The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
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.
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.
Post subject: Re: What are you currently watching on TV?
Posted: Sat July 22, 2017 7:25 pm
Production Police
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47163 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
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.
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.
I'll still argue to this day that The One With The Holiday Armadillo from season seven is one of the funniest half hours of TV I've ever seen. I watch it every year and it never stops slaying me.
Post subject: Re: What are you currently watching on TV?
Posted: Sat July 22, 2017 8:57 pm
Production Police
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47163 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
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.
Post subject: Re: What are you currently watching on TV?
Posted: Sat July 22, 2017 8:58 pm
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm Posts: 39820 Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 102 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
