Re: What are you currently watching on TV?
Posted: Sat July 22, 2017 6:44 pm
Followed Friends closely in the 90s.
Chandler
Monica
Rachel
Ross
Joey
Phoebe
Chandler
Monica
Rachel
Ross
Joey
Phoebe
The Argonaut wrote:I'm surprised. I found it unwatchable.durdencommatyler wrote:Friends From College is fucking GREAT. Fucking. Great.
Friends is/was a fantastic show. It was shockingly progressive for the early 90s and it's still more progressive than a lot of sit-coms out there. The first 7 seasons are a gold standard in TV comedy. The last three seasons are wonky. Each season has bad episodes, sure. But overall it's one of the most consistent and interesting sit-coms America has produced. Don't let these dingdongs tell you differently.washing machine wrote:I know Friends is objectively bad, guys, but dammit those people are so likeable (except for Rachel and Ross.) We'll put that or Rules of Engagement on when we just want to watch bad TV after long days.
Chandlerwashing machine wrote:Let's all rank the Friends.
Phoebe
Chandler
Monica
Joey
Ross
Rachel
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Friends biggest flaw is that it's white-washed. Absolutely. But taking race out of it, how many other shows were there in the early 90s that featured complex women, that featured homosexual characters, that tackled trans issues? Now, it's not as progressive. If the show started airing today we wouldn't be having this conversation. But for 1994? Are you kidding me? And the way that it dealt with so many of those issues, issues that a lot of network shows today still won't touch, with such a lack of judgement was so interesting.tragabigzanda wrote:How is Friends "shockingly progressive" when it's about six financially comfortable straight white people living in Manhattan, engaging in silly consumerism and casual heteronormative sex? The Jeffersons, Roseanne, The Cosby Show -- THOSE are progressive network sitcoms. Friends is literally as safe as network television comes.
I know we're not supposed to say this kind of thing... but this was great.theplatypus wrote:Could it BE any more progressive?!
theplatypus wrote:Could it BE any more annoying?!
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Practically every sitcom on tv in 1994durdencommatyler wrote:Friends biggest flaw is that it's white-washed. Absolutely. But taking race out of it, how many other shows were there in the early 90s that featured complex women, that featured homosexual characters, that tackled trans issues? Now, it's not as progressive. If the show started airing today we wouldn't be having this conversation. But for 1994? Are you kidding me? And the way that it dealt with so many of those issues, issues that a lot of network shows today still won't touch, with such a lack of judgement was so interesting.tragabigzanda wrote:How is Friends "shockingly progressive" when it's about six financially comfortable straight white people living in Manhattan, engaging in silly consumerism and casual heteronormative sex? The Jeffersons, Roseanne, The Cosby Show -- THOSE are progressive network sitcoms. Friends is literally as safe as network television comes.
I'm not saying it was perfect. But for what it was: a major network sitcom in 1994, I think you have to acknowledge what the show did and how well it did it.
I completely disagree with your first point. It sounds to me like you're mistaking natural character development in spite of writing for "never letting them behave outside their prescribed roles." This characters change in major ways. And it's entirely organic. But if you bailed on the thing in S2, then maybe that's why you never saw it.tragabigzanda wrote:Friends biggest flaw is that it developed six great characters, and then beat them into the ground for the entire series by never letting them behave outside their prescribed roles...durdencommatyler wrote:Friends biggest flaw is that it's white-washed. Absolutely. But taking race out of it, how many other shows were there in the early 90s that featured complex women, that featured homosexual characters, that tackled trans issues? Now, it's not as progressive. If the show started airing today we wouldn't be having this conversation. But for 1994? Are you kidding me? And the way that it dealt with so many of those issues, issues that a lot of network shows today still won't touch, with such a lack of judgement was so interesting.tragabigzanda wrote:How is Friends "shockingly progressive" when it's about six financially comfortable straight white people living in Manhattan, engaging in silly consumerism and casual heteronormative sex? The Jeffersons, Roseanne, The Cosby Show -- THOSE are progressive network sitcoms. Friends is literally as safe as network television comes.
I'm not saying it was perfect. But for what it was: a major network sitcom in 1994, I think you have to acknowledge what the show did and how well it did it.
I wouldn't say that Friends "dealt" with issues at all; it was never even remotely an "issues" show. The show's inclusion of LGBTQ side-characters was somewhat refreshing in its lack of judgement, but when did it ever elevate any of those characters into something more than one-note archetypes?
And "complex women"?! Are you bonkers? There was not one single complex character on that show. Phoebe was flighty and sexually empowered. Monica was uptight and sexually empowered. Rachel was career-oriented and sexually empowered. They are cartoon characters next to Edith Bunker, or Laurie Metcalf's Jackie character on Roseanne.