Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:Was Married With Children still on tv? Now THAT'S real progress.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Friends is just as unwatchable as The Big Bang Theory or 2 Broke Girls or any other piece of shit sitcom on TV today

durdencommatyler wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

No, it wasn't an issues show. And that's my point. I think all the LGBTQ characters were more than one-note. Even Chandler's father, which is arguably the one to take the greatest issue with, was still a rounded person.

It sounds to me like you have your preferences and your mind is made up. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue preference with you. And I'm not here to tell you that All in the Family and Rosanne aren't amazing shows. They are. But if you think the ladies you mentioned are so much more complex than the ladies on Friends, then that to me just reads like pure bias. Or rather that you're keying into aspects of those other characters which were never meant to be part of the Friends and you're holding against the show for not aping those aspects.

@SkitchP wrote:I respect Joey's opinion on everything... except TV comedies. He doesn't even like Arrested Development.

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

No, it wasn't an issues show. And that's my point. I think all the LGBTQ characters were more than one-note. Even Chandler's father, which is arguably the one to take the greatest issue with, was still a rounded person.

It sounds to me like you have your preferences and your mind is made up. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue preference with you. And I'm not here to tell you that All in the Family and Rosanne aren't amazing shows. They are. But if you think the ladies you mentioned are so much more complex than the ladies on Friends, then that to me just reads like pure bias. Or rather that you're keying into aspects of those other characters which were never meant to be part of the Friends and you're holding against the show for not aping those aspects.

You are honestly going to argue that he's biased here? You of all people?

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Friends is just as unwatchable as The Big Bang Theory or 2 Broke Girls or any other piece of shit sitcom on TV today

I would argue that Friends is way better than either of those other two you mentioned. And it was far more interesting and progressive then those shows pretend to be now. But I've only seen a few episodes of 2BG. Maybe I'm wrong on that one.

Bi_3 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Friends is just as unwatchable as The Big Bang Theory or 2 Broke Girls or any other piece of shit sitcom on TV today

I would argue that Friends is way better than either of those other two you mentioned. And it was far more interesting and progressive then those shows pretend to be now. But I've only seen a few episodes of 2BG. Maybe I'm wrong on that one.

2BG is about as funny as Beasts of No Nation. Friends, while hardly revolutionary, was relatable for millions and was often funny. But, and I will accept the hate here, Scrubs is the benchmark sitcom for me.

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

No, it wasn't an issues show. And that's my point. I think all the LGBTQ characters were more than one-note. Even Chandler's father, which is arguably the one to take the greatest issue with, was still a rounded person.

It sounds to me like you have your preferences and your mind is made up. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue preference with you. And I'm not here to tell you that All in the Family and Rosanne aren't amazing shows. They are. But if you think the ladies you mentioned are so much more complex than the ladies on Friends, then that to me just reads like pure bias. Or rather that you're keying into aspects of those other characters which were never meant to be part of the Friends and you're holding against the show for not aping those aspects.

You are honestly going to argue that he's biased here? You of all people?

Go on... Say what you want to say, Burt. I've never known you to hold back before. I'm a little shocked, actually.

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.

tragabigzanda wrote:Joey I didn't bail on season 2 of friends, that's just about when I felt its schtick got old. I've seen just about every episode. They have all long since blended into one craptacular episode in my mind.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I'm officially done worrying about whether art is progressive. I am so sick of people talking about it in those terms.

durdencommatyler wrote:If that's what you got from what I wrote, then... well, I don't know what to tell you, friend. I guess I'll just have to try better next time.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I'm officially done worrying about whether art is progressive. I am so sick of people talking about it in those terms.

Yeah, I get that. I think it's important. But I get what you're saying.

@SkitchP wrote:I respect Joey's opinion on everything... except TV comedies. He doesn't even like Arrested Development.