Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, September 18, 2017

‘Friends,’ the Sitcom That’s Still a Hit in Major League Baseball

For at least one generation of Americans, “Friends” endures as a cultural touchstone, a glowing chunk of 1990s amber. But its runaway popularity stretched far beyond the United States, and for some Latino baseball players it is something more: a language guide, a Rosetta Stone disguised as six 20-somethings commingling in a Manhattan apartment.

What would they have learned by watching, say “The X Files” instead?

NattyBoh Posted: September 18, 2017 at 09:59 AM | 485 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: english, latino players, minors

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 5 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: September 18, 2017 at 03:25 PM (#5533835)
The Russians on our floor (yrs ago) learned English by watching "Walker, Texas Ranger." Whatever works.
   2. catomi01 Posted: September 18, 2017 at 03:34 PM (#5533845)
I learned more Spanish in a minor league clubhouse than I did in 6 years of school. A lot of it is not usable in polite company though.
   3. Batman Posted: September 18, 2017 at 03:36 PM (#5533848)
Could baseball be any more berry berry good to me?
   4. Howie Menckel Posted: September 18, 2017 at 04:17 PM (#5533864)

it is amusing to hear this theme song when Wil Flores comes to bat at Citi Field. you can always hear one fan saying, "Why are they playing that song" - and another explaining it. Flores is the best.
   5. Rally Posted: September 18, 2017 at 04:18 PM (#5533865)
About 7% of MLB players were either not yet born or mere infants when Friends first hit the air. About 75% were age 7 or younger at the time.
   6. Rennie's Tenet Posted: September 18, 2017 at 04:19 PM (#5533866)
The article reveals that their favorite character is Joey. Yeah. Sure.
   7. Nasty Nate Posted: September 18, 2017 at 04:23 PM (#5533869)
joey get ipad
   8. PreservedFish Posted: September 18, 2017 at 04:26 PM (#5533871)
My buddy is a high school teacher and he confirms that Friends has some immense retro appeal for the youth of our nation, much more so than The Simpsons or Seinfeld... and apparently not in an ironic hipster sense. I weep for us all!
   9. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 18, 2017 at 05:12 PM (#5533888)
My buddy is a high school teacher and he confirms that Friends has some immense retro appeal for the youth of our nation, much more so than The Simpsons or Seinfeld... and apparently not in an ironic hipster sense. I weep for us all!

For what it's worth, Friends is also the only one of them that's available streaming on Netflix. It wouldn't surprise me if that's part of the appeal.
   10. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: September 18, 2017 at 05:16 PM (#5533891)
I was told and have read where Millenials don't like U2 (either dislike or disinterest) and when I saw them last week (w/ Beck) it was validated, I saw very few <35.
   11. LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 18, 2017 at 05:19 PM (#5533893)
The article reveals that their favorite character is Joey. Yeah. Sure.
Yours is a moo point. It's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo.
   12. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: September 18, 2017 at 05:44 PM (#5533913)
My 14 year old is currently binging on Friends. Only 90s show so far.
   13. Man o' Schwar Posted: September 18, 2017 at 05:48 PM (#5533918)
The article reveals that their favorite character is Joey. Yeah. Sure.

How you doin?

It could be worse. They could like Ross.
   14. Booey Posted: September 18, 2017 at 06:05 PM (#5533931)
My 14 year old is currently binging on Friends. Only 90s show so far.


So is (s)he going to stop watching halfway through since half the shows run was in the early 2000's? (I think it ran from 1994-2004)

It could be worse. They could like Ross.


I tried to dislike Friends during it's syndicated run, but I gotta admit...Joey and Chandler are pretty funny (see #11 - that was a great line). The other 4 characters are all grating and unlikeable though (although young Jennifer Aniston was at least good eye candy).
   15. Man o' Schwar Posted: September 18, 2017 at 06:18 PM (#5533947)
I tried to dislike Friends during it's syndicated run, but I gotta admit...Joey and Chandler are pretty funny (see #11 - that was a great line). The other 4 characters are all grating and unlikeable though (although young Jennifer Aniston was at least good eye candy).

Ross was the worst. 20 years later, I still could never understand what kind of psychological problems Rachel must have had that led her to think of Ross as a viable dating partner. He was a self-absorbed goober, one of the most unlikable TV characters in recent memory.

There was a much happier version of this show buried in there somewhere, away from all of Ross's self-created relationship drama that dominated most of the show's run.
   16. LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 18, 2017 at 06:23 PM (#5533950)
He was a self-absorbed goober, one of the most unlikable TV characters in recent memory.
Hey! THEY. WERE. ON. A. BREAK.
   17. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: September 18, 2017 at 06:36 PM (#5533956)
As I remember it, the show hit a sweet spot of sorts in the couple of early/middle years, after it moved past establishing the one-note "quirks" of the characters and gave them multiple dimensions and got rid of the monkey and other gimmicky stuff. There was a window where it had a decent run of unconventional, even slightly absurdist humor. Unfortunately, then they apparently decided to go all-in on making it a relationship show instead of a comedy (read: focusing on a core female audience), and went with not only Ross/Rachel, but Chandler/Monica, Phoebe/triplets, Joey/feelings for Rachel, etc.
   18. eric Posted: September 18, 2017 at 06:50 PM (#5533963)
Between having sushi as my least favorite food of all time and Friends as my least favorite TV show of all time, I'm feeling like a bit of an outcast recently.
   19. Greg K Posted: September 18, 2017 at 06:58 PM (#5533970)
As I remember it, the show hit a sweet spot of sorts in the couple of early/middle years, after it moved past establishing the one-note "quirks" of the characters and gave them multiple dimensions and got rid of the monkey and other gimmicky stuff.

See I thought it worked the opposite way. The characters became their one-note quirks as the show went on. A couple seasons in they stopped being humans and just an excuse to call-back to some defining characteristic. HEY, REMEMBER NEAT MONICA IS?!?!

Though I guess, to be fair, Phoebe was never really a human...and Ross was always one-note. Until that time he became a rage-a-holic all of a sudden.
   20. Booey Posted: September 18, 2017 at 07:12 PM (#5533975)
Ross was the worst. 20 years later, I still could never understand what kind of psychological problems Rachel must have had that led her to think of Ross as a viable dating partner. He was a self-absorbed goober, one of the most unlikable TV characters in recent memory.


Ross was pretty bad, but I thought Monica was even worse. She was an obsessive compulsive control freak, and bossy as hell. Everything was her way or the highway. I always wondered what Chandler saw in her (but he also dated Janice several times, so he had some clear judgment issues when it came to relationships...)

Rachel was spoiled and whiny. Phoebe was a flaky airhead (and not in a funny way like Joey).
   21. Heart of Matt Harvey Posted: September 18, 2017 at 07:21 PM (#5533982)
I don't get it.
   22. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: September 18, 2017 at 07:39 PM (#5534004)
See I thought it worked the opposite way. The characters became their one-note quirks as the show went on. A couple seasons in they stopped being humans and just an excuse to call-back to some defining characteristic. HEY, REMEMBER NEAT MONICA IS?!?!

That's entirely possible - in fact, it would be complementary to my theory. They definitely spent a lot of time at the beginning establishing that Monica is the neat freak, Joey is the dumb womanizer, Chandler is the neurotic wisecracker, etc.
   23. Man o' Schwar Posted: September 18, 2017 at 07:51 PM (#5534019)
Ross was pretty bad, but I thought Monica was even worse. She was an obsessive compulsive control freak, and bossy as hell. Everything was her way or the highway. I always wondered what Chandler saw in her (but he also dated Janice several times, so he had some clear judgment issues when it came to relationships...)

Rachel was spoiled and whiny. Phoebe was a flaky airhead (and not in a funny way like Joey).


Monica was terrible - shrill and controlling, and pretty clearly only after a mate in order to fulfill her overwhelming desire to have kids. I'm sure she and Chandler would be divorced by now, after a bitter custody fight that probably split the Friends into two warring factions. Jack and Judy Geller must have been terrible parents (though Monica was basically just like her hypercritical mother, and Ross was just like his id-driven father).

Phoebe I give a pass - in real life, if the childhood she described was true, it's not surprising that she turned out to be kind of a mental case. Instead of Friends, she should have spent the 90s on some show where she could get some therapy.

Rachel was the most interesting character on the show. She was raised to be the spoiled doctor's wife, an appendage on his arm who shops all day and maintains their social and charity schedules. Instead, she went another way, and the show was initially about her shaking off the expectations and trying to be something different, which was interesting to watch. She had the confidence that comes from always being the prettiest girl in the room, and just enough leftover attitude from her old life to get ahead... at least for the first couple of seasons. Then it was about her spending 8 years pining over Ross the goober, in some sort of male sitcom writer's fantasy, right down to her rejecting her dream job to move to Paris in order to fall into Ross's waiting, goobery arms. She was essentially a slightly younger version of Mary Richards, but written from the perspective of horny male nerds living out their high school rejection fantasies.

And Joey... aside from the Rachel storyline that lasted about 10 episodes, did he do anything for 10 years? He did plays, he was on TV, he was off TV, he was back on TV. He moved out for about 3 weeks, then moved back in. He dated about 150 women, none of whom stuck around for more than 3 or 4 episodes (and most of whom were gone by the next week). He emerged at the end of the series essentially unchanged from the beginning, just 10 years older, living in the same apartment, watching everyone else move on to do other things. It's no wonder he moved to California right afterward.

(Yes, I've spent far too much time watching Friends.)
   24. Greg Pope Posted: September 18, 2017 at 08:34 PM (#5534044)
Friends went through the same cycle all sitcoms go through.

Characters start as fairly one-note characters. They're fairly flat and predictable, and not like actual people. Chandler is insecure wise-cracker, Joey is dumb stud, Ross is shy professor.

If the show stays on past the first wave, the characters get fleshed out. They are still probably exaggerated and couldn't exist in the real world, but they are recognizable as actual people. This is usually the prime of the show. Because you can empathize with them. You can say, "Hey that happened to me (or a friend)", but the characters react in humorous ways.

Once the show goes on for a while, the writers usually start to run out of ideas. They've made the characters real, but there's only so much you can do. I mean, you might know a friend who hits on waitresses. But that guy hits on waitresses every time you go out. Probably for 20 years he's been hitting on waitresses. On a sitcom you can show that once. Maybe two or three times if you can put a unique spin on it. But you can't just have them do the same thing, the show wouldn't be funny. So what do the writers do? They make all the characters losers. Then we can laugh at how pitiful they are. Funny things can happen to them, not because of them. They can react in completely outlandish ways, or have ridiculous quirks that we're supposed to find funny. This stage is the downfall of the show. Then eventually it gets canceled.

Look at Ross. He was a shy paleontologist. But he wasn't a loser. He had his share of funny plot lines. But he was successful and he got dates. Then they decided he would be a pathetic whiner so we could laugh at him.

Seinfeld? All of a sudden Elaine couldn't get a date. The dancing thing with the thumbs? Stupid and unrealistic. We're supposed to just laugh at Elaine because she's ridiculous.

One of my favorite shows at the time was Wings. But then they had the episode where they all were doing something different at night, and it turned out that they each went to some loser singles night. Brian was a narcissistic stud and then they made him a loser who couldn't get a date.

Night Court? Same thing. All of the characters turned into losers we were supposed to laugh at.

How does a show avoid this? The only way is with cast changes. Cheers did it, for the most part. Although Sam got whiny by the end. But they cycled in Rebecca, Frasier, Woody, etc. and kept it mostly fresh. M*A*S*H did it. They brought in characters that were, for the most part, better than the ones they replaced. I confess, I didn't see M*A*S*H when it was originally on, only in reruns. But Winchester was way better than Burns. Potter was better than Blake. OK, Radar was better than Klinger. But even if you don't think the new people were better, they still were able to change the dynamic. Plus, at least with Klinger, they were somehow able to go the other way. He was a one-note character for a long time, then they actually de-emphasized his weirdness and made him a real character.

But Friends obviously couldn't do that. Yes, they brought in Paul Ruud and Giovani Ribisi. But they weren't major characters. They were "stuck" with the core 6. And yes, they weren't complaining because it was a huge show all the way to the end. But as for quality, it was gone after about 2/3 of the way through.
   25. Greg Pope Posted: September 18, 2017 at 08:37 PM (#5534046)
Also, my 13-year old daughter has watched the entire run of Friends on Netflix and she loves the show. She doesn't know a thing about Seinfeld, Will & Grace, or pretty much any other sitcom from before she was 8.
   26. PreservedFish Posted: September 18, 2017 at 08:52 PM (#5534057)
#24 - Homer Simpson is likely the greatest and most tragic example of this phenomenon.

Seinfeld certainly got wacky. Newman tried to consume Kramer.

But I think it's easy and important to draw a distinction between Friends and Seinfeld. Seinfeld never threatened to go down the soap opera track. George almost got married, but they killed the bride unceremoniously, which George mourned for about 3-4 seconds, then they carried on as before.


All of a sudden Elaine couldn't get a date.


Hey, Elaine went from early to late 30s during the course of the show. A real life Elaine would have seen almost all of her friends get married and have children, and found herself slowly restricted to lifelong bachelors, weirdos, and single dads.
   27. Man o' Schwar Posted: September 18, 2017 at 09:14 PM (#5534067)
Night Court? Same thing. All of the characters turned into losers we were supposed to laugh at.

Night Court's biggest problem was that they seemed to think everyone wanted to know will they/won't they between Harry and Christine, so they spent years teasing it off and on rather than pursuing other more interesting stories. In reality no one wanted them to get together and the whole thing was a giant bummer. Plus the entire storyline with Phil the homeless tycoon was just... no. Also, Mac's Vietnamese wife, and the poor family that bought the candy stand. Really, they struggled to add good characters outside of the core group (Mel Torme excepted, of course).

Newsradio handled this the best - they got Dave and Lisa together in the 2nd episode, then let it play out not will they/won't they, but they did/now what?

   28. ajnrules Posted: September 18, 2017 at 09:31 PM (#5534070)
The article reveals that their favorite character is Joey. Yeah. Sure.

Well Matt LeBlanc was in a baseball movie while he was starring in Friends...
   29. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 18, 2017 at 09:31 PM (#5534071)
David Hopkins argued that Friends and specifically its depiction of Ross "signals a harsh embrace of anti-intellectualism in America, where a gifted and intelligent man is persecuted by his idiot compatriots."
   30. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: September 18, 2017 at 09:56 PM (#5534086)
#29: see also, Ted on "How I Met Your Mother"

   31. djordan Posted: September 18, 2017 at 09:59 PM (#5534088)
I swallowed this piece of clickbait from a couple of years ago and could never really get it out of my mind when thinking of the show's ending:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3211595/Friends-fan-creates-dark-alternative-ending-hit-Nineties-sitcom.html
   32. djordan Posted: September 18, 2017 at 10:08 PM (#5534095)
#24, spot on, especially his thoughts on Cheers. The Sam/Diane version is a bittersweet comedy about lonely people. The Sam/Rebecca era is almost a completely different show, more slapsticky, more throw jokes and one-liners at the audience and see what sticks. I love the first show and (sort of) like the second, but man, the producers did a tremendous job casting and creating fresh characters.
   33. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: September 18, 2017 at 10:42 PM (#5534119)
I feel stupid for not figuring out #24 sooner in life. Though now in retrospect, how exactly did Three's Company deal with this? Answers own question: I guess they did shuffle the cast, thanks to Suzanne Sommers holding out. that weird Lana broad was introduced as Jack's pursuer, but he didn't give a #### for her and she vanishes without explanation. Furley replaced the Ropers, Cindy was the odd insertion to rationalize Chrissy's disappearance, and Terri replaced 'Chrissy' and frankly was a much better character. Richard Kline was marvelous as Larry Dallas.

It may not have aged very well, but I'd rather watch Three's Company reruns over Friends.
   34. Booey Posted: September 18, 2017 at 10:57 PM (#5534125)
#29: see also, Ted on "How I Met Your Mother"


It's easy to notice the similarities between the characters on those shows.

Ted/Robin = Ross/Rachel. Smart, geeky (but successful) romantic pining after the hot girl that should have been out of his league. On again/off again "will they or won't they?" relationship is one of the central themes of the show

Marshall/Lilly = Chandler/Monica. Loyal sidekick and Ted/Ross's best friend from college married to neurotic wife (remember Lilly's shopping obsession?)

Barney = Joey. Handsome womanizer, latecomer to the group.

There's no Phoebe, but as far as importance to the storylines go she was always the most disposable character anyway.
   35. puck Posted: September 18, 2017 at 11:15 PM (#5534131)
Ross was the worst. 20 years later, I still could never understand what kind of psychological problems Rachel must have had that led her to think of Ross as a viable dating partner. He was a self-absorbed goober, one of the most unlikable TV characters in recent memory.


I've never seen Friends. But I've seen Band of Brothers, and David Schwimmer's character in that (Capt. Sobel, who is *very* harshly remembered), plus the description above, makes me feel kind of bad for him.
   36. Howie Menckel Posted: September 18, 2017 at 11:33 PM (#5534134)
There's no Phoebe, but as far as importance to the storylines go she was always the most disposable character anyway.

that is being charitable.
   37. Rennie's Tenet Posted: September 18, 2017 at 11:45 PM (#5534141)
He dated about 150 women, none of whom stuck around for more than 3 or 4 episodes (and most of whom were gone by the next week). 


Now I get why he's their favorite character.

#27: Newsradio was also very smart in having most of the Dave-Lisa stuff off-camera. You nearly always saw how the relationship affected the office, which eliminated a lot of the angst that the on again/off again sitcoms usually roll around in.
   38. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: September 19, 2017 at 12:08 AM (#5534148)
I have 5 kids ranging in ages from 25 to 16 and they have all watched every episode of Friends. Typical binge watching that young people do today. The 90's had some pretty good TV. Seinfeld doesn't really work for them, but most of them have binged watched the X-fles and the Sopranos also.

How I Met Your Mother


I was never a huge fan of this show but I must admit the episode that not only introduces the "slap bet" but also "Robin Sparkles" for me is in the top 10 funniest TV episodes of all time.
   39. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 19, 2017 at 12:13 AM (#5534149)
   40. Lest we forget Posted: September 19, 2017 at 02:20 AM (#5534171)
Loved Friends, and still enjoy the occasional re-run. My daughter found it at age 12, and aside from not necessarily understanding all of the jokes, she just loved it. It's light, small substance comedy done really, really well. Sure, it derailed a bit in one or two of the middle seasons when (notably) Chandler's real life actor had some issues, and then there was the too often used and overly simplistic Ross caricature of himself that was annoying, but basically ... a brilliant show.

What a lucky strike of good fortune for those young actors, eh?
   41. Drexl Spivey Posted: September 19, 2017 at 02:40 AM (#5534174)
#27: Newsradio was also very smart in having most of the Dave-Lisa stuff off-camera. You nearly always saw how the relationship affected the office, which eliminated a lot of the angst that the on again/off again sitcoms usually roll around in.


Did Newsradio ever reach syndication? Phil Hartman was murdered after filming season four. The Jon Lovitz season five was more depressing than it was funny.

I still love watching the show on Crackle and Youtube, but I do not recall ever seeing the show on a cable network.
   42. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: September 19, 2017 at 04:01 AM (#5534177)
I will never for the life of me understand what people see/saw in Jennifer Aniston.
   43. Leroy Kincaid Posted: September 19, 2017 at 06:37 AM (#5534183)
Years ago, on another site, there was a poster who was one of the more clever and funny people there who was a big fan of Friends but didn't care for Seinfeld. That baffled me. Maybe he was doing material.
   44. You're a clown, RMc! I'm tired of it! Posted: September 19, 2017 at 08:10 AM (#5534191)
How I Met Your Mother

My wife and I enjoyed this show immensely early on, but we stopped watching after about three seasons when it became obvious the writers had run out of ideas. The concept was obviously designed to run for only a year or two, but then it became a hit, and so endured for nine long years, capped with one of the worst final episodes in sitcom history.
   45. Rally Posted: September 19, 2017 at 08:22 AM (#5534193)
All of a sudden Elaine couldn't get a date.


Her standards were high. Not every guy was sponge worthy.
   46. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 19, 2017 at 08:44 AM (#5534201)
Not every guy was sponge worthy


If anything, Seinfeld (added to the popular lexicon like very few shows did (The Simpsons and SNL are close).

sponge worthy, Festivus, man hands, "Not that there is anything wrong with it", soup Nazi, close talker, low talker, double dipper, yadda yadda yadda, regifting, master of my domain, and others I've forgotten. They may have been used by people before the show, but the show made them popular.
   47. Rennie's Tenet Posted: September 19, 2017 at 08:47 AM (#5534206)
#41: I know that A&E had Newsradio sometime early in the century.

That baffled me. Maybe he was doing material.


He was doing material if he also insisted that he had never seen Melrose Place.
   48. stanmvp48 Posted: September 19, 2017 at 08:51 AM (#5534207)
"Mrs. Costanza, I want you to know I love your son very much"

"May I ask why"

Funniest line in sitcom history
   49. Blastin Posted: September 19, 2017 at 09:06 AM (#5534217)
and others I've forgotten


It's hard to get my wife to laugh, but even she gets into Seinfeld.

Friends, I didn't like it when it was on, but when I'm in a hotel and it's on, I'll let it play, it's fine.

When I was teaching adults English for however many years, I used both in class, they preferred Seinfeld. (shrug)
   50. Greg Pope Posted: September 19, 2017 at 09:25 AM (#5534222)
I feel stupid for not figuring out #24 sooner in life. Though now in retrospect, how exactly did Three's Company deal with this? Answers own question: I guess they did shuffle the cast

American sitcoms have a life of 5 years, give or take. Beyond that, if they don't have major cast changes, they just fall into loser-characters. Of course, cast changes mostly don't work. That's why it's called Cousin Oliver Syndrome. It's pretty rare, I can't think of any, except the ones I already mentioned, plus, apparently Three's Company (which I've never found funny so have no personal opinion).

The US version of the Office had Jim being the smart-ass who always won. His practical jokes worked, and he was on top of things. Then, all of a sudden, he started doing really stupid things.

The Drew Carey show starts out with the first few episodes being just setup for Carey jokes. Then it got funny. Lewis and Oswald were weird, in the Kramer mold. But then after a couple of years, they decided that Lewis and Oswald were just massively stupid and they had to come up with more and more outlandish plots. They build a house in a public park?

I suppose there's another exception, although I'm not sure it's happened enough to be a trend. If the characters actually grow, like The Wonder Years. They can move settings and actually have the characters in new, fresh situations that make sense in the real world. Then they're not re-hashing old jokes, but they can also come up with new ideas and situations to have the characters respond to.
   51. Covfefe Posted: September 19, 2017 at 09:42 AM (#5534234)
The US version of the Office had Jim being the smart-ass who always won. His practical jokes worked, and he was on top of things. Then, all of a sudden, he started doing really stupid things.


IDK -- I think it was something of a real life peter principle... Jim started out just pining after Pam and hating his job... eventually he got Pam, his job became a career, he recognized he was good at it -- but everybody has their limitations, and turning the switch from job to career doesn't happen easily, on top of starting a family.

*Full disclosure - I don't think I watched a single episode after Steve Carell's departure.

Parks and Rec did a nice job fleshing out characters, I thought... even Jerry/Larry/Gary got a backstory and more than just GEEZ JERRY! Leslie might have actually been the only one to backslide, but it was necessary for the show.

....and I thought the future flash forward final season was brilliant.
   52. Greg K Posted: September 19, 2017 at 09:54 AM (#5534241)
I found the problem with Jim is that his shtick was funny when he was a lovable loser you were rooting for. Once he got the girl the same act turned into that of a smug (or smudge) #######. Going around bragging to Michael about how romantic he is...

What a jerk!
   53. Greg K Posted: September 19, 2017 at 09:56 AM (#5534242)
The 5-year shelf life in #50 makes sense to me.

One exception is It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I keep expecting them to be done, but the next season is still great (I think I've seen up to 9). "The Nightman Cometh" really seemed like it would have been the time to end the show...what more can you have in the tank after that?

But that was several years ago now.
   54. Sunday silence Posted: September 19, 2017 at 09:57 AM (#5534244)
that weird Lana broad was introduced as Jack's pursuer,


that weird Lana broad is Ann Wedgeworth who has had an extensive acting career including the groupie Katie in Bang the Drum SLowly. There's an important scene where she meets Michael MOriarity in a restaurant but I forget what she tells him. A memorable role in a great baseball movie.
   55. Howie Menckel Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:13 AM (#5534258)
My wife and I enjoyed this show immensely early on, but we stopped watching after about three seasons when it became obvious the writers had run out of ideas. The concept was obviously designed to run for only a year or two, but then it became a hit, and so endured for nine long years, capped with one of the worst final episodes in sitcom history.

I also was one the people who liked it early, then stopped watching. It was several years before I found out it was still going, in fact. I was watching the reruns, but had no interest in the later years.

Turned out that those loyal souls who stuck it out all the way were infuriated by the finale. You may be more like me, who recognized how pathetic and tone-deaf it was, but I just shrugged because any feelings I had for the show had long since dissipated. It was like having lunch with an ex-girlfriend and walking away wondering how you ever fell for her in the first place.
   56. The Good Face Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:26 AM (#5534267)
One exception is It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I keep expecting them to be done, but the next season is still great (I think I've seen up to 9).


Season 10 is fantastic, some classic episodes including a delightful Wade Boggs appearance in an episode inspired by his real life binge drinking.

"The Nightman Cometh" really seemed like it would have been the time to end the show...what more can you have in the tank after that?

But that was several years ago now.


The Nightman Cometh was in season 4. As great an episode as it was, I feel like they've matched it several times since then.
   57. simon bedford Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:36 AM (#5534274)
I never got bored of 30 rock, the characters were all flawed in major ways from the get go and "development" was pretty slow for the most part, loved "arrested development" for the same reason, if a story line started to "develop" a character too much they would just toss it away without explanation and have the series go right back to the tried and true formula.
   58. Covfefe Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:42 AM (#5534280)
This isn't meant as a slight to It's Always Sunny...

But if people are insistent on 'arcs' and character development, is there any show with less of it than It's Always Sunny...?

Other than maybe Mac's 'recent' sexual orientation explorations and various familial backstories, all of the characters pretty much slide down the same slides (and of course, latter-day Mac has been hinted at forever).

The entire cast basically just keeps probing deeper into their own, uniquely flavored psychopathy.... and yet it manages to stay fresh and funny.
   59. Greg K Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:46 AM (#5534287)
The Nightman Cometh was in season 4. As great an episode as it was, I feel like they've matched it several times since then.

Oh yeah, that's what's so amazing about the show. At the time I was sure it would be downhill from there. But they've managed to defy the odds every year.

The Boggs one must be the first episode of season 10 (because that's the only one I've seen). It was, indeed, great. And good for a baseball crowd too, with Mac playing the frazzled commissioner trying, and failing, to keep the game pure.
   60. The Good Face Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:48 AM (#5534290)
This isn't meant as a slight to It's Always Sunny...

But if people are insistent on 'arcs' and character development, is there any show with less of it than It's Always Sunny...?


It's similar to Seinfeld in that respect, among others. There's no hugging, no learning. Just a bunch of terrible, co-dependent people slowly sinking deeper and deeper into their respective psychoses.

   61. Covfefe Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:49 AM (#5534291)
Since Simon brought up Arrested Development --

I have to admit, I have not watched the Netflix extensions. Part of it is simple laziness - I channel surf and DVR surf, but part of it is a fear that the extension will spoil my fond memories of the show.

As angry as I was over the cancellation and lack of a network pickup after season 3 - I have to admit that years on, it felt like at least the show went out on top, with all cylinders firing.

Years on, I'm a bit trepidatious that a drop in quality is going to spoil the fond memories.
   62. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:49 AM (#5534292)
It's hard to get my wife to laugh, but even she gets into Seinfeld.

Well yeah, there was a whole episode revolving around Jerry dating a woman who refused to laugh.
   63. Greg K Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:50 AM (#5534293)
But if people are insistent on 'arcs' and character development, is there any show with less of it than It's Always Sunny...?

This is what I was thinking with this quote from earlier in the thread:

They've made the characters real, but there's only so much you can do. I mean, you might know a friend who hits on waitresses. But that guy hits on waitresses every time you go out. Probably for 20 years he's been hitting on waitresses. On a sitcom you can show that once. Maybe two or three times if you can put a unique spin on it. But you can't just have them do the same thing, the show wouldn't be funny.


It's Always Sunny has managed to make Charlie's obsession with the waitress funny for a decade, with very little change in Charlie's behavior, or progress as a human.

The gradual revelation of Dennis' psychopathy is fun too. It feels like a first for a main sit-com character in that I'd be surprised if he doesn't end up murdering someone by the time the show is over.
   64. Batman Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:52 AM (#5534296)
It's Always Sunny has managed to make Charlie's obsession with the waitress funny for a decade, with very little change in Charlie's behavior, or progress as a human.
That probably ended in the last episode, and that makes me worry about the future of the show.
   65. Covfefe Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:56 AM (#5534300)
It's similar to Seinfeld in that respect, among others. There's no hugging, no learning. Just a bunch of terrible, co-dependent people slowly sinking deeper and deeper into their respective psychoses.


Sure - and I'm a big fan of both (both Seinfeld and Sunny are top 5 all-time sitcoms* to me).... just saying that arcs and character development are clearly not a required part of a quality sitcom.

*Speaking of which - I'd probably add Arrested Development and the Simpsons to Seinfeld and Sunny in my top 5. The fifth, I'd have to think about. Bob's Burgers would probably have the inside track, Veep would also be in the running. I'd consider the classics - Cheers, MASH, All in the Family - but that would be more a nod to respecting how well crafted they are rather than truly liking them more than Bob's or Veep. Rick and Morty would also make the final group of cuts. Come to think of it, I'd probably insist on a top 10 over top 5.
   66. Booey Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:57 AM (#5534301)
Sure, it derailed a bit in one or two of the middle seasons when (notably) Chandler's real life actor had some issues

One fun thing to do if you're binge watching the show is to pay attention to all of Matthew Perry's weight fluctuations. The best example is whatever season he proposes to Monica in the finale, and then the start of the next season - which is supposed to pick up that same night (the characters are wearing the same clothes and everything) - he's literally lost at least 50 pounds; went from being noticeably pudgy to being so thin he's basically gaunt. It probably wasn't as striking during syndication since there was like 6 months between the episodes so people had time to forgot how heavy he was before, but if you're binge watching and you see those episodes one after another, the difference is so stark it's impossible to ignore.
   67. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:57 AM (#5534302)
American sitcoms have a life of 5 years, give or take. Beyond that, if they don't have major cast changes, they just fall into loser-characters. Of course, cast changes mostly don't work. That's why it's called Cousin Oliver Syndrome. It's pretty rare, I can't think of any, except the ones I already mentioned, plus, apparently Three's Company (which I've never found funny so have no personal opinion).
Cousin Oliver syndrome is when the show adds a cute kid (typically because the cute little kids that made up the original cast are no longer cute little kids). That's different than -- or a subset of, anyway -- simply changing the cast.
   68. BrianBrianson Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:58 AM (#5534304)
I never got bored of 30 rock,


30 Rock was 7 seasons, and by the end you could start to see the fraying. If they let it on to ten seasons, it would've had some

"What if Beverly goes to Scotland, and falls in love with a ghost?"

"Like, some kind of alien?"

"No, just the regular ghost of her grandfather"

Kind of episodes.
   69. The Good Face Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:03 AM (#5534313)
The gradual revelation of Dennis' psychopathy is fun too. It feels like a first for a main sit-com character in that I'd be surprised if he doesn't end up murdering someone by the time the show is over.


If you've only seen the first episode of season 10, you're nowhere near peak Dennis psychopathy. Dennis has not yet begun to peak. And when he does, you'll know it. He's going to peak so hard that everybody in Philadelphia's gonna feel it.
   70. Covfefe Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:04 AM (#5534315)
Cousin Oliver syndrome is when the show adds a cute kid (typically because the cute little kids that made up the original cast are no longer cute little kids). That's different than -- or a subset of, anyway -- simply changing the cast.


I believe the broader idea is called the Poochie Paradigm.... or should be.
   71. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:04 AM (#5534316)
My wife and I enjoyed this show immensely early on, but we stopped watching after about three seasons when it became obvious the writers had run out of ideas. The concept was obviously designed to run for only a year or two, but then it became a hit, and so endured for nine long years, capped with one of the worst final episodes in sitcom history.
What was wrong with the finale? A bit sappy, but a decent wrap-up to the show. (You're not talking about that weird prank that CBS pulled on us, are you?)
   72. Booey Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:08 AM (#5534320)
American sitcoms have a life of 5 years, give or take. Beyond that, if they don't have major cast changes, they just fall into loser-characters. Of course, cast changes mostly don't work. That's why it's called Cousin Oliver Syndrome. It's pretty rare, I can't think of any, except the ones I already mentioned, plus, apparently Three's Company (which I've never found funny so have no personal opinion).


As someone noted, Parks and Rec did this masterfully. They dropped the most boring character on the show (Mark Brandanowitz) after the 2nd season and brought in better characters to replace him (Ben Wyatt and Chris Traeger), while successfully beefing up the roles of the funnier supporting characters (April and Andy) at the same time, creating a much more enjoyable show than you ever would have guessed by watching the first season. And the show didn't miss a beat in the 6th season when they did it again; Rob Lowe and Rashida Jones left (their characters storylines had played their way out anyway, IMO), so they just bumped up background characters Jerry and Donna to full time cast members and continued on without a hitch.

This show was brilliant. One of mine and my wife's all time favorites. They were even smart enough to end it on a high note after 7 seasons rather than trying to milk it's popularity long after they ran out of ideas like the aforementioned HIMYM (we actually liked this show too, but it's impossible to deny that it continued for several seasons too long).
   73. Booey Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:20 AM (#5534329)
Turned out that those loyal souls who stuck it out all the way were infuriated by the finale. You may be more like me, who recognized how pathetic and tone-deaf it was, but I just shrugged because any feelings I had for the show had long since dissipated. It was like having lunch with an ex-girlfriend and walking away wondering how you ever fell for her in the first place.


My wife and I watched it all (but it was via binge watching on Netflix, which is of course easier than trying to stay interested for 9 years of syndication). But yeah, it was clearly a premise that wasn't intended to last as long as it did so it dragged badly by the end. We didn't like the finale overall, but part of me sort of appreciated a few realistic aspects of it that you don't see in typical "happily ever after" type shows (which is most of them), such as Barney and Robin getting divorced. Like Chandler and Monica, there's no way those two could last in real life. At least HIMYM was honest enough to admit it.

That said, HIMYM had some great moments, too. The overall cast is more likeable than Friends, IMO, and Barney Stinson is one of the great characters in TV history. The "slap bet" - which continued for half the shows run - was brilliant, and there were several other really good episodes too, like the pineapple episode from the first season, whose storyline was "borrowed" (i.e. ripped off) by The Hangover movies a few years later.
   74. Greg K Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:20 AM (#5534331)
The Office (US) and Parks and Recreation are both kind of interesting in that way. In both cases season one is a bit flat because it's trying to be its predecessor (Leslie Knope is a bit too much Michael Scott, and the writers seem to think they need a Jim-like character to look confused at the camera when all the weird people act weird - Brandanowitz). Both shows come into their own when they figure out their own voice.
   75. simon bedford Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:22 AM (#5534333)
Friends certainly pulled the "cousin oliver" trick a few times adding several babies to the show as it neared the end, personally I think it jumped the shark during phoebes pregnancy , a dull stupid story line that went nowhere.
Other shows that pulled the "heres a new young character/baby" shtick off the top of my head "Cosby show' "Fresh prince of bel air' "growing pains' "family ties" "all in the family" "full house" ... the list really is super long but those were some of the worst offenders where the shows in question just seemed to plop in a kid to try and squeeze a few more sappy moments out of a dead franchise.
   76. Covfefe Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:25 AM (#5534340)
Mark Brandanowitz is probably the most "yeesh, what were we thinking when we accepted THOSE network notes?" character in the history of sitcoms.

I especially liked how - after the character was exited - he never came up again and it sort of became a compact with the viewers that we'd all just pretend he never happened.
   77. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:27 AM (#5534343)
Friends certainly pulled the "cousin oliver" trick a few times adding several babies to the show as it neared the end, personally I think it jumped the shark during phoebes pregnancy , a dull stupid story line that went nowhere.
The Phoebe pregnancy was a terrible storyline¹, but Friends did not employ Cousin Oliver. The babies on the show were props, never characters.


¹ To be fair, that was an attempt to deal with Kudrow's pregnancy rather than a planned idea. But it was still awful.
   78. Greg Pope Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:31 AM (#5534347)
As someone noted, Parks and Rec did this masterfully.

OK, that can be added to the list. I never made it past the first half of the first season, which I didn't find funny at all. From what I hear (mostly on this site), it got way better so I need to give it another chance.

Also, I've seen Sunny, but for some reason stopped watching partway through season 6. I think what happened is that I had a lot of episodes loaded on my phone and I watched them when I traveled. But then I got an iPad and loaded different shows on that and just never got back to it.

   79. simon bedford Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:32 AM (#5534348)
David
Yeah I did sort of extend the definition of "cousin oliver" there BUT it still holds true for "The Cosby show" and "growing pains" .
there must be others I cant recall right now.
   80. Greg Pope Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:33 AM (#5534351)
Cousin Oliver syndrome is when the show adds a cute kid (typically because the cute little kids that made up the original cast are no longer cute little kids). That's different than -- or a subset of, anyway -- simply changing the cast.

True, but I couldn't find an entry on tvtropes.com that was just for cast changes.
   81. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:37 AM (#5534356)
Yeah I did sort of extend the definition of "cousin oliver" there BUT it still holds true for "The Cosby show" and "growing pains" .
Oh, all of your other examples were dead on. Cosby, Growing Pains, Family Ties... (Ironically, Family Ties wasn't supposed to be about the kids at all; the concept was to focus on the parents. But Michael J Fox stole the show from day one.)
   82. Covfefe Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:37 AM (#5534358)
OK, that can be added to the list. I never made it past the first half of the first season, which I didn't find funny at all. From what I hear (mostly on this site), it got way better so I need to give it another chance.


Start with season 3.

I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would ever need to view the first two seasons ever again. When I convinced my then-GF that it was well, well worth watching - she insisted on plowing through the first two seasons and only just barely made it to season 3, thereafter agreeing on its genius.

All watching the first two seasons does is risk fostering the "there's no way this is worth watching 5 more seasons" attitude.
   83. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:43 AM (#5534362)
What was wrong with the finale? A bit sappy, but a decent wrap-up to the show.


For me, it was a couple of things.

First, the entire last season-and-a-half was Barney and Robin's engagement/wedding, and that just got thrown away in the last 15 minutes.

Second, Ted had been turned down by Robin numerous times in the last several seasons, so he seemed like a whipped puppy by coming back again and again.

Third, The Mother was a perfect match for Ted (it was morbidly clever to have her pass away), and Robin paled in comparison.

Fourth, how are we supposed to believe Barney would change by having a child when his supposed commitment to Robin flopped?

I liked HIMYM, but the finale really did spoil the series for me. Still pretty quotable, though.
   84. The Good Face Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:45 AM (#5534364)
Start with season 3.

I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would ever need to view the first two seasons ever again. When I convinced my then-GF that it was well, well worth watching - she insisted on plowing through the first two seasons and only just barely made it to season 3, thereafter agreeing on its genius.

All watching the first two seasons does is risk fostering the "there's no way this is worth watching 5 more seasons" attitude.


Huh. My wife really enjoyed the show from season 2 onward, but felt that it'd lost a great deal of steam (and writing quality) by season 6, and she found season 7 unwatchable.
   85. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM (#5534366)
American sitcoms have a life of 5 years, give or take. Beyond that, if they don't have major cast changes, they just fall into loser-characters.

Or unless, like Seinfeld and The Simpsons, they introduce an enormous and constantly added-to stable of memorable secondary characters. Without those additions, the Core Four of those two shows would've quickly burned out from repetition.
   86. JAHV Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:53 AM (#5534369)
I've only seen a few scattered episodes of It's Always Sunny and I hated them. I don't get the appeal of watching terrible people be terrible.
   87. Batman Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:54 AM (#5534371)
For me, it was a couple of things.
The version of the finale he linked would have been better.
   88. Booey Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:55 AM (#5534372)
The Office (US) and Parks and Recreation are both kind of interesting in that way. In both cases season one is a bit flat because it's trying to be its predecessor (Leslie Knope is a bit too much Michael Scott, and the writers seem to think they need a Jim-like character to look confused at the camera when all the weird people act weird - Brandanowitz). Both shows come into their own when they figure out their own voice.


Yeah. People talked earlier about how sitcom characters usually get dumber and less likeable as the show goes on, but I thought Parks and Rec was one of the few where the exact opposite happened. They all became MORE likeable. Leslie Knope, for example, was ditzy and kind of dumb in the first season. In season 2 they made her passionate and eccentric but clearly intelligent, and they dropped the pointless and boring subplot of her crush on Mark.

I especially liked how - after the character was exited - he never came up again and it sort of became a compact with the viewers that we'd all just pretend he never happened.


Yeah, I noticed that too. When Chris and Ann left to raise their baby in Michigan, they were still mentioned fairly regularly, and of course they returned for an episode or two near the end. I wondered at the time if Mark would return too, but I was perfectly fine that he didn't. He was pretty insignificant to the show's overall storyline. And really, him just being gone and forgotten wasn't entirely unrealistic anyway. He never seemed to have any particular passion for the work or the people or the town; he's probably exactly the type of co-worker you'd simply never hear from again once they quit.

OK, that can be added to the list. I never made it past the first half of the first season, which I didn't find funny at all. From what I hear (mostly on this site), it got way better so I need to give it another chance.


Definitely. I agree that season 1 is pretty bland (but it's also mercifully short). Season 2 is much better, and seasons 3-7 are inner circle sitcom HOF. If I had to come up with a list of my all time favorite sitcom characters, I think Ron Swanson, Andy Dwyer, and April Ludgate all might crack the top 10 (Ron would be top 5, easy).
   89. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:55 AM (#5534373)
For me, it was a couple of things.

First, the entire last season-and-a-half was Barney and Robin's engagement/wedding, and that just got thrown away in the last 15 minutes.

Second, Ted had been turned down by Robin numerous times in the last several seasons, so he seemed like a whipped puppy by coming back again and again.

Third, The Mother was a perfect match for Ted (it was morbidly clever to have her pass away),
No idea what you're talking about. None of that stuff happened. They lived happily ever after.
   90. Greg K Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM (#5534375)


Huh. My wife really enjoyed the show from season 2 onward, but felt that it'd lost a great deal of steam (and writing quality) by season 6, and she found season 7 unwatchable.

Yeah, for me Parks and Rec "clicked" with season 2, not 3.

You've got some great episodes (the Venezuela delegation, the introduction of Tammy, the hunting trip, the sex scandal, the telethon). Plus I think it's accurate to date the emergence of April and Andy to season 2, rather than a post-Brandanowitz thing.

[Edit: which isn't to say the show didn't get even better in season 3. But if I'm dating the show's run as a tremendous sit-com, I'd start it with 2]
   91. Covfefe Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM (#5534376)
Huh. My wife really enjoyed the show from season 2 onward, but felt that it'd lost a great deal of steam (and writing quality) by season 6, and she found season 7 unwatchable.


I'll grant that 2 is better than 1 -- but I still think 2 is forgettable sitcom fare.

I suppose 2 does break out Ron Swanson - I think it includes the first Megan Mullally/Tammy 2 appearance, so I suppose I could get behind watching a few of the Ron-centered season 2 eps.

I understand people's complaints about season 7 -- but I loved it... I think it functions as a sort of 'season long' finale. Every character gets their own sendoff episode, etc. If nothing else, I think it's somewhat unique in the realm of sitcom seasons -- an abbreviated season of a show that knows its time is up and uses that abbreviated final run to construct thorough farewells.

While I haven't thought deeply enough to lay it out clearly -- I think P&R season 7 is sort of a foreshadowing of the now omni-present "binge watching" type of show in that it plays much better if gulped down in a couple sittings. I could definitely see how - if viewed in a more week-to-week, episodic manner - it would get frustrating.
   92. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM (#5534377)
I don't get the appeal of watching terrible people be terrible.

I would recommend never going to Vegas.
   93. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: September 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM (#5534378)
Parks and Rec did a nice job fleshing out characters, I thought... even Jerry/Larry/Gary got a backstory and more than just GEEZ JERRY! Leslie might have actually been the only one to backslide, but it was necessary for the show.


I like the thesis in #24, because "Parks" did the exact opposite:

Andy went from shoeshine booth to TV star. April went from intern to Department head. Leslie went from middle manager to a near-Cabinet level position with the Parks Service. Even Jerry got to retire to Muncie with Christie Brinkley and a stack of paperbacks
   94. Covfefe Posted: September 19, 2017 at 12:02 PM (#5534380)
OK, I've been convinced that season 2 is salvageable - yeah, adding April/Andy to Ron.

I'd still say that season 2 runs the risk of not picking up steam fast enough to keep a doubter interested in moving on to season 3 -- but I suppose if you don't pause/use Brendanowitz-Ann relationship time for bathroom/fridge trips, you can work around it.
   95. Booey Posted: September 19, 2017 at 12:06 PM (#5534386)
OK, I've been convinced that season 2 is salvageable - yeah, adding April/Andy to Ron.


Plus Chris and Ben debut near the end.
   96. Harmon "Thread Killer" Microbrew Posted: September 19, 2017 at 12:52 PM (#5534418)
Significantly more lowbrow, but I used to enjoy Modern Family. Quirky characters, some good writing and funny situations. But, oh man, has it been unwatchable for the last few seasons, for all the reasons mentioned above. Time to end the run.
   97. Greg Pope Posted: September 19, 2017 at 01:02 PM (#5534426)
Significantly more lowbrow, but I used to enjoy Modern Family. Quirky characters, some good writing and funny situations. But, oh man, has it been unwatchable for the last few seasons, for all the reasons mentioned above. Time to end the run.

True. And what's the tell? Hailey was always dumb, but she was popular. Now? Loser. Alex was never popular, but she was smart and made good choices. Now she does stupid stuff and can't stop herself from being a loser. Claire was always competent. Now she can't do anything.
   98. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: September 19, 2017 at 01:09 PM (#5534435)
For me, it was a couple of things.

First, the entire last season-and-a-half was Barney and Robin's engagement/wedding, and that just got thrown away in the last 15 minutes.

Second, Ted had been turned down by Robin numerous times in the last several seasons, so he seemed like a whipped puppy by coming back again and again.

Third, The Mother was a perfect match for Ted (it was morbidly clever to have her pass away),


No idea what you're talking about. None of that stuff happened. They lived happily ever after.

I'm still actively pissed off at the ending they used. 8 years of this is how Ted met Mrs. Ted only to have the whole thing be "so kids, that's why I'm going to be boinking Aunt Robin."
   99. Swoboda is freedom Posted: September 19, 2017 at 01:13 PM (#5534442)
Friends was ok when it ran, but boy it really doesn't hold up. I have seen a few reruns, and all I can ask is what I was thinking watching this crap?

Park and Rec only works post season 1. Season 2 is good not great, but it really hit its stride when Rob Lowe and Adam Scott joined.
   100. Booey Posted: September 19, 2017 at 01:15 PM (#5534446)
flip
Page 1 of 5 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogEXPANSION COULD TRIGGER REALIGNMENT, LONGER POSTSEASON
(36 - 9:45pm, Oct 16)
Last: Shredder

NewsblogALCS Game 3 OMNICHATTER, for October 16, 2017
(92 - 9:44pm, Oct 16)
Last: Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB)

NewsblogOTP 16 October 2017: Sorry, Yankee fans: Trump’s claim that he can ensure victory simply isn’t true
(298 - 9:33pm, Oct 16)
Last: BDC

NewsblogPerrotto: Managerial Rumors and Rumblings
(5 - 9:22pm, Oct 16)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

NewsblogNick Cafardo: Brian Cashman and the Yankees followed the Red Sox’ blueprint — and may have done it better
(41 - 8:24pm, Oct 16)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(175 - 8:20pm, Oct 16)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

Gonfalon CubsFive minute Los Angeles Dodgers Preview
(45 - 8:05pm, Oct 16)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT: New Season August 2017 Soccer Thread
(1092 - 8:00pm, Oct 16)
Last: Richard

NewsblogWith bat flips and fly balls, Yasiel Puig puts on a swaggering Game 1 show | Plaschke
(42 - 7:51pm, Oct 16)
Last: JAHV

NewsblogJoe Maddon calls John Lackey, not Wade Davis | MLB.com
(64 - 6:25pm, Oct 16)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogScandal surrounding the Atlanta Braves is creating more questions | The Telegraph
(17 - 6:25pm, Oct 16)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogOT - 2017 NFL thread
(130 - 3:53pm, Oct 16)
Last: zenbitz

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2009 Discussion
(15 - 3:41pm, Oct 16)
Last: DL from MN

Gonfalon CubsFive minute Washington National Preview
(178 - 2:07pm, Oct 16)
Last: JC in DC

NewsblogNLCS Game 2 OMNICHATTER, for October 15, 2017
(331 - 11:02am, Oct 16)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Page rendered in 1.0883 seconds
47 querie(s) executed