# Has "Friends" not aged well?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-friends-not-aged-well/534252>\
**Category:** Cafe Society\
**Created:** [March 29, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-friends-not-aged-well/534252 "2010-03-29T20:57:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\
**Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-friends-not-aged-well/534252/81 "2010-04-06T18:12:37Z")

</div>

> [@WOOKINPANUB](#):
>
> I’ve seen a few people mention the egos of the stars. Can someone elaborate? Did it feel like they were all jockeying for bigger storylines or something, or do you mean they were all overexposed in the media and you were sick of them?

It has to be the second one, because the Friends had no egos when it came to storylines and money.

They all agreed to negotiate together so they were all paid exactly the same and when it came time for award consideration, they all were always submitted as supporting actors. No one was considered a lead over anyone else.

And off the air, they were all good friends and stay good friends to this day.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-friends-not-aged-well/534252.md?page=4)