And to bring things full circle, the real J Peterman company expanded too fast in the 1990s and went bankrupt around 2000. It was revived with the financial support of John O’Hurley, who played J Peterman in the show.
IMO they died in that plane. The courtroom was the after life where they were being judged for their sins. They weren’t good enough to go to heaven, but not bad enough to go to hell. So locked up in a jail cell together was ‘purgatory’.
While I’m here: I HATE Kramer. I hate his stupid face, his ugly hair, his white socks, and his too-short filthy looking old-man pants that came out of a thrift store bin (after someone’s ancient uncle died). That’s just the surface. Everything he says and does kind of creeps me out. The exception is his plan to put the homeless to work as rickshaw drivers, and I thought that was bizarrely funny when one of them just…ran off down the street with the rickshaw!
That so many people don’t get this just irks the daylights out of the people associated with that show.
One could make the case that all four major characters are unlikable because they’re all shallow and self-serving – and many of the minor ones as well: George’s parents, Uncle Leo, pretty much the whole bunch of Florida geezers, Kenny Bania, and of course Jerry’s constant nemesis, the irredeemably evil Newman! It’s part of what makes the show different and edgy.
Kramer is the kind of television character who is entertaining to watch but in real life would be unbearable. There are other TV characters like that, though I can’t think of examples at the moment.
Kramer is a caricature. To some extent they all are, but Kramer is almost a cartoon character. Michael Richards does a great job with the character. Jason Alexander as George Costanza is my #2 – a beautiful portrayal of pompous, selfish, and stupid all in one bald package! 
Was the problem that Friends ripped off Seinfeld, or that it’s success was due to being on the same night as Seinfeld? There was a whole episode where Jerry complains about other comedians getting laughs only because they’re following him. I’m not sure I entirely buy Friends being a success because of proximity to Seinfeld, because I’m pretty sure the lineup was:
- Friends
- something
- Seinfeld
- something else (Mad about you?)
- ER
So sure, just turn on NBC that night, and watch might have initially given Friends a boost, but I think it was a good enough show that it would have made it on it’s own.
Now, I think much of the writing and humor on Friends did owe a lot to Seinfeld, mostly because Seinfeld was so influential. Intersecting story lines, call backs to prior episodes, and just a general “feel” of the dialogue.
Also, I thought Friends was based on a UK show? Though, when the elevator pitch is something like “pretty people say funny things to each other” you could be talking about a whole bunch of shows. It’s not the uniqueness of the structure, but the success of the execution.
Slight shift
I haven’t watched Friends since it first aired, and haven’t watched an episode of Seinfeld in over 20 years. I really liked Seinfeld at the time, and liked Friends well enough that it made it was awarded a slot on the 60GB Tivo. Should I bother to go back?
I liked Kramer. Sure, he was wacky, but he was fun-wacky.
I hated Newman. I’ve known a Newman.
There seem to be some competing theories of what Friends was a ripoff of, but I’ve avoided it because it always seems to me to be a ripoff of Seinfeld. Although my perceptions may have been coloured – like those of Jerry himself – by familiarity with Seinfeld, so that anything that resembles it naturally looks like a copy. But aside from the astonishing similarity between Seinfeld and Friends, the timing is extremely suspicious. Seinfeld was a roaring success at the time that the concept for Friends was being put together, and was even stronger when Friends finally launched nearly a year after that.
I don’t know which show you’re referring to, but if it’s Seinfeld, then yes, and consider this thread your inspiration! I hadn’t seen it in many years, and I’m thoroughly enjoying being re-immersed in that world. I think it was the combo of a shortage of interesting movies and the need for some levity in light of a lot of bad news swirling around us that prompted me to start this binge, and it’s been lots of fun! It’s amazing how long it takes to go through 180 episodes, even if you skip a few!
Preach it, brother! 
Urkel was never entertaining to watch, even on television.
Other than “they’re friends” and they are set in New York, how much did they have in common? Friends was much more relationship focused. The relationships were meant to be taken more seriously and be somewhat relatable. On Seinfeld the characters broke off relationships for unrealistic and stupid reasons. It could be funny, yes, but no one’s life was remotely like that. Friends was shooting for universal appeal, Seinfeld was shooting for funny gags. There wasn’t that much tonal overlap, and the fanbases are probably completely different people.
I still am having a bit of trouble with this. Like I said, I think the shows have a similar feel, whatever that means. Perhaps like books by the same author in different genres, or books by different authors in the same genre? To stick with the McCartney/Lennon stuff, perhaps Wings to the Beatles? None of those analogies are satisfying.
I see it as influence and relationship. Seinfeld was incredibly influential, and Friends came soon after, receiving the full force of that influence, so of course Friends feels more like Seinfeld than, uhh, Golden Girls, or whatever friend group sitcom that was pre-Seinfeld.
Either, both, I suppose.
The big problem is that my wife really dislikes Seinfeld for probably similar reasons to all of the other people who really don’t like it. So I can watch it, I just can’t talk about it. We generally have very similar taste in media, so no point in dwelling on the areas our taste is mismatched.
I often get the urge to watch something like ________, and after several unsatisfying imitators, I just re-watch ________. That worked well for Breaking Bad and The Good Place, but less well for Futurama, where I watched three episodes, and never went back.
Count me as one who does not see Friends as similar to, or a copy of Seinfeld. Both are the same type of show (featuring people who hang out together) but otherwise are different. I mean, How I Met Your Mother was also a hang-out comedy but it’s different.
I can remember when Friends first aired. I tried it, but there was something plasticky about it, and it felt artificial in a bad way – focus-grouped to within an inch of its life. It was trying to be a kinder, gentler Seinfeld is how it felt to me way back then. I tried to watch a few episodes and noped out. Besides David Schwimmer makes me break out in a rash. Ick.
I felt similar, but I always found it a well executed version of a focus grouped and gentler Seinfeld. I could see the smooth edges and shiny surface, but it was pleasant enough to look at, and frequently had funny jokes. That probably completely explains why I watched the whole thing in the initial run, but never bothered to go back.
To me, Seinfeld was often surprising. The jokes were funny, but there was also no promise it was going to be gentle. The rough edges often showed, and the jokes played with the rough edges.
I like the way you phrase that! I like rough edges.
Unlike some others, I saw and enjoyed both shows. I appreciated that both had casts that worked well together and were well-written.
It’s been suggested that It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia is essentially Seinfeld, but with the brand of comedy switched from Jewish (smart-but-neurotic characters navigating a crazy world) to Irish (confident-but-naive characters blundering their way into chaos).
Yeah no. Other than the most basic outline of “a group of friends in NYC hang out and get into wacky situations,” there is nothing similar between Seinfeld and Friends.