Anyone else feel different about Friends now...

[OtterMommy]

6 hours ago, Jaclyn88 said:

I think the main reason Mondler worked so well was because it wasn't so planned out and they didn't shove it down our throats. It happened naturally (unlike Ross and Rachel who we were forced to like). If they had made Rachel and Ross's relationship last longer and shown us more moments that they had together, I can see rooting for them. But their relationship was short lived and they fought for a lot of the actual time they were together. Chandler and Monica had a really good, solid relationship

I have to say that Monica and Chandler were actually pretty notable in the pantheon of TV couples.  They got together...and they basically lived happily from there on out.  Their characters didn't fundamentally change once they got together and, because both were already core characters, the dynamics of the show didn't shift in any major way (which is why I'm glad it ended up that Richard wasn't Monica's true love).  There is this (incredibly erroneous) belief in TV writing that "happy couples make bad television" and, therefore, we get lots of on-again/off-again relationships, manufactured drama, etc.  I think I'll forever be grateful to the Friends writers for bucking that cliche (sort of...I mean, they also gave us Ross and Rachel).

[helenamonster]

The writers have also said that because of Ross and Rachel, they wanted Monica and Chandler to be much more stable because they'd already done the "will they/won't they?" So I think they learned from what went wrong with Ross and Rachel and avoided it with Monica and Chandler to great success.

That didn't stop them from continuing the fraught Ross and Rachel narrative until the very end but nobody's perfect.

[WildStyle]

14 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

I have to say that Monica and Chandler were actually pretty notable in the pantheon of TV couples.  They got together...and they basically lived happily from there on out.  Their characters didn't fundamentally change once they got together and, because both were already core characters, the dynamics of the show didn't shift in any major way (which is why I'm glad it ended up that Richard wasn't Monica's true love).  There is this (incredibly erroneous) belief in TV writing that "happy couples make bad television" and, therefore, we get lots of on-again/off-again relationships, manufactured drama, etc.  I think I'll forever be grateful to the Friends writers for bucking that cliche (sort of...I mean, they also gave us Ross and Rachel).

Agreed 100%. I always hated Will they or Won't they drama couples. I can't cheer for a couple that seems toxic and has you wondering what they see in each other. Like with Buffy & Spike. That relationship was a mess. I preferred Buffy & Angel. I hated Sam &  Diane. Was happy when Shelly Long left. Monica & Chandler is where it was for me. They got together and stayed together from then on. They were together for 6 years of the show. They should've been the iconic couple, as opposed to RR who were apart more  than they were together. 

I am a comic book geek, somewhat. And it's the same thing there. Couples aren't allowed to be long-lasting unless they're dysfunctional. And the stable or fun couples are erased before they start, or they don't last long when they do. Being someone who hates needless romantic dysfunction, I rarely get to enjoy pairings I like. Any favor characters I have always end up with other characters I hate who bring out the worst in them or make them seemed whipped. Because apparently dysfunction sells -especially if the characters are very sexual.

Edited December 14, 2017 by WildStyle

[Jax7917]

I do understand why they break couples up on shows, but the way they did it with Ross and Rachel was really bad. They talked about their relationship way longer than they were actually in one. They weren't really on and off. They were just off until the very last episode. I just don't buy that all those years of being friends and having a baby/living together, and all of a sudden on the last episode of the show they were madly in love with each other. There was no build up . It was just thrown together.  I think Monica and Chandler worked because in sitcoms , it can work and still be funny. In dramas, I think you do need the break-ups if they want a long lasting show. Doesn't mean date for 1 season, and don't get together till 10 seasons later. That annoys me. 

That being said,  I do think Chandler lost a little of his humor when he was with Monica, but their relationship was stable and worked for me. Ross and Rachel were a drag.

[JessDVD]

I didn't watch the show when it was originally airing but as a person who lived in the US and was conscious during those years, I had heard about Ross & Rachel and now that I'm actually watching the show, I was a little surprised initially at how little time they actually are together. Mr. DVD and I had just watched the CNN "The Nineties" maybe a week or two before I started watching Friends for the first time (I'm in season 7 now), and in the one about TV (aptly called "The One About TV"), they had Marta Kauffman talking about Friends and she mentioned specifically TOW the prom video and what a big moment that was and how the audience went wild and it showed some clips and so on. So I got to that one, expecting R&R to be a thing, and they lasted like 5 episodes after that and basically nothing since. Overhyped, underdelivered.

Monica and Chandler are great though. I knew they got together at some point but I didn't realize that their relationship was so long lasting and stable and I've really enjoyed watching them. (They're wedding planning in the part where I am right now)

[Jax7917]

I just hate on tv shows that you know a couple is going to break up because the end of the season is approaching. So just because the season is up, it's impossible that R & R's relationship would go on to the next one

[Maharincess]

How did they start being called "Mondler"?   The word is just so clunky. In my house they've always been "Chanica", which I think flows better.   They were my favorite couple on the show, I prefer the seasons after they get together. They were individually my favorite characters so I was happy when they got together. I loved the reveal when Joey left the room and Monica popped up from under the blankets. I was not expecting that. 

Was there a name for Rachel and Ross? 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Maharincess

[chitowngirl]

28 minutes ago, Maharincess said:

Was there a name for Rachel and Ross? 

Toxic relationship? Mistake?

[Jax7917]

13 hours ago, Maharincess said:

 

Was there a name for Rachel and Ross? 

Yeah- annoying.

[JessDVD]

14 hours ago, Maharincess said:

How did they start being called "Mondler"?   The word is just so clunky. In my house they've always been "Chanica", which I think flows better.   They were my favorite couple on the show, I prefer the seasons after they get together. They were individually my favorite characters so I was happy when they got together. I loved the reveal when Joey left the room and Monica popped up from under the blankets. I was not expecting that. 

Was there a name for Rachel and Ross? 

Joey calls them Mondler in the show, somewhere in season 6. I assume that's where it came from. 

I likewise (and I have the benefit of this show being 20ish years old now, while watching it this year) was not expecting Monica under the blankets. I can only imagine what a surprise that was when it was originally airing.

[OtterMommy]

2 hours ago, JessDVD said:

Joey calls them Mondler in the show, somewhere in season 6. I assume that's where it came from. 

I likewise (and I have the benefit of this show being 20ish years old now, while watching it this year) was not expecting Monica under the blankets. I can only imagine what a surprise that was when it was originally airing.

I feel so old typing this, but...

I actually remember the moment that happened (when it originally aired) and it was quite possibly the most (positively) shocking thing I had seen on TV.  The closest thing I can come up with that had the same level of reaction was when I was a kid and saw The Empire Strikes Back on opening day (although this time the reaction involved more squealing and less gasping). 

As it happened in the season finale, I remember it being a very frequent topic of conversation all summer among my friends and I.

[Quof]

It was awesome.   One of those "Holy Shit" moments Friends did so well, like "I got off the plane", or the girls switching the apartments back.

[OtterMommy]

The other thing that was so great about it is that everything up to that (regarding Chandler and Monica) was so perfect and led right up to that exact moment, but no one suspected a thing because it was Chandler and Monica!  If you go back and watch the episode again, it all seems so clear that that was how it was going to end up.

[WendyCR72]

On 12/15/2017 at 1:12 PM, OtterMommy said:

I feel so old typing this, but...

I actually remember the moment that happened (when it originally aired) and it was quite possibly the most (positively) shocking thing I had seen on TV.  The closest thing I can come up with that had the same level of reaction was when I was a kid and saw The Empire Strikes Back on opening day (although this time the reaction involved more squealing and less gasping). 

As it happened in the season finale, I remember it being a very frequent topic of conversation all summer among my friends and I.

I also recall reading that, when Monica popped up from under those blankets, the studio audience went positively wild and did not stop screaming for quite a few minutes. Both Cox and Perry commented about that and being stunned by their enthusiasm.

[BBHN]

Chandler and Monica, if nothing else, gave us "They know we know they know we know", one of my favorite episodes of the entire series.

[Quof]

Quote

"They know we know they know we know"

It's "They DON'T know we know they know we know."

Don't ever challenge me to a Friends trivia contest.

[BBHN]

Whatever lol I think most people figured out what I was referring to...

[Jax7917]

I don't think I've ever seen a show where they dragged out a relationship as much as they did with Ross and Rachel, without them ever getting back together in between their break up and the last episode. I was watching the one where Rachel had the baby and she thought Joey proposed, which was probably the most ridiculous story line of the show. Ross and Rachel were going to start dating again, but then that happened. And that happened pretty much throughout all the seasons of the show. Just so dragged on.

[WildStyle]

4 hours ago, Jaclyn88 said:

I don't think I've ever seen a show where they dragged out a relationship as much as they did with Ross and Rachel, without them ever getting back together in between their break up and the last episode. I was watching the one where Rachel had the baby and she thought Joey proposed, which was probably the most ridiculous story line of the show. Ross and Rachel were going to start dating again, but then that happened. And that happened pretty much throughout all the seasons of the show. Just so dragged on.

Or how Ross and Rachel just turn their feelings on & off. One min they're still in love. The next min. they're over each other and dating/ marrying other people. Rachel claimed to be in love with Ross in season 5 after he married Emily. Then in season 6, once he's divorced, she's no longer interested. The Vegas marriage, Ross calls out Rachel on some stupid stuff she did, and she screams she did those things because she loved him then. But now all of a sudden, she doesn't?

[Jax7917]

1 hour ago, WildStyle said:

Or how Ross and Rachel just turn their feelings on & off. One min they're still in love. The next min. they're over each other and dating/ marrying other people. Rachel claimed to be in love with Ross in season 5 after he married Emily. Then in season 6, once he's divorced, she's no longer interested. The Vegas marriage, Ross calls out Rachel on some stupid stuff she did, and she screams she did those things because she loved him then. But now all of a sudden, she doesn't?

I always think about that while watching the seasons too ! They're conveniently in love when the story line fits , but have no interest in each other otherwise . When Joey liked rachel he asked Ross , " well do you see yourself waking up next to rachel every morning ?" And Ross said , honestly no . But then a few episodes later he's so in love . That's why Monica and chandler are the best . They don't need drama and their feelings are consistent once they get together 

[Ms Blue Jay]

Obviously Mondler is popular on the internet and Ross and Rachel isn't, but R&R were always my favourite. I think Monica very fundamentally DID change in Season 6 and that happened to coincide with Mondler - she got a lot more shrill and annoying.  The writers were apparently encouraging Courteney to be a lot more funny and playing things bigger but for me it went to a very bad place.  It also coincided with Matt Perry starting to wear glasses/getting healthier (I guess?)/possibly even getting dentures so all of his weird drug /weight fluctuations/face changes were extremely distracting too.

Jen and David never really had similar issues.  They always kept in great shape, obviously, and Jen never made Rachel hysterical and shrill like Monica became.  Anyways, I always preferred R&R and I could relate much more to them.  Chandler got pretty neutered and there were way too many jokes coming from Phoebe about how pathetic Chandler was or not good enough for Monica, etc.  Again, not at all romantic or filling me with any positive feeling.  And Chandler is my 2nd favourite character.

Nothing is worse than Joey and Rachel for me, though.  Worst couple ever

[Madding crowd]

I feel the same way about Ross and Rachel and thought the actors had great chemistry. I think they did have a good friendship although they argued like normal people do. I also found Matthew Perry’s appearance startling at times and I also thought he had fake looking teeth for awhile. I also thought Courtney ‘s Botox in the last season changed her looks in a bad way. I agree Shwimmer and Aniston looked great throughout the series.

[Jax7917]

I loved Monica and Chandler together, but Chandler is my favorite character and I did feel like a lot of his humor got lost once he was with Monica. A big part of his character to me was his relationship with Joey/being his roommate, his commitment phobia, having bad luck with women etc. He was even adorable when he was dating Monica, but once they got engaged/married, his character was blah. I could have used another season or 2 of single Chandler.

[Danny Franks]

On 18/12/2017 at 4:08 PM, Jaclyn88 said:

I was watching the one where Rachel had the baby and she thought Joey proposed, which was probably the most ridiculous story line of the show.

Not that ridiculous. Remember, Joey proposed to both Phoebe and Rachel when he first learned of the pregnancy. And he was apparently sincere ( in his own, Joey way). So him doing it again might not strike Rachel as the craziest thing ever. And she was beset by exhaustion, the emotion of becoming a mother and Janice assuring her that Ross would move on and start a 'real' family, which goes some way to explaining why she said yes.

And in my view, absolutely anything that prevented Ross and Rachel from happening again was great. Because those two were awful together.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Danny Franks

[Jax7917]

1 minute ago, Danny Franks said:

Not that ridiculous. Remember, Joey proposed to both Phoebe and Rachel when he first learned of the pregnancy. And he was apparently sincere ( in his own, Joey way). So him doing it again might not strike Rachel as the craziest thing ever. And she was beset by exhaustion, the emotion of becoming a mother and Janice assuring her that Ross would move on and start a 'real' family, which goes some way to explaining why she said yes.

And in my view, absolutely anything that prevents Ross and Rachel from happening again was great. Because those two were awful together.

But Joey and Rachel weren't even dating and she made it clear she wasnt interested in him . Why would anyone assume he proposed . And he never even said , will you marry me ? He bent down to pick up a tissue for her lol . And after she said okay , why wouldn't Joey tell rachel he's not proposing ? Idk I thought the story line was pretty unrealistic 

[Danny Franks]

12 hours ago, Jaclyn88 said:

But Joey and Rachel weren't even dating and she made it clear she wasnt interested in him . Why would anyone assume he proposed . And he never even said , will you marry me ? He bent down to pick up a tissue for her lol . And after she said okay , why wouldn't Joey tell rachel he's not proposing ? Idk I thought the story line was pretty unrealistic 

True, but you could say that most storylines in the show were unrealistic, in some way or another. Unrealistic that Joey would be as dumb as he often is, or Phoebe as weird, or Monica as neurotic. But that's where the comedy often comes from.

In terms of setting up the misunderstanding, I felt they did a decent enough job. It's all about misunderstandings and interruptions, like a classic French farce. 

[chocolatine]

I watched the first time when I was in my teens and early twenties, and I started rewatching on Netflix recently (I'm on S4 currently). I've always thought that Ross was whiny and insecure and never understood why Rachel was attracted to him, but I didn't realize what an asshole he was until the rewatch. Belittling her waitress job then sabotaging her when she got a better one, berating and throwing shoes at her when she wasn't getting ready quickly enough for his liking, being irrationally jealous of her male coworker, hooking up with another woman the second things got rough - if a character had done the same things on a drama show, there wound't have been any redemption for him. It would have been a much better ending for Rachel to make a clean break from Ross and go to Paris.

On a shallow note, it's funny how different the 90s makeup and styling looks to me now - in a good way. No fillers, hair extensions, false eyelashes, contouring, and super-expensive designer clothes. So refreshing!

[Buzz11]

On 12/12/2017 at 10:49 PM, WildStyle said:

Mondler actually wasn't planned as a big thing. The writers got the idea in season 3 or 4, and were gonna have that London hookup just be a one-time thing. But given the audience's reaction, and how they had to stop folming to wait for everyone to calm down some, they kept Mondler and played with it as a legit pairing. 

Originally, Richard was gonna be Monica's true love. 

How did they gauge an audiences reaction without social media?

[Bort]

10 minutes ago, Buzz11 said:

How did they gauge an audiences reaction without social media?

The studio audience. 

[WendyCR72]

Yeah, I really don't think the show's creators had any real idea just what potential/a goldmine they had in Chandler and Monica until London when the audience was practically apoplectic with glee and joy when Monica popped up from under that comforter.

Although, considering the closeness of them as friends beforehand, obviously one or all of them must have had some seeds planted.

Still, all in all, Monica and Chandler were one of those "happy accidents" that many shows kill for. And TPTB were smart enough to run with it instead of throwing it away.

The show obviously could write a romantic pairing as evidenced by these two. So I'm forever stymied as to why the show ended up doing such a piss-poor job (IMO here!) of the original destined "star" pairing of Ross and Rachel.

[Jax7917]

On 6/25/2018 at 12:04 AM, WendyCR72 said:

Yeah, I really don't think the show's creators had any real idea just what potential/a goldmine they had in Chandler and Monica until London when the audience was practically apoplectic with glee and joy when Monica popped up from under that comforter.

Although, considering the closeness of them as friends beforehand, obviously one or all of them must have had some seeds planted.

Still, all in all, Monica and Chandler were one of those "happy accidents" that many shows kill for. And TPTB were smart enough to run with it instead of throwing it away.

The show obviously could write a romantic pairing as evidenced by these two. So I'm forever stymied as to why the show ended up doing such a piss-poor job (IMO here!) of the original destined "star" pairing of Ross and Rachel.

I kind of feel like they did a bad job with R & R a) because Monica and Chandler were together and they probably thought it would bore us to see both of them paired off, and b) because for some reason writers of shows think if you put a couple together once, they have to keep them apart once they break up until the last episode of the series. I mean, all shows do this.. but the problem with Friends was that it was on the air for 10 seasons and R & R were together for 1 season out of the 10.  So by the time all those seasons passed and they never got back together, no one cared about them anymore. I think they lost a lot of their chemistry around seasons 4 and 5.

[Buzz11]

On 6/23/2018 at 11:05 PM, kariyaki said:

The studio audience. 

Did they interview them or something or was there like a gasp-o-meter?

[Bort]

5 hours ago, Buzz11 said:

Did they interview them or something or was there like a gasp-o-meter?

Possibly. Shows would also do focus groups. They still do those, even with the advent of social media.

[wendyg]

Besides the reaction of the studio audience there were reviews and, most important, ratings. Doesn't matter what they say about you; what really counts is whether people watch so advertisers will pay to sponsor your show. FRIENDS started in 1994, around the time the internet was opened to commercial traffic and began really growing. So by the time it ended it was common to find recaps, fan groups, and TV sites (including the late, lamented Television Without Pity) all discussing the show. Social media is a new tool, but there have been many tools before it.

[Buzz11]

On 7/1/2018 at 5:13 PM, wendyg said:

Besides the reaction of the studio audience there were reviews and, most important, ratings. Doesn't matter what they say about you; what really counts is whether people watch so advertisers will pay to sponsor your show. FRIENDS started in 1994, around the time the internet was opened to commercial traffic and began really growing. So by the time it ended it was common to find recaps, fan groups, and TV sites (including the late, lamented Television Without Pity) all discussing the show. Social media is a new tool, but there have been many tools before it.

That'd be cool to find a friends blog that dates back to 1994.

[wendyg]

FRIENDS started some years before blogs. There was an active Usenet newsgroup - alt.tv.friends. You can find its archives at "Google Groups". And an active IRC channel with a very silly trivia quiz that I immortalized here: https://web.archive.org/web/20031204170331/http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11056

(The original site has taken that article offline.)

wg

[Meushell]

Rewatching the show again. It’s been a while.

Like so many others, my opinion of Ross and Rachel changed. I used to like them, but after, “I take thee, Rachel...Emily,” I was very tired of them.

A couple of minor ones...

”The One Where Nana Dies Twice”

This never bothered me as a kid, but why is everyone waiting outside her room while she’s dying? It doesn’t seem to be an issue of letting the hospital staff work. There doesn’t seem to be a reason not to be there  expect for plot reasons. 

”The One Where The Monkey Got Away”

I didn’t like Louisa for not just letting Ross keep Marcel. Now I agree with her, and the way it resolves doesn’t really make much sense. The threat to Louisa and Phoebe being shot with a dart could easily be countered with, “Go ahead. She jumped between me and the monkey while I was shooting.” I don’t agree with Louisa’s reasoning, if it really is about revenge, but she might just be messing with them in that regard. (Ross really was an idiot for not telling his friends that Marcel was illegal.)

[Danny Franks]

On 30/07/2018 at 10:29 AM, Meushell said:

”The One Where The Monkey Got Away”

I didn’t like Louisa for not just letting Ross keep Marcel. Now I agree with her, and the way it resolves doesn’t really make much sense. The threat to Louisa and Phoebe being shot with a dart could easily be countered with, “Go ahead. She jumped between me and the monkey while I was shooting.” I don’t agree with Louisa’s reasoning, if it really is about revenge, but she might just be messing with them in that regard. (Ross really was an idiot for not telling his friends that Marcel was illegal.)

The whole Marcel storyline is something I have trouble with. Monkeys do not make good pets. At all. They are not domesticated animals, and they're social creatures, who live in large groups in the wild. Keeping one monkey on its own is cruel, no matter how many treats the owner may give it. The show demonstrated (accidentally) that they don't make good pets, but this was never the overriding message, because they were much more interested in 'look at the monkey! Haha!' gags.

Also, having seen how unnatural the lives of a lot of 'performing' animals are, I can't ever be happy to see them on the screen.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Danny Franks

[princelina]

On 7/30/2018 at 5:29 AM, Meushell said:

”The One Where Nana Dies Twice”

This never bothered me as a kid, but why is everyone waiting outside her room while she’s dying? It doesn’t seem to be an issue of letting the hospital staff work. There doesn’t seem to be a reason not to be there  expect for plot reasons. 

 I always thought it was weird that the parents sat in the hall while Ross and Monica ran in and out.  If one of my grandparents was dying I don't see my parents hanging out in the hall while my brother and I took care of business.

[JNM5505]

"Katie" who played Marcel was actually someone's pet. I remember reading about this some time ago. I agree that monkeys should not be kept as pet; they're wild creatures who deserve to be in their natural habitat. I think the fascination with monkeys is that they are the absolute primitive forms of humans, with our last common ancestors having lived just a couple million years ago. But they're not humans, we diverged to form our own branch of primates millions of years ago. Sadly, the entertainment industry do not get that. Sorry, just wanted to get that out of there. And yes, Marcel was a girl. /themoreyouknow

Also, started to watch FRIENDS again over the past few months. I just can't seem to get into it like I used to. Is it sad that Joey, who I used to absolutely hate, is entertaining now? Did the world start spinning backwards? But yeah, there are a lot of elements I see now that I realize are really screwed up.

As others on this thread have said, Ross/Rachel. That relationship was toxic. They dragged them out for seven seasons, will they or won't they get back together? I agree that it was so stupid that their feelings for one another kept being used as plot contrivances. When Ross was with Emily, Rachel suddenly had feelings for Ross until Emily was out of the picture completely. By the end of season 5, Rachel could barely stand Ross and at the beginning of season 6, she was ready to get away from him. When Ross catches Rachel with Joey, suddenly he's overwhelmed with jealousy even though he hadn't had any strong feelings for Rachel in what... five years?

Someone either on this or the previous page said they liked how Monica/Chandler's hookup was revealed. While I will always love that unexpected hook-up in London, it felt incredibly anti-climatic. I actually watched this episode the other day. In one scene, a drunken Englishman tells Monica she looks like Ross' mother and Chandler tries to comfort her in his own Chandler way; then the next they're waking up in bed together? Whoa, how the hell did that happen? I'm sure there are fanfics out there (admittedly, even better written than TOW Could Have Been with Monica/Joey) that go into depth with this, but the writers really screwed up here. But on the other hand, I did like that whoa what, Monica and Chandler?! shock factor.

So, yeah, this probably belonged on that other thread, but I got off on a tangent. I see FRIENDS differently now than when I first saw it 12 years ago. I think it's also because I am older than these characters now than when the show ended as well. I can't relate to any of them, but I have this image of 30 somethings being much more mature and having all their shit together, ducks lined up in a neat order. So, yeah. There you go.
 

[Quof]

34 minutes ago, kinnej5 said:

In one scene, a drunken Englishman tells Monica she looks like Ross' mother and Chandler tries to comfort her in his own Chandler way; then the next they're waking up in bed together? Whoa, how the hell did that happen

It was revealed in flashback in a later episode (before their wedding) and it made perfect sense.

[JNM5505]

14 minutes ago, Quof said:

It was revealed in flashback in a later episode (before their wedding) and it made perfect sense.

As I said in my previous post:

50 minutes ago, kinnej5 said:

I'm sure there are fanfics out there (admittedly, even better written than TOW Could Have Been with Monica/Joey) that go into depth with this, but the writers really screwed up here. But on the other hand, I did like that whoa what, Monica and Chandler?! shock factor.

I mean, I will elaborate further if I have to. What I am saying is that I don't like how the hook-up was anti-climatic. And that whole Monica was actually looking for Joey but ended up fucking Chandler thing ruined the premise of the Mondler London hook-up. /lightson

Edited August 19, 2018 by kinnej5

[Meushell]

On 8/19/2018 at 10:51 AM, kinnej5 said:

Also, started to watch FRIENDS again over the past few months. I just can't seem to get into it like I used to. Is it sad that Joey, who I used to absolutely hate, is entertaining now? Did the world start spinning backwards? But yeah, there are a lot of elements I see now that I realize are really screwed up.

He’s one I like better as well. I love his moo point idea. Always have. Maybe it was supposed to show off his stupidity, but I personally never saw it that way. I saw it as a “He looks stupid at first, but he's actually being clever” plot.

[JNM5505]

There's an article I read just now on Cracked regarding Joey and his sexual behavior during the series.

Here it is.

It's not like I never noticed these things about Joey, but I am wondering if anyone else ever saw these.

What are your thoughts?

Edited August 23, 2018 by kinnej5

[Nellise]

53 minutes ago, kinnej5 said:

There's an article I read just now on Cracked regarding Joey and his sexual behavior during the series.

Here it is.

It's not like I never noticed these things about Joey, but I am wondering if anyone else ever saw these.

What are your thoughts?

 

I feel stupider for having read that (the article, not your post).

Edited August 23, 2018 by Nellise

[Nordly Beaumont]

3 hours ago, kinnej5 said:

It's not like I never noticed these things about Joey, but I am wondering if anyone else ever saw these.

Only the one with the tailor. The fact that he was fondling his customers (even teenagers) was gross, not funny. 

[JNM5505]

I agree, that was not cool at all.

The issue of rape and assault was actually brought up on the other thread here within the FRIENDS section of PTV not too long ago. We've also encountered an alarming topic regarding Chandler and Joey's sister. I don't remember this episode but someone else had said that Chandler had been so piss drunk to the point of not even remembering anything (and therefore, unable to consent) having sex with Joey's sister.

If this is the episode I am thinking (probably aired in season 3?) then to add insult to injury, Joey had been so pissed off at Chandler for not remembering. And then he ended up getting humiliated at Joey's grandmother's house for trying to pick out the right sister out of the eight million there. Like, really? Really, show? Sure, blame a guy who had been to drunk to remember–and consent–to engaging in sexual activities with a woman who knew he had been too drunk and unable to consent. /metoothatfuckerchandler

Edited August 24, 2018 by kinnej5

[Meushell]

21 hours ago, kinnej5 said:

There's an article I read just now on Cracked regarding Joey and his sexual behavior during the series.

Here it is.

It's not like I never noticed these things about Joey, but I am wondering if anyone else ever saw these.

What are your thoughts?

The taylor issue was always alarming to me, and became more so as I grew older. I don’t really agree with the rest of the article though. It seems to be reaching. Joey having underwear around from someone he slept with doesn’t mean he secretly kept it as a trophy. A joke from his friends about him being better at dealing with drunk naked women doesn’t mean he actually rapes drunk women. It’s been a while since I saw those episodes, I admit, but I don’t think that was supposed to be taken literally.

The name of the article is also just a lie. “7 Times Sexual Abuse Was Played For Laughs On 'Friends'” Now if there were 7 times sexual abuse/assault was played for laughs, that honestly wouldn’t surprise me. The only real example given is the taylor though. Any other example is the writer assuming the worst about Joey.

[RainbowBrite]

1 hour ago, Meushell said:

The taylor issue was always alarming to me, and became more so as I grew older. I don’t really agree with the rest of the article though. It seems to be reaching. Joey having underwear around from someone he slept with doesn’t mean he secretly kept it as a trophy. A joke from his friends about him being better at dealing with drunk naked women doesn’t mean he actually rapes drunk women. It’s been a while since I saw those episodes, I admit, but I don’t think that was supposed to be taken literally.

The name of the article is also just a lie. “7 Times Sexual Abuse Was Played For Laughs On 'Friends'” Now if there were 7 times sexual abuse/assault was played for laughs, that honestly wouldn’t surprise me. The only real example given is the taylor though. Any other example is the writer assuming the worst about Joey.

I am obviously glad that our society is beginning to be much more critical of how sexual assault, racism, etc. is displayed in pop culture, but I also think that it needs to be remembered that Friends was airing from 1994-2004. While it's great to learn from the past, it hurts me just a little to watch Friends now get picked apart. I'm not sure how to reconcile the fact that Friends is problematic with the fact that ~and I hate to say this~ it was a different time.

[Meushell]

39 minutes ago, RainbowBrite said:

I am obviously glad that our society is beginning to be much more critical of how sexual assault, racism, etc. is displayed in pop culture, but I also think that it needs to be remembered that Friends was airing from 1994-2004. While it's great to learn from the past, it hurts me just a little to watch Friends now get picked apart. I'm not sure how to reconcile the fact that Friends is problematic with the fact that ~and I hate to say this~ it was a different time.

It wasn’t right then either, as I stated in my post. This wasn’t a (to take from TV Tropes) fair for its day deal here.