The Friends Appreciation Thread

[Anguyen92]

I think the main concern is that guys like Biebs and BTS has no direct connections to Friends or the main cast whatsoever, to my knowledge, so why bring them in?  Just for that cheap plug to attract viewers?

It kinda reminded me of certain parts of the line-up to the Chris Cornell tribute show (which I attended) in 2019 where you had certain people and celebrities that made an appearance where I thought didn't really have a great line of connection to Chris.

[KevShmev]

The point that was that fans of those stars will watch just to see them and thus result in higher ratings.  Justin Beiber has over 100 million Twitter followers (don't ask me how), and there are bound to be many who are not necessarily fans of Friends who may tune in just to see him.  I see this is streaming on HBO Max, so not sure how that will work overall as far as rating go and whatnot, but the end goal here obviously is to get as many people to watch as possible, by whatever means necessary.

Because a lot of people like his music.   I'm not a huge fan, because I don't really like the style much, but I think "U Smile" is a GREAT song.

Haha, I get it.

The point that was that fans of those stars will watch just to see them and thus result in higher ratings.  Justin Beiber has over 100 million Twitter followers (don't ask me how), and there are bound to be many who are not necessarily fans of Friends who may tune in just to see him.  I see this is streaming on HBO Max, so not sure how that will work overall as far as rating go and whatnot, but the end goal here obviously is to get as many people to watch as possible, by whatever means necessary.

I think for that, it's not ratings but how many new subscribers they can get.

Very true.

[Adami]

So anyone watch this yet?

Overall, I thought it was really sweet. It was a big celebration of Friends and that was all it tried to be. I think the biggest mistake they made was the announcmenet of the guest stars.

Spoilers for anyone who cares....






But did they need to announce BTS when they were on screen for maybe 20 seconds? As much as I liked having Justin Bieber be reduced to wearing a stupid potato costume for 10 seconds, it felt weird to announce him. So yea, the guest stars were literally on screen for ...AT MOST....maybe a minute but mostly 20-30 seconds. Even the ones who were there in person were quickly shuffled out after answering one question. But it was a well done tribute to the show and I enjoyed it.

[faizoff]

I've been meaning to catch up on Friends for a while, it was easy to watch it in the background when it was on Netflix or Hulu. I haven't fully adopted HBO Max yet, just check it out on occasions.
I first watched the show around 1998 where I wasn't much aware of the American entertainment zeitgeist but the episode with the guy who doesn't wear the episode who's dating Phoebe was my introduction and I was really hooked.

That said I bought my wife the DVD boxset a while back and it's apparently a lot more coveted than the higher HD quality bluray set due to the fact that the BR doesn't have the proper versions of the episodes or so I've read.

I watched the special and it was a lot better than I thought it would be. I didn't particularly have a strong reaction towards James Corden before but man did he feel annoying in that episode. Conan would've been perfect but I'm thinking it's because he's not on NBC or

The behind the scenes stuff was great. The camaraderie between the cast was fun, they definitely aged, some more than others. No Paul Rudd. Loved the smelly cat rendition. A lot of good stuff on that special.

[ZirconBlue]

That said I bought my wife the DVD boxset a while back and it's apparently a lot more coveted than the higher HD quality bluray set due to the fact that the BR doesn't have the proper versions of the episodes or so I've read.

The DVD set has extended versions of the episodes.  So, new or longer scenes.  The BR set has the episodes as originally aired.

[pg1067]

So anyone watch this yet?

Overall, I thought it was really sweet. It was a big celebration of Friends and that was all it tried to be. I think the biggest mistake they made was the announcmenet of the guest stars.

I watched with my kid when I got home from work.

I thought it was really good.  Nice to see them reminiscing this way, and the guy who hosted didn't get in the way.  A few tidbits of information I didn't know previously, and I loved how they had the cast re-read some of the most iconic scenes.  I think anyone who was disappointed probably went in with unrealistic expectations.

But did they need to announce BTS when they were on screen for maybe 20 seconds? As much as I liked having Justin Bieber be reduced to wearing a stupid potato costume for 10 seconds, it felt weird to announce him. So yea, the guest stars were literally on screen for ...AT MOST....maybe a minute but mostly 20-30 seconds. Even the ones who were there in person were quickly shuffled out after answering one question. But it was a well done tribute to the show and I enjoyed it.

I would have liked to have heard a bit more from Elliott Gould and Christina Pickles, but it kinda looked like Elliott wasn't doing that well.  Christina, on the other hand, slipped right back into the Judy Geller role.  I was pleased that most of the "guest stars" got virtually no screen time* and agree that it really was pointless for them to have been announced (obvious attempt to draw in viewers/new subscribers).  Cindy Crawford seemed especially pointless since Cindy Crawford in leather pants hasn't exactly been an unusual occurrence over the years.


* - My kid pointed out that they missed an opportunity with the Lady Gaga/Smelly Cat scene.  There was an episode where the owner of Central Perk hired a "professional" singer named Stephanie (played by Chrissie Hynde) to play at the coffee house.  When the guy wasn't also willing to pay Phoebe, she played out front in protest.  When Stephanie arrived, she and Phoebe briefly spoke, and part of the dialog was Phoebe asking if Stephanie knew various chords.  Eventually, Stephanie comment that she knew all of the chords and walked inside.  Phoebe then strummed a minor chord and sang, "Stephanie knows all the chords."  In the reunion, they should have had Lisa ask LG (whose real name is Stefani Germanotta) which chords she knew and then re-enact that scene.  Oh well...

[faizoff]

That said I bought my wife the DVD boxset a while back and it's apparently a lot more coveted than the higher HD quality bluray set due to the fact that the BR doesn't have the proper versions of the episodes or so I've read.

The DVD set has extended versions of the episodes.  So, new or longer scenes.  The BR set has the episodes as originally aired.

Ah right, I think additionally the criticism was also that the extended scenes weren't found on the Blu-ray extras or something to that effect.

[Cool Chris]

Cindy Crawford seemed especially pointless since Cindy Crawford in leather pants hasn't exactly been an unusual occurrence over the years.

I have not seen or heard from Cindy Crawford in years. She could have died a long time ago for all I knew.

[Zantera]

I watched the reunion and I'm somewhere in the middle of the road with it.

Was nice to see the gang back together, and it felt heartwarming to see them walk in and explore the old sets and talk about memories. They still clearly got very nice chemistry and it felt like watching a real reunion of friends who hadn't seen each other in a while.

But at 100 minutes or so, maybe half of it felt like pointless filler. The celebrity cameos did nothing for me, people saying what the show meant to them or James Corden. Some of the recreation of old scenes felt a bit like filler too, even if I enjoyed the updated trivia game.

They finally got these guys back together and it felt a bit like "was this really the best they could think of?". They could have kept it more simple - with just the guys around a round table talking about the show and their experiences with it for 100 minutes and I would have liked that more than Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga making pointless appearances.

[KevShmev]

The Lady Gaga thing (she sounded awful singing Smelly Cat), the fashion show thing, and the comments from fans were all pointless and could have all been left out, but I get why they did that stuff and fortunately they cumulatively didn't take up a lot of time.  And Corden's screen time was pretty limited.  Overall, I enjoyed it a lot.  You can tell the women are still closer than the men are, but the bond they all still have from their time on the show was more than obvious.

Matthew Perry is obviously not well, which is a bummer to see.  It felt like his comments were pretty limited and mostly only came when the ensemble was all together and talking.  I've always wondered if Monica and Chandler getting together and married was always in the plans, and it's cool to hear that the original plan was for them to hook up for a brief spell and that's it, but once the fans went nuts for them as a couple, they kept it going and took it to the level it went. 

And even though I never thought Ross and Rachel worked as a couple (keeping them apart for most of the series was the right decision), I do think they made the right decision to have them get back together in the finale.  Fans wanted to see it and it was done well.

I also thought they made a great point about the difficulty in casting the Rachel character.  On paper early on, her character was not likable at all, but Jennifer Aniston brought a charm and self-awareness and vulnerability to Rachel that made you like her almost right away. Being drop dead gorgeous sure helped as well, haha.

[faizoff]

If I read correctly, Mathew Perry had some kind of dental/oral surgery recently which is why he sounded that way.

[Stadler]

I also thought they made a great point about the difficulty in casting the Rachel character.  On paper early on, her character was not likable at all, but Jennifer Aniston brought a charm and self-awareness and vulnerability to Rachel that made you like her almost right away. Being drop dead gorgeous sure helped as well, haha.

Bearing in mind I'm only a casual Friends fan (and not a fan at all of Ross/David Schwimmer, or the Rachel character) that's sort of a pet peeve of mine.  I hate when characters that have a specific point of view are almost invariably dumbed down or made more likable.  I don't know if it's a sop to the audience, or a sop to the actor, but it's annoying to this fan.  House, Cheers, Big Bang Theory, they've all done it.  One of the few not to was Two And A Half Men.

[Cool Chris]

I don't know if I would say Rachel was "dumbed down." I also hate the "dumb" character archetype prevalent in many sitcoms. It's just not necessary.

I am sure studio execs have pretty high on the list when talking with writers on a new show "Make the characters likable. People don't want to watch a show about jerks." Seinfeld proved otherwise, but that's an exception.

[KevShmev]

If I read correctly, Mathew Perry had some kind of dental/oral surgery recently which is why he sounded that way.

I read that, too, and thought it came off as damage control, which I get.  They did a reunion show after 17 years and he just happened to pick that day to do oral surgery.  Not buying that at all.

I also thought they made a great point about the difficulty in casting the Rachel character.  On paper early on, her character was not likable at all, but Jennifer Aniston brought a charm and self-awareness and vulnerability to Rachel that made you like her almost right away. Being drop dead gorgeous sure helped as well, haha.

Bearing in mind I'm only a casual Friends fan (and not a fan at all of Ross/David Schwimmer, or the Rachel character) that's sort of a pet peeve of mine.  I hate when characters that have a specific point of view are almost invariably dumbed down or made more likable.  I don't know if it's a sop to the audience, or a sop to the actor, but it's annoying to this fan.  House, Cheers, Big Bang Theory, they've all done it.  One of the few not to was Two And A Half Men.

I don't quite get what you are saying.  I am not saying, nor did I meant to imply, that the Rachel character was dumbed down to make her likable, just that Jennifer Aniston brought a vulnerability and look to a character that could have been unlikable in the hands of another actress.  The dumbing down of characters on Friends came with Joey later on (when he went from naive and unintelligent to just flat out stupid at times). 

[MirrorMask]

And even though I never thought Ross and Rachel worked as a couple (keeping them apart for most of the series was the right decision), I do think they made the right decision to have them get back together in the finale.  Fans wanted to see it and it was done well.

I believe that relationship was the template, and also a "curse", cast upon every other sitcom for a long time. I'm not too expert on sitcoms to know when the "Will they / won't they" thing originated, but Ross and Rachel definitively made it popular, as well with the "if they get together the show is over" trope you hear tossed around.

Luckily there have been some changes to the formula, such as in Brooklyn 99.  Not every sitcom needs to have the romantic duo getting together then splitting up then almost getting together but whopsie there's this wacky misunderstanding and they're not getting together and then in comes the other woman that everyone loves to hate while she gets with the other man everyone loves to hate, rinse and repeat.

[KevShmev]

And even though I never thought Ross and Rachel worked as a couple (keeping them apart for most of the series was the right decision), I do think they made the right decision to have them get back together in the finale.  Fans wanted to see it and it was done well.

I believe that relationship was the template, and also a "curse", cast upon every other sitcom for a long time. I'm not too expert on sitcoms to know when the "Will they / won't they" thing originated, but Ross and Rachel definitively made it popular, as well with the "if they get together the show is over" trope you hear tossed around.

Luckily there have been some changes to the formula, such as in Brooklyn 99.  Not every sitcom needs to have the romantic duo getting together then splitting up then almost getting together but whopsie there's this wacky misunderstanding and they're not getting together and then in comes the other woman that everyone loves to hate while she gets with the other man everyone loves to hate, rinse and repeat.

Very true.  I don't think I liked any of the boyfriends Rachel had on the show between her relationship with Ross and the finale. Tag was a doofus (and that actor is terrible, so that didn't help), the whole thing with Danny always felt off, and I have never liked Dermot Mulroney as an actor, so there was no chance of me liking Gavin as a character.  Even the brief attempt at a relationship with Joey never seem right.  Check that: I didn't mind Joshua, the guy she dated/obsessed over in S4).  On the flip side, both serious boyfriends Monica had prior to Chandler, Richard and Pete, were both very likable characters.

[Anguyen92]

Pete was pretty darn likable for a pretty darn rich tech guy, but holy cow, whose idea was it, in order to end the relationship with Monica, to have him be driven to do Ultimate Fighting and be terrible at it where Monica doesn't want to witness the guy getting hurt over that?

[Stadler]

And even though I never thought Ross and Rachel worked as a couple (keeping them apart for most of the series was the right decision), I do think they made the right decision to have them get back together in the finale.  Fans wanted to see it and it was done well.

I believe that relationship was the template, and also a "curse", cast upon every other sitcom for a long time. I'm not too expert on sitcoms to know when the "Will they / won't they" thing originated, but Ross and Rachel definitively made it popular, as well with the "if they get together the show is over" trope you hear tossed around.

Luckily there have been some changes to the formula, such as in Brooklyn 99.  Not every sitcom needs to have the romantic duo getting together then splitting up then almost getting together but whopsie there's this wacky misunderstanding and they're not getting together and then in comes the other woman that everyone loves to hate while she gets with the other man everyone loves to hate, rinse and repeat.

There were hints with Hawkeye and Hotlips, but the first example I know of was Sam and Diane from Cheers, which began in 1982.

[T-ski]

And even though I never thought Ross and Rachel worked as a couple (keeping them apart for most of the series was the right decision), I do think they made the right decision to have them get back together in the finale.  Fans wanted to see it and it was done well.

I believe that relationship was the template, and also a "curse", cast upon every other sitcom for a long time. I'm not too expert on sitcoms to know when the "Will they / won't they" thing originated, but Ross and Rachel definitively made it popular, as well with the "if they get together the show is over" trope you hear tossed around.

Luckily there have been some changes to the formula, such as in Brooklyn 99.  Not every sitcom needs to have the romantic duo getting together then splitting up then almost getting together but whopsie there's this wacky misunderstanding and they're not getting together and then in comes the other woman that everyone loves to hate while she gets with the other man everyone loves to hate, rinse and repeat.

There were hints with Hawkeye and Hotlips, but the first example I know of was Sam and Diane from Cheers, which began in 1982.

Dave and Maddie on Moonlighting was a good one as well in the mid 80’s

[KevShmev]

Pete was pretty darn likable for a pretty darn rich tech guy, but holy cow, whose idea was it, in order to end the relationship with Monica, to have him be driven to do Ultimate Fighting and be terrible at it where Monica doesn't want to witness the guy getting hurt over that?

At least that episode gave us a quote my older brother (who didn't keep up with the show and never watches it anymore) and I still bust out in jest on occasion, the bolded part of the below.

"There will come a day when kids argue over who would win a fight between me and Superman. Not that I'm saying that I could beat Superman, but kids are stupid."

[pg1067]

And even though I never thought Ross and Rachel worked as a couple (keeping them apart for most of the series was the right decision), I do think they made the right decision to have them get back together in the finale.  Fans wanted to see it and it was done well.

I believe that relationship was the template, and also a "curse", cast upon every other sitcom for a long time. I'm not too expert on sitcoms to know when the "Will they / won't they" thing originated, but Ross and Rachel definitively made it popular, as well with the "if they get together the show is over" trope you hear tossed around.

Luckily there have been some changes to the formula, such as in Brooklyn 99.  Not every sitcom needs to have the romantic duo getting together then splitting up then almost getting together but whopsie there's this wacky misunderstanding and they're not getting together and then in comes the other woman that everyone loves to hate while she gets with the other man everyone loves to hate, rinse and repeat.

There were hints with Hawkeye and Hotlips, but the first example I know of was Sam and Diane from Cheers, which began in 1982.

Dave and Maddie on Moonlighting was a good one as well in the mid 80’s

Sam and Diane got together pretty quickly.  Moonlighting definitely milked the "will they or won't they" thing, but the ultimate for that was Who's the Boss with Tony Danza's and Judith Light's characters.  That went on for several years if I remember correctly.

[hefdaddy42]

We watched the special.  It was OK.  Overlong, and with way too much James Corden, who had fuck all to do with the show.  He's just irritating as hell.  Almost any other host would have been preferable for my tastes.

Also, the plastic surgery was frightening. 

[Stadler]

We watched the special.  It was OK.  Overlong, and with way too much James Corden, who had fuck all to do with the show.  He's just irritating as hell.  Almost any other host would have been preferable for my tastes.

Also, the plastic surgery was frightening.

I'm sorry, but Courtney Cox - who had maintained for a while that "she's never had work done" - has clearly crossed the rubicon. 

Also, related/unrelated?  https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/02/entertainment/matthew-perry-molly-hurwitz-split/index.html

[KevShmev]

Anyone else think there was some underlying tension between Aniston and Schwimmer?  Most of their chatter seemed almost business-like, and there was even a moment where they were both trying to talk over the other.  They swore that they never hooked up in the early days of the show when they were both crushing, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did later on and have kind of a weird dynamic now as a result. 

[Kotowboy]

We watched the special.  It was OK.  Overlong, and with way too much James Corden, who had fuck all to do with the show.  He's just irritating as hell.  Almost any other host would have been preferable for my tastes.

Also, the plastic surgery was frightening.

I'm sorry, but Courtney Cox - who had maintained for a while that "she's never had work done" - has clearly crossed the rubicon. 

Also, related/unrelated?  https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/02/entertainment/matthew-perry-molly-hurwitz-split/index.html

Plastic surgery / Botox is like men going bald.

The comedian jasper Carrott said it too : NOBODY takes any notice of a guy who is bald - but if he's a 70 year old with jet black hair or an obvious wig - EVERYONE points it out.

PLastic surgery / Botox looks un-natural as fuck. It just does. Sorry but you're fooling nobody.

Also - I loved the show in its day - thought the finale was a bit weak - BUT I have NO interest in watching that Reunion. Hating James Corden doesn't help.

Him and Ed Sheeran must have the same agent. They both have very very limited talent and just pop up everywhere for no reason - and are always accused of plagiarism.

[MirrorMask]

Watched it as well. It's been so long since I watched Friends so I hardly remember the tiniest details, but overall it was nice.

The most interesting tidbit, which is always cool to get these info from the insiders, was when Matt LeBlanc said he couldn't relate to the show watching it because "I can't buy it, I know I'm the one acting so I don't feel the lines", or something like that. If he watches any other actor, he could appreciate the performance, but knowing it was HIMSELF acting, he knew it was all "fake" and couldn't fully believe it.

It's cool to know how artists view their art and their performance, for example I'd love to know how musicians approach the concerts and how they live them, surely it must be a complete and totally different experience. Heck, that's what I actually asked Bruce Dickinson when he did his book tour, and was taking written questions from the audience, mine was "what's your stream of consciousness when you're on stage?", and he started to explain the last tour set song by song to make a point about how he's fully concentrated on everything he's doing, and everything he will have to do, saying "sometimes people ask me what it's like to perform in front of 50k people, I don't know, I'm so concentrated I don't have time to enjoy the sight of the audience".

At the same time it was interesting to know that in this case Matt LeBlanc can't "believe" the performance because he's the one who did it and knows very well it's all staged and rehearsed, I wonder if many other actors feel the same, especially in the CGI era. Do superheroes actors enjoy the final product, or see it and just go "eh.... easy to do it with a computer, I was standing in front of a green screen and my partner had that stupid mask on the face to map it and then replace it with an alien face"

[MoraWintersoul]

At the same time it was interesting to know that in this case Matt LeBlanc can't "believe" the performance because he's the one who did it and knows very well it's all staged and rehearsed, I wonder if many other actors feel the same, especially in the CGI era. Do superheroes actors enjoy the final product, or see it and just go "eh.... easy to do it with a computer, I was standing in front of a green screen and my partner had that stupid mask on the face to map it and then replace it with an alien face"

Hey, at least Matt enjoyed actually acting. Could have gone worse if he went into green screen stuff later on: https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/ian-mckellen-broke-down-filming-the-hobbit.html/

"In an interview with Contact Music, the legendary performer [Ian McKellen] said, “In order to shoot the dwarves and a large Gandalf, we couldn’t be in the same set. All I had for company was 13 photographs of the dwarves on top of stands with little lights.”

He continued by saying, “Pretending you’re with 13 other people when you’re on your own, it stretches your technical ability to the absolute limits.”
[...]
His most challenging role proved to be in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Digital Spy reported that during filming, the talented actor was so frustrated with the use of a green screen that he shouted, “This is not why I became an actor.”

McKellen reflected on the moment saying, “I cried, actually. I cried.” He candidly recalled, “Unfortunately, the microphone was on, and the whole studio heard.”
[...]
McKellen said, “It was so distressing and off-putting and difficult that I thought ‘I don’t want to make this film if this is what I’m going to have to do’.” He added, “It’s not what I do for a living. I act with other people, I don’t act on my own.”

[RuRoRul]

At the same time it was interesting to know that in this case Matt LeBlanc can't "believe" the performance because he's the one who did it and knows very well it's all staged and rehearsed, I wonder if many other actors feel the same, especially in the CGI era. Do superheroes actors enjoy the final product, or see it and just go "eh.... easy to do it with a computer, I was standing in front of a green screen and my partner had that stupid mask on the face to map it and then replace it with an alien face"

Hey, at least Matt enjoyed actually acting. Could have gone worse if he went into green screen stuff later on: https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/ian-mckellen-broke-down-filming-the-hobbit.html/

"In an interview with Contact Music, the legendary performer [Ian McKellen] said, “In order to shoot the dwarves and a large Gandalf, we couldn’t be in the same set. All I had for company was 13 photographs of the dwarves on top of stands with little lights.”

He continued by saying, “Pretending you’re with 13 other people when you’re on your own, it stretches your technical ability to the absolute limits.”
[...]
His most challenging role proved to be in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Digital Spy reported that during filming, the talented actor was so frustrated with the use of a green screen that he shouted, “This is not why I became an actor.”

McKellen reflected on the moment saying, “I cried, actually. I cried.” He candidly recalled, “Unfortunately, the microphone was on, and the whole studio heard.”
[...]
McKellen said, “It was so distressing and off-putting and difficult that I thought ‘I don’t want to make this film if this is what I’m going to have to do’.” He added, “It’s not what I do for a living. I act with other people, I don’t act on my own.”

Although these quotes are often treated as being about "too much green screen" in general, I don't think the description gets across the full context of what he was talking about that was so difficult, and I'd go as far as to say it's basically inaccurate that it was "the use of a green screen" that made him frustrated (the same way it would be to say it was "the use of a camera").

I think Ian McKellen can handle acting against a green screen without issue (I doubt there was much more than green screen to go off of when filming the famous Balrog scene). The thing that was so difficult that caused him to break down a bit was when shooting the full Bag End dinner party, they were shooting the dwarves/hobbit and Gandalf simultaneously, where they were all on a real, fully realised set, and Ian McKellen was alone on a scaled down green screen version of it, trying to act in real time with up to fourteen other actors he couldn't see but who were all acting crowded in a room together. This allowed the director to see the larger Gandalf and the rest of the cast on the same screen against the real, practical Bag End in real time - but it left Ian McKellen isolated from all the other actors and facing a very difficult task. It was quite an unusual setup and I don't think it's all that similar to regular experience of filming against green screen - if that approach was used, with Gandalf filmed separately with probably someone off camera reading the other lines, I imagine it wouldn't have caused too much difficulty for Ian McKellen and would just have been quite a lot like other scenes in big budget fantasy films.

Maybe Ian McKellen has commented on the general overuse of green screen and CGI backgrounds in the Hobbit films (which definitely was something that it was a lot worse for than Lord of the Rings), but that wasn't really what he was talking about in those quotes, although they often are framed to suggest that.

(An aside from the main topic I know).

I watched the Friends Reunion when it was released, even though I wasn't too interested in the run up to it or anything and wasn't sure if it'd be worthwhile. It was pretty enjoyable, and as others had said the James Corden and the other celebrities there for promotion were minimal enough that it didn't feel like a waste of time. If it had been mostly them in front of the fountain being interviewed with the audience then it would probably have been not much better than an average evening talk show episode that happened to feature one of the cast. But the cast back on the set, the trivia game, and some of the behind the scenes stuff from the past was all good. Reflections from the creators and actors on them being cast were good as well.

I read some additional interviews from the creators after the reunion: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/friends-reunion-cast-reveals-creators-interview-1234959624/
They have the right idea about not returning with a true follow up. Old Friends would just be a bit sad I think and not really capture much of the spirit of the original. Also contains some reflection on things like lack of diversity in the cast which I know is a bit of a thing about Friends in recent years. I think they are right, probably when making the show later you'd be a bit more conscious of it, but I don't think it hurts the show, in fact the similarity of the main cast probably contributes to the feel of the show (in the same way the characters are all almost exactly the same age).

[KevShmev]

I read some additional interviews from the creators after the reunion: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/friends-reunion-cast-reveals-creators-interview-1234959624/
They have the right idea about not returning with a true follow up. Old Friends would just be a bit sad I think and not really capture much of the spirit of the original. Also contains some reflection on things like lack of diversity in the cast which I know is a bit of a thing about Friends in recent years. I think they are right, probably when making the show later you'd be a bit more conscious of it, but I don't think it hurts the show, in fact the similarity of the main cast probably contributes to the feel of the show (in the same way the characters are all almost exactly the same age).

It's a bit of a stupid thing.  Not every show has to scream diversity.  Not every circle of friends has to have a person from every race.  And the people making that silly argument conveniently ignore how groundbreaking the show was for its time when it came to certain issues.  I am pretty sure it was the first sitcom to have an actual lesbian couple on the show as somewhat regulars, an episode was dedicated to the lesbian wedding, there was interracial dating (on two accounts for both Joey and Ross) which was unheard of on a sitcom as well at the time, etc.  The writers found the perfect main cast (the six) and that is why the show is legendary.  End of story. 

[RuRoRul]

I read some additional interviews from the creators after the reunion: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/friends-reunion-cast-reveals-creators-interview-1234959624/
They have the right idea about not returning with a true follow up. Old Friends would just be a bit sad I think and not really capture much of the spirit of the original. Also contains some reflection on things like lack of diversity in the cast which I know is a bit of a thing about Friends in recent years. I think they are right, probably when making the show later you'd be a bit more conscious of it, but I don't think it hurts the show, in fact the similarity of the main cast probably contributes to the feel of the show (in the same way the characters are all almost exactly the same age).

It's a bit of a stupid thing.  Not every show has to scream diversity.  Not every circle of friends has to have a person from every race.  And the people making that silly argument conveniently ignore how groundbreaking the show was for its time when it came to certain issues.  I am pretty sure it was the first sitcom to have an actual lesbian couple on the show as somewhat regulars, an episode was dedicated to the lesbian wedding, there was interracial dating (on two accounts for both Joey and Ross) which was unheard of on a sitcom as well at the time, etc.  The writers found the perfect main cast (the six) and that is why the show is legendary.  End of story. 

Yeah, there was enough attention paid to it a couple of years ago (even if it was mostly just the usual articles written about a few tweets) that I'm not surprised it's something they were asked about in some form. I think the creators said pretty much the same thing. They clearly struck gold with the cast they ended up with (the fact a show of the cast getting together again 27 years after the premiere was considered a big deal demonstrates just how big it was). And the premise is really about quite an insular group - the same 6 twenty somethings hanging about in a coffee shop or in their apartment. Obviously you could have had the same thing where one of them happened to have a different skin colour, but it's not like its crazy for that not to be the case.

Interesting to read that the network wanted them to add an older character, like a guy running the coffee shop. Good that they avoided doing that.

There's probably a handful of things about Friends that reflect a bit of the '90s attitudes that maybe people would treat slightly differently now, but ultimately it's pretty tame for that and I don't think you even have to make much allowance for it being "of the times" the way you might for some older things. 100 billion on streaming platforms or whatever it is now and popularity even among young people today shows it maintains lasting appeal pretty well.

[faizoff]

At the same time it was interesting to know that in this case Matt LeBlanc can't "believe" the performance because he's the one who did it and knows very well it's all staged and rehearsed, I wonder if many other actors feel the same, especially in the CGI era. Do superheroes actors enjoy the final product, or see it and just go "eh.... easy to do it with a computer, I was standing in front of a green screen and my partner had that stupid mask on the face to map it and then replace it with an alien face"

Hey, at least Matt enjoyed actually acting. Could have gone worse if he went into green screen stuff later on: https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/ian-mckellen-broke-down-filming-the-hobbit.html/

"In an interview with Contact Music, the legendary performer [Ian McKellen] said, “In order to shoot the dwarves and a large Gandalf, we couldn’t be in the same set. All I had for company was 13 photographs of the dwarves on top of stands with little lights.”

He continued by saying, “Pretending you’re with 13 other people when you’re on your own, it stretches your technical ability to the absolute limits.”
[...]
His most challenging role proved to be in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Digital Spy reported that during filming, the talented actor was so frustrated with the use of a green screen that he shouted, “This is not why I became an actor.”

McKellen reflected on the moment saying, “I cried, actually. I cried.” He candidly recalled, “Unfortunately, the microphone was on, and the whole studio heard.”
[...]
McKellen said, “It was so distressing and off-putting and difficult that I thought ‘I don’t want to make this film if this is what I’m going to have to do’.” He added, “It’s not what I do for a living. I act with other people, I don’t act on my own.”

This was actually on the appendices of the Hobbit trilogy boxset, there were a lot of things going that made him feel that way. I think the cast was getting along so well that Ian felt left out for his scenes and there's footage in the appendices about his meltdown. Peter Jackson talks about it and feels bad about it and they put together a package to make him feel better.

The reason they had to shoot that way was because they couldn't use the forced perspective technique like they had done during the Lord of the rings movies since they were also shooting the movie in 3D, that trick wouldn't work with a 3D camera hence their solution to coordinate  two separate sets of different scales being shot together.

But yeah Ian McKellen had a breakdown.

[Cool Chris]

Yeah, there was enough attention paid to it a couple of years ago...

Way more than enough.

[KevShmev]

I read some additional interviews from the creators after the reunion: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/friends-reunion-cast-reveals-creators-interview-1234959624/
They have the right idea about not returning with a true follow up. Old Friends would just be a bit sad I think and not really capture much of the spirit of the original. Also contains some reflection on things like lack of diversity in the cast which I know is a bit of a thing about Friends in recent years. I think they are right, probably when making the show later you'd be a bit more conscious of it, but I don't think it hurts the show, in fact the similarity of the main cast probably contributes to the feel of the show (in the same way the characters are all almost exactly the same age).

It's a bit of a stupid thing.  Not every show has to scream diversity.  Not every circle of friends has to have a person from every race.  And the people making that silly argument conveniently ignore how groundbreaking the show was for its time when it came to certain issues.  I am pretty sure it was the first sitcom to have an actual lesbian couple on the show as somewhat regulars, an episode was dedicated to the lesbian wedding, there was interracial dating (on two accounts for both Joey and Ross) which was unheard of on a sitcom as well at the time, etc.  The writers found the perfect main cast (the six) and that is why the show is legendary.  End of story. 

Yeah, there was enough attention paid to it a couple of years ago (even if it was mostly just the usual articles written about a few tweets) that I'm not surprised it's something they were asked about in some form. I think the creators said pretty much the same thing. They clearly struck gold with the cast they ended up with (the fact a show of the cast getting together again 27 years after the premiere was considered a big deal demonstrates just how big it was). And the premise is really about quite an insular group - the same 6 twenty somethings hanging about in a coffee shop or in their apartment. Obviously you could have had the same thing where one of them happened to have a different skin colour, but it's not like its crazy for that not to be the case.

Interesting to read that the network wanted them to add an older character, like a guy running the coffee shop. Good that they avoided doing that.

There's probably a handful of things about Friends that reflect a bit of the '90s attitudes that maybe people would treat slightly differently now, but ultimately it's pretty tame for that and I don't think you even have to make much allowance for it being "of the times" the way you might for some older things. 100 billion on streaming platforms or whatever it is now and popularity even among young people today shows it maintains lasting appeal pretty well.

I was glad the creators stuck to their guns about how the magic and chemistry of the six is not something they would have changed. Sure, they gave enough lip service to placate the 2021 crybabies who love to complain about everything on Twitter, but I think it was clear that if they could go back and change anything, they wouldn't.  Good for them. 

[Stadler]

I read some additional interviews from the creators after the reunion: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/friends-reunion-cast-reveals-creators-interview-1234959624/
They have the right idea about not returning with a true follow up. Old Friends would just be a bit sad I think and not really capture much of the spirit of the original. Also contains some reflection on things like lack of diversity in the cast which I know is a bit of a thing about Friends in recent years. I think they are right, probably when making the show later you'd be a bit more conscious of it, but I don't think it hurts the show, in fact the similarity of the main cast probably contributes to the feel of the show (in the same way the characters are all almost exactly the same age).

It's a bit of a stupid thing.  Not every show has to scream diversity.  Not every circle of friends has to have a person from every race.  And the people making that silly argument conveniently ignore how groundbreaking the show was for its time when it came to certain issues.  I am pretty sure it was the first sitcom to have an actual lesbian couple on the show as somewhat regulars, an episode was dedicated to the lesbian wedding, there was interracial dating (on two accounts for both Joey and Ross) which was unheard of on a sitcom as well at the time, etc.  The writers found the perfect main cast (the six) and that is why the show is legendary.  End of story. 

Ah, but yes they do!   The lesbian woman of color is starting to be as much of a trope, at least in the crime procedural shows, as the Italian mobster or the Middle-eastern Terrorist.  The captain in L&O:Organized Crime, the detective in L&O:SVU, the scientist in Manifest, the agent in FBI... and on non-procedurals, Randall's daughter in This Is Us (who of course is dating a gender-fluid teen).  I'm sure I'm forgetting some from shows I don't watch all that much, but every show DOES have to scream diversity.

[pg1067]

I read some additional interviews from the creators after the reunion: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/friends-reunion-cast-reveals-creators-interview-1234959624/
They have the right idea about not returning with a true follow up. Old Friends would just be a bit sad I think and not really capture much of the spirit of the original. Also contains some reflection on things like lack of diversity in the cast which I know is a bit of a thing about Friends in recent years. I think they are right, probably when making the show later you'd be a bit more conscious of it, but I don't think it hurts the show, in fact the similarity of the main cast probably contributes to the feel of the show (in the same way the characters are all almost exactly the same age).

It's a bit of a stupid thing.  Not every show has to scream diversity.  Not every circle of friends has to have a person from every race.  And the people making that silly argument conveniently ignore how groundbreaking the show was for its time when it came to certain issues.  I am pretty sure it was the first sitcom to have an actual lesbian couple on the show as somewhat regulars, an episode was dedicated to the lesbian wedding, there was interracial dating (on two accounts for both Joey and Ross) which was unheard of on a sitcom as well at the time, etc.  The writers found the perfect main cast (the six) and that is why the show is legendary.  End of story. 

As much as I agree with everything you wrote, interracial relationships, while never common, have been part of sitcoms since at least 1975, when Roxie Roker (who was part of an interracial couple in real life) played a black woman married to a white guy on The Jeffersons.  You could even take it back to the '50s and Lucy and Ricky.

Interesting to read that the network wanted them to add an older character, like a guy running the coffee shop. Good that they avoided doing that.

Initially, it was supposed to be a cop who also hung out at Central Perk.  It was still under consideration during the first season.  In the first Thanksgiving episode, a character named Terry appears as the owner of Central Perk.  He was, at that point, under consideration as the older confidante of the younger main characters.  However, he appeared in only one other episode about a year later (the one with Chrissie Hynde from the Pretenders) and then disappeared.  Instead, Gunther became the face of Central Perk.