of their personalities yet? Nevertheless, I don't really get much of a sense of who Monica is, beyond her resume, or *why* such a beautiful women has such relationship troubles. Phoebe is enjoyable to watch, sometimes, but whereas *Joey's* dimwittedness is pretty realistic (the "Phoebe's birthday = Ursula's" and "Stalin" scenes are classic), I can't believe anyone like Phoebe really exists and is functional in the real world. Rachel is probably the most realistic of the three, but her shallowness, though realistic, is not an entertaining trait to watch. Would that she gets some maturity. (OK, admittedly, I'd probably willingly watch Jennifer Aniston sit in front of paint drying, but I'd *eventually* get bored.) * NONE of those six Beautiful People has an ongoing relationship? OK, true, there are reasonable explanations for any given one of them. (Ross is getting over his recent disaster, Joey just isn't mature enough and is happy playing the field, Chandler and Monica are too neurotic to recognize and/or act properly when presented with good opportunities, Phoebe just doesn't care much, and Rachel... um... say, what is Rachel's excuse?) In any cases, what are the odds that NONE of them are in relationships? Also, as mentioned elsewhere, what are the odds that none of the six ever considers dating one of the others? (Or, in Ross's case, never acts on the attraction?) (Or is it that the characters on "Friends" are normal and *I'm* unusual in that I actually *act* on attractions to female friends and ask them out? True, I always get shot down with "LJBF", but at least I ask, y'know? :-) * The "little things". I like the producer's comment that Monica probably has an illegal sublet, because why *would* she be able to afford a place like that in NYC otherwise? I also like that they ditched Marcel the monkey-- I thought the cast made the best out of scenes with Marcel, but he was an oddity that didn't fit. But there are a few other strange things left. No one else ever takes "their" couch at Central Perk? The apartments are always cleaned and furnished (except for maybe a single dish-in-the-sink as a prop)? No matter what else happens, the folks always have perfect hair? Etc. Maybe these aren't worth worrying about, but they are the sort of things that take away from overall realism. Anyway, these are just off the top of my head. Comments? Paul Andrew Estin "Haiku's inventor U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology must have had seven fingers estin@umich.edu on his middle hand." "You'd think YOU of all people would have KNOWN that!" "You'd think so, wouldn't you?" Newsgroups: alt.tv.friends Path: uchinews!ellis!esti From: esti@ellis.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Friends and relationships (was Re: Paolo returns in season premiere) Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <432305$pv4@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <432v3i$o9p@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <1995Sep12.153524.42971@nova.wright.edu> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 01:53:32 GMT In article <1995Sep12.153524.42971@nova.wright.edu>, HARMONY wrote: > I read somewhere, in a mag with an article on them. That it >wouldn't be 'life-like' if all of the relationships remained platonic. >(sp?) Which 'is' true. I have heard stuff on E! about the up coming >season, but other than that. Who knows? Agreed. It seems unlikely that out of all the possible pairings on the show, *none* of the characters would ever openly admit attraction to another. The relationships might not work out, but it's hard to believe that none would be attempted. Possible reasons a Ross/Rachel pairing would be a good idea: (1) (as others have mentioned) Two people having a relationship is less of a startling change when there are four other leads. (2) (which I haven't seen mentioned) I keep hearing Moonlighting and other examples of "the show died when the two leads became romantically involved/ married / whatever". Hang on. A contrary theory: the shows were *already* dying when the writers finally got desperate enough to say "What the heck, let's have 'em get together, maybe it'll boost ratings." However, the quality of the writing was still bad, and so we get debacles like the third season of Moonlighting. Don't think that'll be a problem with Friends-- I'd rather they keep some things shifting than let matters get stale. Nevertheless, I have a hard time picturing Ross and Rachel in a happy relationship for very long. They just don't seem like a very good match. Rachel just seems too self-absorbed to make it work. Paul Andrew Estin "Haiku's inventor U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology must have had seven fingers estin@umich.edu on his middle hand." She passes the cracker test with flying colors, though... Newsgroups: alt.tv.friends From: an345265@anon.penet.fi (Lulubells) Organization: Anonymous forwarding service Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 06:51:49 UTC Subject: Re: What I *don't* like about Friends... Lines: 51 Paul A. Estin writes: >While I really enjoy watching Friends (it's the first non-animated >sitcom I've watched regularly in *years*), and there are many things I >like about it, it's occurred to me that there are some aspects of the >show that don't ring true and/or are potentially annoying. Hear hear! While I do agree it's a funny show, it's *very* unrealistic and *very* potentially annoying (some people already find it annoying, at least certain aspects of it). Of course, tv isn't ment to be realistic, I know that, but you have these ridiculous people who insist that this is a "real to generation x" sitcom. Like *that* means anything :) >* The "little things". I like the producer's comment that Monica >probably has an illegal sublet, because why *would* she be able to >afford a place like that in NYC otherwise? She can't, without some sort of prostitution ring or something...I mean, come on, an assistant chef and a waitress at a coffeehouse affording *that* apartment? You know, maybe they *are* prostitutes... :) >No one else ever takes "their" couch at Central Perk? I was wondering the exact same thing! I mean, unless one of them is there 24 hours a day monitoring the couch, *someone* is bound to sit there before they get there... >No matter what else happens, the folks always have perfect hair? I dunno...during the offseason some of them had pretty damned crappy hair if you ask me (Matt Perry, don't *ever* get your hair cut like that again :) ) I have a few more...in the ep where Marcel gets lost and at the end Rachel does that cutsey little "If you take the monkey I tell you shot my friend in the ass with a dart" line...not gonna happen. Phoebe lept in front of that damned gun and believe me, the person in uniform is gonna be believed over someone who desperately wants to keep this illegal pet....and how can these people afford the clothing they wear? At least half of them have crap jobs (I dunno what Phoebe does, so I can't remark about her, but Joey - out of work actor business, Monica - soon to be out of work chef business, Rachel - not very good coffeehouse waitress) yet they can afford designer clothing. Yeah, *that's* happening sometime soon :) -Lulu, ever the skeptic ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi. If you reply to this message, your message WILL be *automatically* anonymized and you are allocated an anon id. Read the help file to prevent this. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi. Newsgroups: alt.tv.friends Path: uchinews!ellis!esti From: esti@ellis.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Re: What I *don't* like about Friends... Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <065316Z14091995@anon.penet.fi> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 01:18:07 GMT [Lots clipped to try to keep things, well, not short, but shorter than they would be otherwise.] >> = me, Paul Estin > = someone else >>* [The women don't have as much depth or sense-of-being-real as the >> guys.] From: giles@randomc.com (Giles Christie) > ... maybe there just hasn't been TIME to explore >everyone's character to the fullest. In any case, I've seen mentions of >the new season including a.) visits to where Phoebe lives with her >grandma, b.) Monica losing her job, and c.) Rachel finally having to >agonize over Ross for a change. So maybe they'll spend this season >fleshing out the female characters? That'd be cool. Something occurs to me just now. I *have* seen where Chandler works, and I've seen an episode with Joey at an audition, but I haven't yet seen Monica or Rachel at work or in that many other situations. Maybe that, in part, is why I haven't noticed as much depth to their characters. (On the other hand, I haven't seen the museum where Ross works, yet he seems real to me.) >> what is Rachel's excuse?) In any cases, what are the odds that NONE >> of them are in relationships? Also, as mentioned elsewhere, what are >> the odds that none of the six ever considers dating one of the others? >> (Or, in Ross's case, never acts on the attraction?) From: giles@randomc.com (Giles Christie) >I kind of thought it was often BECAUSE of the "Friends" thing that no >relationships were happening. I mean, like where Phoebe was dating >the psychiatrist? From: jfc013@lulu.acns.nwu.edu (Janet F Caires-Lesgold) >Regarding the "outside the Friends" relationship issue, did you see the early >episode where Monica was dating a really great guy that everybody liked, >except for Monica? He was wonderful to everyone, but Monica got sick of him, >and broke up with him. She asked him how he felt about her friends, and he >said that he thought they were creepy and way too needy. When she came home, >they all asked if he'd asked about them, and she lied & said that he wished >them well. It was a great twist on the previously-posted notion. Later! Good points. That's a reasonably plausible explanation... to a point. I can see that excuse getting old pretty quick, though, so I'm glad it looks like events on the show are now going in different directions. (Giles Christie is also right about the difficulty of "working (an outside relationship) into the show", and James Repka mentions that it would dangerously change the show's dynamic, but what *I'm* saying is that one also has to consider the awkwardness and unnaturalness of *not* doing so.) >>* The women just don't seem as real as true as the guys... >>I don't really get much of a sense of who Monica is... >>I can't believe someone like Phoebe exists and is functional in the real >>world... >>Rachel is probably the most realistic of the three... From: jlrpk@ucsc.edu (James Repka) >Monica is a moderately successful cook, a neurotic who still feels >oppressed by her mother and has anal retentive tendencies. She is the >"mother" of the group (see the episode where her credit card is stolen). >What do her looks have to do with whether or not she can have a successful >long-term relationship? Clearly, different types of characters strike us as more or less plausible. All I can say is, given the people *I've* met in my life, Monica and Phoebe don't seme very realistic. Re: Monica in a relationship... Not long-term, necessarily, but longer than an episode. I assume she is attractive enough to get asked out reasonably often, and I would expect one of those dates to lead to something lasting more than a couple weeks or so. I don't know anyone who goes out on dates relatively frequently but never has *any* of them last a month. (And, again, the same is true of Rachel.) From: jlrpk@ucsc.edu (James Repka) >Phoebe is flaky, but I've known flakier people who seemed to get along all >right. From: zimm@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Peanut) >I must disagree here. I think that Phoebe's view of the world is more >common than someone (Joey) not knowing who Stalin was. Come on, he's >not exactly 6 years old! Phoebe is not stupid or dimwitted. Some people >just don't think about the things that others do. But Phoebes knows who >Stalin was. I get into a lot of miscommunications with people because >I'm 'not on the same wavelength' but I've got my own wavelength, >thanks. Eat me I'm a Danish. Again, Your Mileage May Vary. The only people *I*'ve met who were anywhere near as flaky as Phoebe (not stupid, but more like "in a parallel Phoebe dimension") did not *also* manage to be as insightful as Phoebe is or organized/reliable enough at keeping a job and friends as Phoebe is. Contrariwise, despite living in a college town, I meet a frightening number of people who *seem* competent but are simply ignorant of (what I consider) simple facts of history, science, etc. (Me: "My ex-girlfriend is from Sri Lanka." Other person: "Where's that?" Me, unsurprised, since not many people know where it is: "It's an island southeast of India." OP: "Oh. Where's India?" Me, getting more worried: "Uh... in the south of Asia." OP: "Is Asia, like, which direction is that from here?") So, to me, Joey seems more realistic than Phoebe. From: jlrpk@ucsc.edu (James Repka) >So why does the shallow rich girl who seems incompetent at real work seem >the most realistic to you? I've met people like Rachel, you see. (They usually have nothing to do with me, of course. :-) >> * The "little things". No one else ever takes "their" >>couch at Central Perk? The apartments are always cleaned and >>furnished (except for maybe a single dish-in-the-sink as a prop)? No >>matter what else happens, the folks always have perfect hair? Etc. From: giles@randomc.com (Giles Christie) >I think my reaction to ALL of this is, "It's a TV show." Things are >ALWAYS bigger and better on the screen. From: jlrpk@ucsc.edu (James Repka) >If you want realism, you've come to the *wrong* place... Let me try to make myself clearer. I *do* allow TV shows a bit of license, but I also probably get tired of "TV conventions"-- especially sitcom conventions-- more quickly than many people do. As I said in my original post, prior to Friends, it had been years since I had regularly watched a non-animated sitcom. Even relatively good sitcoms-- Seinfeld, for example-- tend to annoy me after a while. For example, on Seinfeld, I get annoyed by the way that the characters so often get into awkward situations. Either the situation could be easily avoided by just doing the obvious thing instead of being neurotic (e.g. when Jerry was dating a masseusse, he wanted a massage from her, but wouldn't simply *ask* her), or the situation requires a series of unnatural implausibilities which eventually get painful for me to watch (an example from Mad About You: Paul and Jamie travel all over New York by subway, carrying luggage, trying to track down Jamie's sister, and always just missing her.) What I *like* about Friends is that, *most* of the time, the characters *don't* act spectacularly neurotic, the situations *aren't* heaps of implausibilities, and even when there *is* an implausible or embarrassing situation, the director doesn't draw out the scene (get reaction shot, make clear what's *going* to happen, then BANG to characters discussing it the next day-- no time wasted, no sense in drawing out a painful situation-- much more fun to watch!) So I get a little worried when I *DO* see any implausibilities pop up on Friends. Now, I am *less* bothered by minor implausibilities in the dialogue than ones which grossly affect the characters or plot. So, for example, in the episode where Marcel gets into the San Diego Zoo, I wasn't much bothered by the extended metaphor about zoos and colleges ("It's, like, a total party zoo!") Nor am I annoyed (quite the contrary!) when Chandler has yet another quip that is cleverer than even the most quick-witted of my friends could think of so quickly. Similarly, I'm not as bothered by the "little annoyances" like the gang always getting the same couch at the Central Perk. But such implausibilities do build up over time. Eventually, they kill some of the enjoyment for me. (Thanks also to comments from an345265@anon.penet.fi (Lulubells). I'd say more, but it's hard to reply to someone who;s in agreement. :-) Paul Andrew Estin "Haiku's inventor U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology must have had seven fingers estin@umich.edu on his middle hand." From: TL Swankiller Newsgroups: alt.tv.friends Subject: Re: What I *don't* like about Friends... Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 11:16:46 -0400 Organization: Spectra.Net Lines: 156 In-Reply-To: On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, Paul A. Estin wrote: > That'd be cool. Something occurs to me just now. I *have* seen where > Chandler works, and I've seen an episode with Joey at an audition, but > I haven't yet seen Monica or Rachel at work or in that many other > situations. Maybe that, in part, is why I haven't noticed as much > depth to their characters. (On the other hand, I haven't seen the > museum where Ross works, yet he seems real to me.) Actually, you have seen where Rachel works. She's a waitress at the Coffee Bar they all hang out in (Central Perk?). As far as Monica, I think we've only seen her restraunt once. With Ross, I know they must have shown the museum, since you can see him waiving from behind a really cheesey statue of a cave-man (Homo-sapien-neaderthalis?) in the opening credits... but I would also like to see more. > > (Giles Christie is also right about the difficulty of "working (an > outside relationship) into the show", and James Repka mentions that it > would dangerously change the show's dynamic, but what *I'm* saying is > that one also has to consider the awkwardness and unnaturalness of > *not* doing so.) It's hard to say. After all, the basic structure of the show is based around the dynamic between the six main chacacters. You have probably already seen the general reaction to the potential change in that dynamic by the fears regarding Rachel and Ross getting together. By adding a regular significant other to the show, they would be altering the basic interaction of the show. They did, after all, give Paulo a series of episodes. But as far as it goes, it would be difficult to enter a serious relationship into the series so early in its run. As far as the Rachel and Ross concept (since I brought it up) I think the writers have done an excellent job of showing platonic relationships, so I don't see where they'd have a big problem if a relationship were to break out in the series. After all, how many circle of friends do any of you have that don't include at least one couple. > Clearly, different types of characters strike us as more or less > plausible. All I can say is, given the people *I've* met in my life, > Monica and Phoebe don't seme very realistic. > > Re: Monica in a relationship... Not long-term, necessarily, but longer > than an episode. I assume she is attractive enough to get asked out > reasonably often, and I would expect one of those dates to lead to > something lasting more than a couple weeks or so. I don't know anyone > who goes out on dates relatively frequently but never has *any* of > them last a month. (And, again, the same is true of Rachel.) > Well, I must confess I know people like both Monica and Phoebe. Actually, I know a lot of women like Monica... in real life they tend to be a little more scary to be close to. As far as lots of dating and no long term relationships... Well, I don't know too many women like that, but it typifies my relationships. (no psychoanalysis please). > > Again, Your Mileage May Vary. The only people *I*'ve met who were > anywhere near as flaky as Phoebe (not stupid, but more like "in a > parallel Phoebe dimension") did not *also* manage to be as insightful > as Phoebe is or organized/reliable enough at keeping a job and friends > as Phoebe is. Contrariwise, despite living in a college town, I meet > a frightening number of people who *seem* competent but are simply > ignorant of (what I consider) simple facts of history, science, etc. > (Me: "My ex-girlfriend is from Sri Lanka." Other person: "Where's > that?" Me, unsurprised, since not many people know where it is: "It's > an island southeast of India." OP: "Oh. Where's India?" Me, getting > more worried: "Uh... in the south of Asia." OP: "Is Asia, like, which > direction is that from here?") So, to me, Joey seems more realistic > than Phoebe. OOOH Oooh! I've got a story just like that, but I think it was worse. When I was doing grad work at Cambridge University (yes, in England that's east of here) I was friends with a Master's student in Political Science (or whatever that dept. was called... sorry it was a long time ago). One day while speaking about geography, or something our conversation went something like: Me: "... but that's all tied up with the Russo-Japanese War." DW: "Did Russia and Japan go to war?" Me (slowly, uncertain whether or not this is a joke): "Yes... some time ago." DW:"I didn't realize they shared a border." Me (realizing it wasn't a joke): "They, don't." Seb (a third party present whose PhD. was on the Russo-Japanese War): "Actually, it was partially due to that war that the Japanese army became bound to Germany, and the Japanese Navy had closer ties to the British." DW: Japan has a Navy... I didn't even know they had a coastline..." Anyways... I digress. I think Phoebe is a bit of a n exception, but that is not to say I don't know flakies like her. I would guess that living in a College town, you might have met more than a few. The type who really seems bright, but completely out of touch. Often found about art > I've met people like Rachel, you see. (They usually have nothing to > do with me, of course. :-) > Mmm, is your name Ross? > Let me try to make myself clearer. I *do* allow TV shows a bit of > license, but I also probably get tired of "TV conventions"-- > especially sitcom conventions-- more quickly than many people do. As > I said in my original post, prior to Friends, it had been years since > I had regularly watched a non-animated sitcom. Even relatively good > sitcoms-- Seinfeld, for example-- tend to annoy me after a while. > > For example, on Seinfeld, I get annoyed by the way that the characters > so often get into awkward situations. Either the situation could be > easily avoided by just doing the obvious thing instead of being > neurotic (e.g. when Jerry was dating a masseusse, he wanted a massage > from her, but wouldn't simply *ask* her), or the situation requires a > series of unnatural implausibilities which eventually get painful for > me to watch (an example from Mad About You: Paul and Jamie travel all > over New York by subway, carrying luggage, trying to track down > Jamie's sister, and always just missing her.) > > What I *like* about Friends is that, *most* of the time, the > characters *don't* act spectacularly neurotic, the situations *aren't* > heaps of implausibilities, and even when there *is* an implausible or > embarrassing situation, the director doesn't draw out the scene (get > reaction shot, make clear what's *going* to happen, then BANG to > characters discussing it the next day-- no time wasted, no sense in > drawing out a painful situation-- much more fun to watch!) So I get a > little worried when I see any implausibilities pop up on Friends. > > Now, I am *less* bothered by minor implausibilities in the dialogue > than ones which grossly affect the characters or plot. So, for > example, in the episode where Marcel gets into the San Diego Zoo, I > wasn't much bothered by the extended metaphor about zoos and colleges > ("It's, like, a total party zoo!") Nor am I annoyed (quite the > contrary!) when Chandler has yet another quip that is cleverer than > even the most quit-witted of my friends could think of so quickly. > > Similarly, I'm not as bothered by the "little annoyances" like the > gang always getting the same couch at the Central Perk. But such > implausibilities do build up over time. Eventually, they kill the > enjoyment for me. > I actually agree with you on these points. My petty peeve is usually consistency, but plausability is a big one. I can see myself or my friends getting into situations like the one's in Friends, whereas I can't see myself consistently falling into the George or even Jerry scenarios. I guess I find the whole situation regarding the charecters more believable than you do. But again, that's a personal thing. I have met a number of people like the crowd in friends, albeit they are not consistently like that. I guess its bound to the confines of a sit-com, and thus I am willing to suspend my disbelief. Where I would loose interest is if they were to find themselves in the same kind of situations Sienfeld and so many others do. On the side... its nice to see a new thread appear here. Keep it up. TLS