So, how about Friends?

I think this is because the character was so uptight, such that a ridiculous situation was made even more ridiculous. The leather pants was pure comedy gold.

Also: “Pi-VAHT, pi-VAAAHT!”

The one exchange I remember clearly was when Chandler and Joey were watching someone’s babies (did someone have twins?) and one was in PJs with clowns on it and the other in PJs with ducks on it. They had to select one baby for some reason, so they were going to flip for it and Joey said, “Heads for ducks, because ducks have heads.” To which Chandler replied, “What sort of weird-ass daycare did you go to?” And then there was the episode in which Joey recalled the tailor measuring him for pants as a child, including checking the crotch (i.e., copping a feel).

The new show Mulaney looks like the first attempt at that… including stand up comic interludes!

You are right, but I’d say that Seinfeld’s greatest gift to sitcoms is to make them realize you could base your episode around something of seemingly minor significance, and that may make it even more funny than if it was about “something”. A lot of sitcoms have used that concept since (but none have based an entire show around it, of course).

“What kind of scary-ass clowns came to your birthday party?”, or something like it.

And I reject the notion that “Seinfeld is at a whole other level of popularity”. You can make the case that it is slightly more popular, but both reruns are in heavy rotation. Friends might even be aired more often, but I don’t know for sure.

I don’t know how or why I missed “Friends” being that I’m 35, but I don’t seem to have a very deep knowledge of the show like I do for, say, “Seinfeld”.

I know I watched it but I think since I was a 15-year-old fluffy nerd living in a Midwestern suburb, I really didn’t see the appeal in watching the lives of good-looking young professionals in NYC.

I do specifically remember as I got older checking out the show and being like “aww this is funny I shoulda watched it when it was new!” but still it was never one of my favorites. I did recognize it as a well-done, popular show.

One scene I remember fondly was when they had the friends trivia game. All of the answers were hilarious but my favorite was the one about what is printed on Chandler’s magazine subscription label. “Chanandeler Bong!” :slight_smile:

Anyway, every time I read about Friends I always find myself stopping to wonder why I don’t know that show better!!

The show started up just as I was finishing college and starting my first job. I was usually home on Thursday nights and that was when the networks aired their most popular shows. But of all the shows Friends was the one I could most relate to. The people in the show seemed like people I’d actually want to be friends with. Friends just hit that warm fuzzy spot and it was a cozy show to watch. I only watched about 5 seasons before I grew bored with it, but for a time it was good. And when I see it on TV I’ll watch for the sense of nostalgia. That was a fun period in my life.

IMHO, it was successful because it was very funny:

Time For Laughs

Probably every sitcom starts with characters who are “types.” The ones that we remember are the ones who personalized them. Friends did that. The casting turned out to be perfect. Remember when they made an American version of Coupling, the British Friends? The actors had no personalities, so even though the American version used the same dialog it was an instant flop.

Something that everybody forgets today is that Ross was supposed to be the token adult to a group of losers. He had been married and divorced, was a father, had a PhD, and had a real job. I don’t think we found out Chandler’s job for years, Joey was a failed actor, Monica and Rachel were unemployed, and Phoebe was in her own world.

IIRC, as early as season 2 the producers started backing away from this to make Ross more like the rest of them. They didn’t take anything away (except that idiot monkey), but somehow made him the doofus and the butt of every joke. Some years I wondered what David Schwimmer did to make the writers hate him so much. But most people liked the way he was brought down to their level. Take that adults!

Usually sitcoms die because the writers find one aspect of a character’s personality and exaggerate it and harp on it until the character becomes a caricature. Friends may have gotten there in the end, but its strength was that the good middle years filled in the unformed characters they started with until they felt like real people you wanted to spend time with. MASH *went the same route with the same success until the last couple of lame seasons. Big Bang Theory is similar. It’s in the bad last years now so everybody knocks it, but in another decade or two those will be forgotten.

It was a combination of being funny, and being scheduled alongside other good shows at first- ISTR that it came after Seinfeld and Mad About You in its first season on Thursday nights. Later, as it stood on its own, those two shows were used as a sort of incubator to try and bring other shows in on Thursdays and then set them free on another night of the week.

The show is on TBS in the afternoons and I watch it while riding the bicycle to nowhere at the gym.

Courtney Cox was a student at Mount Vernon College in Georgetown in the mid-80’s… I hung out with her several times drinking 25c beers. She was so cute and the sweetest girl ever, but I had a crush on someone else :smack:. This was a year or so before she jumped on stage with Bruce Springsteen for the Dancin’ in the Dark video.

Previously there were shows like Three’s Company or Lavern & Shirley that focused on a group of characters in the same 20-something age group. And there were shows like Cheers that focused on an ensemble of friends constantly hanging out together.

I think the main difference is that Friends is very much a product of 90s Gen-X culture. Prior to the 90s, I don’t recall being a “20 something” as considered some distinct new phase of life where angst-filled college grads create a sort of surrogate family unit with their peers and try and figure out careers and relationships.

I never knew there was an American version of Coupling. But I’m not surprised it failed.

Coupling was a much better show, but it was very, very British.
I could never quite define what the differences are, but the whole tone of the show was somehow different than Friends.The characters in Friends often acted silly; In Coupling, they seemed a little more mature, even with their quirks, sexual jealousies, love of comic books, etc. One specific difference I noted was that in Coupling, there were many scenes that took place at meals shared around the dining room table, with the characters cooking for themselves, creating a sort of family atmosphere. In Friends, nobody every ate together, unless it was pizza or Chinese takeout.(even though Monica was a professional chef).
Friends and Coupling just seem to me like different shows, even though they were both about 20- something friendships.

I agree that Ross was the adult, but I think you’re wrong about him being brought down to the level of the others. For one, Chandler was mostly an adult too. He had a well-paying job (which he held until he quit to follow his dream). The money thing was explored early in season two (“The One with Five Steaks and an Eggplant”) pitting the rich friends (Ross, Monica, and Chandler) against the poor ones (Joey, Phoebe, Rachel). No one knew what Chandler did, but that didn’t matter. He was a business guy and if you’re not another business guy, it’s not something you care about. And Monica (aside from the diner years) always had a pretty good chef job.

If anything, the writers brought the other friends into the adult world by giving Rachel a good job in fashion, making Joey a successful actor, and leaving Phoebe in her own world.

And no one mention the rent thing, I will SEE RED!

I agree that Chandler was made the show’s adult eventually, although the others also matured greatly from season one. That’s pretty much what I meant when I said that they became realer where most sitcoms would have caricatured them. They grew; in fact they grew so much that their continued singleness started looking pretty silly by the end, which is why they had to pair everybody off.

I’m not backing down on Ross the PhD buffoon, though. I think that was deliberate. As in Peanuts, everybody had to have a flaw that humanized them. Ross’ was his pining for Rachel, but that grew so tiresome they dumped the stupid on him.

I think you were 10 years younger than their target audience. It was pretty squarely aimed at twenty-somethings.

EDIT: That clip linked upthread about the condom PSA is funny as all get-out. That really stands up, and makes me nostalgic for the show.

That’s Ms. Chanandler Bong. :wink:

I have that episode permanently recorded on my DVR. While the show was fun (and holds up surprisingly well still), it would never appear among my favorite series. But that episode is a riot and I rematch it regularly.

Just like The X-Files had the soon-to-be-tedious conspiracy crap and the CSM, Friends had Ross & Rachel, who were better off as exes than as prospective partners. Their best dynamic was always at odds with each other and I, for one, felt the ending was a cop-out when they finally shoehorned them back together. The series in general was huge enough that it used a lot of good actors in recurring roles that were well-suited for them (Elliot Gould & Christina Pickles, Paul Rudd, Giovanni Ribisi) but all of Ross’s paramours unfairly got the short shrift.

What? I bet I could watch either show at least twice a day every day in syndication.

Actually I think Rachel was the best-developed character on the show. She went from spoiled Long Island princess to financially independent single mother with a job at Ralph Lauren. I feel like none of the other characters experienced as much growth as she did.

The chemistry between the six cast members was the key to its success, IMO. You could tell they enjoyed being with each other and were friends off-screen as well as on-screen. They even insisted on negotiating their $1M salary increases as a team instead of doing it individually.

After David Schwimmer got them to agree to bargain collectively. Apparently, Ross was the adult off-screen as well.

Interesting how everyone seems to agree is was just OK and nothing more. Not one of the greats. A nice fantasy time-waster. I tried to watch it many times, and I hated each and every one of them so much, couldn’t get through a whole episode. and I tried! I even tried watching “Joey” the spinoff, thinking it would be an interesting look at the life of a struggling actor. HA! He was dating a relative? Some ugly woman and a kid taking up valuable TV toime? Haw haw, lookit, thur’s a swimmin’ pool! Lookit the cute kid, haw.
IRL I like to think he got a bit part on a western but OD’d from a cocaine overdose behind the dumpster of the restaurant where he bussed tables. Jerkwad. All of them, in fact.