I think Friends is the best bland sit-com on TV right now. It’s got a funny cast, and good writers. But fundamentally, it is a bland show; it has no ambition beyond being a slightly naughty sit-com full of pretty people. There are dozens more just like Friends, except not as well-done.
The best thing about Friends, I think, is that it’s a possible topic of conversation with almost any TV-owning American – even folks who despise Friends have inevitably caught an episode (or a hundred). What else is that true of nowadays? Even the best-selling books haven’t been read by that many people, and many folks consider discussing religion, politics, sex and money (the four things we all have in common) rude or even distressing.
I was once stuck in a raft with a Christian sport hunter from rural Oregon; since he preferred not to debate politics or religion, and (beyond both of us being carbon-based life forms) we had absolutely nothing in common, conversation could have been a tad on the dead side. But instead, we discussed Friends. It’s the common narrative all Americans share..
dark days indeed…
I have never in my life watched an episode of Friends. I guess I’m … un-American! Even by the standards of this blog!
It’s not just Americans. I lived with a family in France a few years ago, and the girl I was sharing a room with was my complete opposite in every way. We argued over virtually everything–except what to watch on TV. Every night, we’d settle in to watch back to back episodes of Friends, dubbed in French. So I guess it really can cross every cultural divide.
I’ve seen only bits and pieces of Friends.
In any case, what about “The Simpsons”?
I mean, everyone watches that.
And, Amp, you’re a cartoonist no less! :)
I used to watch it pretty reliably the first couple of years it was on, but then just stopped. It would be weird to see it now, because I know they all paired up and did wacky stuff (did they jump the shark?) but I haven’t kept track.
As for the Simpsons, I love every episode I’ve ever seen (which is about 6) but can never seem to remember to watch it. Guess I’ll have to buy the DVDs.
What it comes down to is that I watch maybe two hours of TV a week. if that.
Yes, on TV, The Simpsons. Thinking of Friends as a cultural link reminds me of the moment in “Educating Rita” when Rita is down the pub with her family and everyone’s singing some aimless singalong. Her mum leans over with tears in her eyes and says “There must be better songs.” There must be better bread than pre-sliced white bread, and all of us deserve it.
Ah, well, if Seth can be brave, so can I.
I’ve never seen Friends. I’ve seen half an ep of Seinfeld, though. Whenever people talk about Friends, I just nod a lot and visualize Seinfeld. Or a grilled cheese sandwich.
I agree, if the essay had said “The Simpsons”, I’d say that’s likely. Friends, no. Of course I’d be wrong anyway if I said that all Americans have the experience of watching The Simpsons — they don’t. “We” just don’t all like, or even occasionally watch, the same things. Why some of “us” “don’t even own a televis-ee-on machine”.
(Obscure Dick van Dyke show reference — but then you’ve all watched that.)
Actually, if I had to pick one single thing that everyone in the culture had experienced, I’d put money on Star Trek before I put money on Friends.
Check your Nielsen ratings, guys; there’s a very good reason the Friends stars each pull down more per episode than the entire budget of a Trek ep or a Simpsons sweeps week spectacular.
It could make me giggle for a while, but Monica is deeply creepy and her interplay with Chandler just makes for an exercise in dysfunction. Ross is an awful human being well-played by Schwimmer, but in a field where you’ve already got the unwatchable majesty of George Costanza, Ross is just a piker; what’s the point? Rachel has some shred of human decency left–though I’ve only seen one or two of the past few seasons; I’m only going by Joey’s apparent ongoing infatuation with her to presume she’s still human. –What’s funny to me is that the two most marginalized, in terms of status within the group–Joey, the “dumb” one, and Phoebe, the “weird” one–are far and away the most human, and, really, the most decent.
But really: as far as sitcoms about shallow, nasty, vapid characters with a penchant for horrific social faux pas, stridently extreme views on the primacy of gender roles and sexuality, and a deep-seated jealousy of any outside attachment that threatens the integrity of their clique, and who all have far more signs of wealth and privilege than their jobs and social positions would otherwise signify, well, it’s not that bad. You know?
Though their fatsuit follies are inexcusable.
I gave it a try once or twice. Couldn’t deal with any episode beyond the first commercial. I just don’t find it funny in the least.
I remember Seinfeld coming on in the Taipei hostel, and all the residents crowding in to watch and laugh. This included people from every continent except Antarctica. No other show got this kind of response.
Check your Nielsen ratings, guys; there’s a very good reason the Friends stars each pull down more per episode than the entire budget of a Trek ep or a Simpsons sweeps week spectacular.
There is indeed, but only part has to do directly with ratings — they have a hit show on a network which is rapidly losing its comedy hits. NBC was truly desperate to hang onto Friends for another year or two at least, since they’d failed to lure Seinfeld back even for an additional $100 million dollars. The Simpsons are on Fox, and ST is syndicated; the money’s not so good there.
But of course mere ratings don’t say much about a show’s influence and how widespread that is. I don’t know of anything that Friends does or what they say — I don’t watch it and haven’t heard anything. Now to The Simpsons. Even for people who have never watched the show, I would suspect there would be a huge number who could identify some aspect of it. For instance, lead characters names, characteristics, or catch phrases. For people who have never watched Friends, how many of these might they be aware of? For The Simpsons — again for people who have never ever seen the show — how many could name Bart or Homer, perhaps Marge and Lisa; how many would remember that “Cowabunga” or “Doh!” go with the show? I think that a lot more people would know things about The Simpsons than about Friends, despite the higher ratings and greater salaries of the Friends cast.
I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who was unable to give commentary on Friends (or Seinfeld, for that matter). Whether they had seen every episode, or part of one; whether they hated it or loved it, there is always something to be said. But, as great as The Simpsons is, I simply haven’t found that to be the case with that show.
In addition to the problems that Kip brings up, I’d include their absolute obsession for porn and strip clubs (combined with their utter revulsion for prostitutes) as a major downfall for the show.
Yet, if I’m in the mood for funny but brainless TV, I’ll turn it on in a second.
You know, I think perhaps part of the reason that Friends is more well-known (and talked about) than the Simpsons is because when it comes to Friends, people either love it or hate it. Whereas with the Simpsons, people either love it or feel ambiguous about it. It’s the “hate” part that makes the difference, IMO. People who hate a show are more likely to talk about it, know about it, etc. than they are about a show they feel ambiguous about.
The Simpsons used to inspire a lot of loathing in our culture—remember when Bush I criticized it? (One of my favorite episodes involves the retired Bush moving across the street from Homer. They did not get along. Eventually Gerald Ford took over Bush’s home and Ford and Homer got along just fine. Priceless.) But it became quickly accepted once people realized how intelligent and evenhanded its satire was.
I like Friends in the way I like porn. They both make me feel guilty.
Hmm. To switch horses or something, The Simpsons must be the most-cited TV show in the limited sphere that is blogtopia, followed I guess by South Park. I quoted The Wacky Races the other day, drat and double-drat. Some folks like saying “Hello! McFly?”, which is odd, since that character was a moronic and hapless bully. Mostly GOP folks cite that. I don’t know what else is cited. Not really Seinfeld.
I have to agree that few people hate The Simpsons. My God, John Ashcroft likes it. Though I hate to think what he sees when he’s watching.
Bean wrote:
“I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who was unable to give commentary on Friends…”
Well, you’ve met me. I would recognize Friends if it was on. I don’t think I could name a character w/o help. I certainly couldn’t give you the plot summary (or even a vague idea) for any episode. I have seen a few episodes which I found utterly forgettable, obviously. Everything I know about Friends has been told to my by people I know. And this is coming from a guy who watches more television than anybody you know (probably).
I’m sorry. I have absolutely nothing to say about the show.
Same here, but then bean made sure he had the ultimate caveat — simply saying that “there is always something to bve said” doesn’t mean much. Saying you haven’t watched it is “something to be said”. Saying you found it utterly forgettable is “something to be said”. I don’t think that really qualifies as having an influence or being part of a general experience though. If it is, than anything you can name is part of a general experience: if I talk about James Garner’s series “Nichols”, you all would have something to say about that if I pressed, even if all you had to say was that you’d never seen or even heard of it. That’s really setting the bar a bit low. :-)
BTW, I didn’t know you could hunt Christians for sport in Oregon.
Amp, this thread is my fault, isn’t it ?
(I am thoroughly ashamed.) ;)
To follow up on what I said about Star Trek… I think that perhaps in terms of what’s on TV right now you’re of course more likely to have a conversation about Friends than about Enterprise (or whatever the latest Star Trek series is). However, I’d say that Star Trek (the original series and The Next Generation) have had a much broader cultural impact and will have a lasting impact that outlasts that of Friends. I’m willing to wager that more people would recognize characters from Star Trek (Captain Kirk, Spock, Scotty) than characters from Friends, although that might have something to do with the fact that the names of the characters in Friends are pretty bland. But hey, even if people don’t know anything about Trek, everyone has an opinion on Trekkies, or at least a funny/vile/humorous/piteous story to tell about one.
I’ll have to agree, though, that the Simpsons is another major cultural phenomenon that you can talk about with just about anyone. Although, I don’t know how the phrase was used in the Simpsons, but “Hello, McFly!” was actually first used by Biff in Back to the Future.
QrazyQat, I’m pretty sure bean is a she (though we’ve never met). PinkDreamPoppies, I don’t think Biff’s line was used in The Simpsons. I was running through what gets quoted on blogs (like Biff, or The Wacky Races).
I have never seen friends. I don’t know what its about, who the characters are, or even what network its on. I know its a sitcom; that’s about it. I’m fairly sure the same is true for my husband and my son (although he’s only three, so I guess he doesn’t count). We do watch TV, but mostly cable.
Qrazy Qat–Seinfeld left us with two phrases: Master of My Domain, and “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” No, wait, three: add “sponge-worthy.”
Though, really, i didn’t like the show much; I watched it in the earlier years, but got tired of it when the characters just got meaner.
Friends don’t let friends watch Friends.
That said I did see an episode once to find out what the fuss was about. It involved two plots: One where the “poor” white people in giant NYC apartments complain about the “rich” white people in giant NYC apartments wanting to do things that cost money. To which I yelled at the TV, “Then don’t do it! Sheesh!” The other involved the female brunette restauranteur getting a promotion to “buyer” and then getting fired for acceptniog a kickback in the form of beef from a supplier and saying she didn’t know it was wrong. “Then you’re too dumb to live! Sheesh!” I shouted. And never was it heard from again.
Hit TV shows do provide some common cultural ground for small talk. Buit they aren’t the most universal (IMO). I vividly remember witnessing an early/mid 80’s University of Wisconsin SOAR (incoming freshman orientation) presentation of the original Adam West Batman movie. Before the movie, they showed old Warner Bros. cartoons. And absolutely everyone regardless of race, creed, age (including parents), or point of national origin sang “Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit, KILL the wabbit, kill the WABBIT.” along with Elmer during What’s Opera, Doc?
i can’t say i’m a big fan of Friends. it seems the writers are resorting to soap opera tactics to keep people interested after umpteen seasons: weddings, wedding teasers, babies, sex scandals, etc.
most disturbing to me is 1. watching the actors’ weight in the old seasons and comparing them to the new season’s shows. notice the extreme weight loss in the women (monica’s elbows keep getting larger in relation to ther arms – ew) and the weight gain in the men. 2. the idolization of six nominally successful, dysfunctional adults in NYC who simply can’t get their lives and relationships together. sitcoms may be all about miscommunication and naughtier bits, but i’m tired of watching people mess up on tv.
and that’s why i got rid of cable.
First, apologies to bean if offended.
This thread started me thinking about something I find interesting. This thread is about things we assume are universal, even though virtually nothing is. Even our shared experiences of birth and death are very different experiences from person to person, although the experience does occur to everyone, which you can’t say about anything TV, movie-wise, sports, etc. But the thing I find extra fascinating is not so much the things we believe that aren’t true, but the things we believe even though we KNOW they aren’t true.
For example, in my case, I used to race motorcycles and I like to drive fast. I know lots of people who don’t like to drive fast. Yet I believe, in some portion of my being, that they would like driving fast if they just learned how to do it safely. And I believe it even though I’m also completely convinced that it isn’t true. I’m fairly rational, yet I’m willing to hold — in some small measure at least — a belief that something is true even tough I’m convinced it isn’t true. That’s perverse, but I’ll bet it’s fairly common. :-)
What struck me one day was that a great chunk of America must never go over the speed limit. Because It’s The Law. I guess I find that kind of a nice thought.
Just checking in to be another person that Bean has met who is unable to give commentary on “Friends” (nice to meet you!). I haven’t to my knowledge ever seen it, and I wouldn’t recognize it on TV unless the title was on the screen. And I own (what?) six TVs (or eight or ten or something, depending what you count and how well they have to work). Unless “yeah, that’s like a famous TV program, right?” counts as “commentary”. *8)
TVs are for playing DVDs. This is, no doubt, leading to the fragmentation and ultimate fiery demise of Western civilization, but there you are…
DC
QrazyQat there is an orwellian word for what you describe: Doublethink. It’s newspeak from 1984. Holding on to opposing concepts and excepting both as the complete truth.
Nah. Driving slowly is the way to go. The city is beautiful so you may as well get to look at it.
No, it’s not really doublethink, because that is believing both both things are true. When I wrote it before, I used the word true in both instances, but that’s not exactly it. What I mean to describe is believing the thing to be false yet still believing it to be so.
As for driving fast and noticing things, two thoughts. One is that now that I’m only ever driving a motorhome I drive fairly slowly, and we rarely drive more than 150-200 miles a day. The other is that when I did drive fast, I was (to get into the spirit of this thread) spotting those racoons right and left. That is, not only did I see what was going on on the road, but beside it, off to the side, etc. This is something you find when racing too; when you get into the zone you should be in to do it safely, you move in slow motion. You can see a lot. It’s kind of an odd sensation, as is the sensation that you are standing still while the world moves around you (yet not in an ego-centric way, which you’d think it would have to be). That last is something I can’t really describe beyond that, and I’ve only ever felt that on the track. Maybe it’s zen-ish.
No, I understand the “world standing still” thing that you get when you’re driving fast, but I’ve always found that I see many more of the things that I prefer to see when driving slowly. It’s just a preference thing. ;)
I had no idea it was that popular – it’s a show I’ve heard of, but only because a few people I know watch it. Myself and the four people in my elective family have never watched it (nor most other non-geek fictional TV).
And some people, like myself, hate driving period.
I saw the “Friends” episode of “Duckman.” And I used to work with someone who told me about “Friends” hijinks, one of which I still remember. So I guess it’s part of my narrative, too, and I didn’t even have to watch it.