RIP Matthew Perry

We were talking about Friends, not Seinfeld.

 

Sometimes. Then there are examples of critical examinations that show unexpected strengths in what might have been otherwise considered inconsequential. I might just crank out 1000 words on Truck Nutz to prove my point.

 

Not just “no” but “hell to the fuck no.”

 

And all of them except Ross and Chandler had financial problems at one point or another.

If not for rent-control, Monica and Phoebe couldn’t have afforded their apartments. Chandler needed Joey to help make rent (and then wound up supporting him for several years).

 

We had an egghead movie critic at one of my stops who would pan any film that didn't send a deep, intellectual message on some level.

So mindless fun like "Caddyshack" and "Wild Things" would get ripped to shreds. The guy thought he was the second coming of Rex Reed.

 

Nah. That's bullshit. I never once thought of them as "high school bullies". Most of them probably would have been bullied. That was probably one of the few things I enjoyed about their camaraderie. They really weren't very cool and their lack of coolness provided a realistic bond.

That said? I don't claim to hate it. I did and do dislike it. Mainly, because most of the characters, cool or not, were vapid, self-absorbed and not likeable. (Before Junkie chimes in ... just like "Seinfeld", which I think has aged very poorly.) The only reason I watched it is a girlfriend (now wife) who watched and because it was basically a harmless palate-cleanser for "Seinfeld".

The humor was super obvious bordering on broad a lot of the time (the laugh track didn't help). The whole coffee shop thing had been done to death in movies, videos, etc., by the time "Friends" came out. Came off to me as a focus group decision of ... "Hey! what's cool these days? Didn't they have a coffee shop in 'Singles'? Let's do that!"

Their efforts at being quirky - they have a monkey! - weren't quirky, they were forced. The romantic entanglements sucked out loud and were a million miles from realistic. I did not give one fuck whether Ross got together with Rachel. He was a neurotic dickhead and she couldn't make up her mind about anything.

Another reason I disliked "Friends" wasn't entirely "Friends" fault. It was trumpeted as representative of Gen X. I was immediately turned off by anything fawned off by the then-Baby Boomer-dominant media as "hey look, it's Gen X, and they're all grown up!" I'm really dismissive of generational labels for any age group, but obviously it's my group, so I was that much more turned off. I don't think it helps that I'm a bit older in the Gen X demo ... I was basically done with college by the time it came out.

Then you circle back around to the characters, most of which I thought were unlikeable or just plain stupid (either literally or their character was), and I was like, "this is what *they* think Gen X is like? Fuck off."

Chandler was the one exception. I thought he was the one regular guy in the bunch. He was relatable. They didn't necessarily create any unrealistic storylines for him, like becoming a soap star or whatever it was they did with Joey. He was funny in a way none of the other characters were. He was an oasis among a lot of annoyance.

I will admit that I think Friends got a bit better as it went along, but I could never get past the first year or two when it was trying too hard. The characters just never clicked for me. I know I'm in the minority, but so be it.

 

While you're right about "Friends" characters being self-absorbed and unlikable like the "Seinfeld" characters... the "Seinfeld" characters were supposed to be assholes. They were funny but they were fairly disgusting people. We were supposed to laugh and cry with the lovable "Friends" cast.

You may be referencing this, but from my understanding, Cameron Crowe was approached about turning "Singles" into a TV series and he had no interest at all. The producers decided to do a variation of it without him, and that was "Friends."

 

The most fervent arguments against Friends sound like me trying to explain to my then-wife why I didn’t find Two Broke Girls funny. Friends was Masterpiece Theatre in comparison.

 

This is a medium where the primary refreshments are popcorn, soda, and neon cheese nachos. Sounds like someone forgot to have fun. (Speak calumny about Caddyshack and I will strip to the waist and end that person in the parking lot.)

So it might sound like projection? I haven't seen the show and am trying to connect the dots about strong feelings about it pro and con.

 

Problem with "Seinfeld" is that a lot of people weren't in on the joke or were too stupid to understand the characters were caricatures.

So what happened is the dumb assholes who didn't understand it was a joke celebrated the assholishness of the characters unironically. It's why you get idiots celebrating "Festivus" or just thinking their own self-absorption is colorful.

As for "Singles", it came out two years ahead of "Friends". By the time "Friends" came out, coffee shops or coffee shop culture were central to "So I Married An Axe Murderer", "Reality Bites" and perhaps others I forgot about. It was way beyond a trope.

 

American Graffiti

 

Maybe the difference is that "Two Broke Girls" (I'm not defending it, I maybe saw it once) was never considered anything more than just a throwaway comedy. "Friends" was lauded as something bigger than that.