Friends - General Discussion

[Hiyo]

Quote

If I had to describe her in one word, I don't think I would be able to. I don't have that problem with the other characters.

I'm not sure I could either, but then again, I couldn't do the same for the others either. I suppose for some of the others we could stereotype them in one word, but I always felt they had some depth beyond that.

Quote

especially with how Kate waxes poetic about the playwright

Obviously, you didn't understand the playwright's genius.

[Llywela]

I think not being able to describe a character in a single word is actually a good thing - it means they have too many facets to be easily summarised, which is actually a sign of depth and strength. A good character shouldn't be just one thing, they should have multiple facets. And the Friends do. Their personalities are explored in wacky, caricature-like sitcom fashion, but they all have multiple facets to their characters and that is a good thing. So no, Rachel can't really be summarised in just one word, because her personality is broader than that. She is spoilt. She is frivolous. She loves to gossip. She is ambitious and wants to be more than she was raised to be. She is also, however, quite lazy. She loves fashion and is good at it. She learns to be loyal to her friends. She is a big sister who loves but is frustrated by her siblings. She wants to find The One and settle down to build a family, but also doesn't want to sacrifice her career to that end. And so on. Those are all facets of her character, which, no, can't easily be boiled down to a single word. But I think she is a stronger character for that.

[Snow Apple]

In the episode where Monica invited Richard's son to Thanksgiving, why did she introduce him to Ross and Rachel? They should already know him since they grew up knowing Richard's family. Even if they weren't close friends, they should still be acquaintances.

[Hiyo]

They probably hadn’t seen each other in decades. Ok, maybe not that long, but it was probably a while.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Hiyo

[Bort]

Monica didn’t recognize Richard’s son either. Not until the receptionist said who he was. 

[Snow Apple]

It's still strange because Mr. Geller and Richard are supposedly close friends and Monica sounds like she was friends Richard's daughter in high school. Yet they didn't recognize the son even if it's been years.

But even if that was the case, Monica could have introduced him with "Do you remember my brother Ross and our childhood friend Rachel?"

[WendyCR72]

13 hours ago, Snow Apple said:

It's still strange because Mr. Geller and Richard are supposedly close friends and Monica sounds like she was friends Richard's daughter in high school. Yet they didn't recognize the son even if it's been years.

But even if that was the case, Monica could have introduced him with "Do you remember my brother Ross and our childhood friend Rachel?"

True, but this is the same show that had Rachel "meet" Chandler at least 3 times. Continuity was never this show's strong suit.

[mojoween]

“EVERY DAY IS LESBIAN LOVER’S DAY” isn’t really funny and doesn’t even make sense as a joke.

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 7/14/2020 at 10:44 PM, Mr. Meatball Man said:

I don't know Jennifer Aniston's personality in real life, so what are the differences between her and Rachel? Honestly, I never saw Rachel as a character with that many distinctive traits. If I had to describe her in one word, I don't think I would be able to. I don't have that problem with the other characters.

None of us know how Jennifer Aniston's personality truly is in real life.  That was a point of mine.  That so many armchair critics, for lack of a better term, always seem to fall back on this criticism without having a basis in knowledge of what JA is like at home.  i.e. "She's just playing herself."  To me, that just reads that her portrayal feels so organic, authentic, and real that people desperately want to criticize it and grab onto something that can't be really proven.   From what I can see in how Jennifer is like in interviews - kind of awkward, loves to use cliches, passionate, incredibly sympathetic - to me, this is not how Rachel Green acts.   You can even see that Jennifer in the "Friends" bloopers.  Whenever she works with children, for example, she gets very tender and easily touched.  Rachel wasn't like that until she was forced to be by motherhood.

In the same way I think that "in real life" you can see the differences between the actors and the character.  Lisa Kudrow is a known intellectual that is quick witted and laughs easily, David Schwimmer seems pretty damn serious, Courtney Cox has a much lower voice and seems.a lot more...... "together" than Monica in a certain way, Matt LeBlanc is less goofy and more debonair than Joey, etc.  I'm not sure how to touch on Matt Perry because he seems pretty...... haunted.  

Edited July 21, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 7/15/2020 at 3:39 AM, Llywela said:

I think not being able to describe a character in a single word is actually a good thing - it means they have too many facets to be easily summarised, which is actually a sign of depth and strength. A good character shouldn't be just one thing, they should have multiple facets. And the Friends do. Their personalities are explored in wacky, caricature-like sitcom fashion, but they all have multiple facets to their characters and that is a good thing. So no, Rachel can't really be summarised in just one word, because her personality is broader than that. She is spoilt. She is frivolous. She loves to gossip. She is ambitious and wants to be more than she was raised to be. She is also, however, quite lazy. She loves fashion and is good at it. She learns to be loyal to her friends. She is a big sister who loves but is frustrated by her siblings. She wants to find The One and settle down to build a family, but also doesn't want to sacrifice her career to that end. And so on. Those are all facets of her character, which, no, can't easily be boiled down to a single word. But I think she is a stronger character for that.

Thank you, I appreciate your point of view.  In the same way that Betty White was supposed to play Blanche, and Rue McClanahan was supposed to play Rose, but the actors desperately wanted to play the opposite roles, the same thing happened with Courteney and Jennifer.  Both roles were likely written simply and stereotypically on day one, but the actors played them in a particular way to kind of steer the direction.  I think that Rachel was basically supposed to be a spoiled UES princess on day 1, but Jennifer Aniston kind of moved the portrayal a bit so you can't exactly say that immediately after a few episodes.  I would say that Rachel's romantic, spontaneous, impulsive, a dreamer but also somewhat grounded in that while into fashion she can look past the superficial as she eventually fell in love with Ross who she wouldn't give a second look to in high school.  I think that the writers also didn't make the outline that easy  --- an oldest sibling of 3 that is spoiled?  -- she obviously was the more responsible daughter even after leaving her groom at the altar, so it's not such an easy stereotype to grab onto.  Rachel was also supposed to go through serious growth throughout the series.  She had never worked a day in her life on Day 1 but was supposed to be forced to try to "make it own her own" (with Monica's help).  After a couple years of paying her dues and hustling she becomes quite career-focused which would have been unthinkable in the Barry days.

In the same way, Joey was supposed to be a womanizer, period, but Matt LeBlanc kind of steered the direction into being this loveable, sensitive goofball who was both a woman's man and a man's man --- yet nobody claims that Matt LeBlanc is a horrible actor who is just playing himself.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[christie]

Granted I haven't seen a lot of Aniston's movies however, in some of the movies that I did see she played her characters like she played Rachel; maybe this is why people think she plays herself 'cause they've seen her play this character a few times. Personally, from the little that I've seen of her in interviews, I don't think she's like Rachel.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Matthew Perry did that too - Fools Rush In, Three to Tango, Serving Sara, The Whole Nine Yards.  He's very Chandler-esque in those.  Maybe it's typecasting.

Jen Aniston is definitely not Rachelesque in Office Space, Marley & Me, Horrible Bosses, The Break Up, or The Good Girl.  And yet, even though she was very anti Rachel in "The Good Girl" it was still used an example here of being "bad acting".  So, how can she win?  When she's like Rachel "she's playing herself" when she's not playing Rachel "she sucks at acting".  Hmm!  Interesting.  Personally, I think she's a great actor and I don't think anyone can doubt how iconic the Rachel Green role was, meaning that she unexpectedly became uber-famous off of this one part because so many women could so deeply relate to her on "Friends".  I don't know how a shitty actor could make us do that.

Quote

Aniston rose to international fame portraying Rachel Green on the television sitcom Friends (1994–2004), for which she earned Primetime Emmy, Golden Globe, and Screen Actors Guild awards. The character became widely popular and was described as one of the greatest female characters in American television history. - Wikipedia

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[Nordly Beaumont]

1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Jen Aniston is definitely not Rachelesque in Office Space, Marley & Me, Horrible Bosses, The Break Up, or The Good Girl. 

There's also my favorite: Friends with Money. Man, I LOVE Friends with Money! Frances McDormand, Catherine Keener, and Joan Cusak are also in it (glorious cast!). I don't recognize Jennifer Aniston in the role any more or less than I recognize Catherine Keener, Joan Cusak or even France McDormand in their roles. 

[christie]

13 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Matthew Perry did that too - Fools Rush In, Three to Tango, Serving Sara, The Whole Nine Yards.  He's very Chandler-esque in those.  Maybe it's typecasting.

Jen Aniston is definitely not Rachelesque in Office Space, Marley & Me, Horrible Bosses, The Break Up, or The Good Girl.  And yet, even though she was very anti Rachel in "The Good Girl" it was still used an example here of being "bad acting".  So, how can she win?  When she's like Rachel "she's playing herself" when she's not playing Rachel "she sucks at acting".  Hmm!  Interesting.  Personally, I think she's a great actor and I don't think anyone can doubt how iconic the Rachel Green role was, meaning that she unexpectedly became uber-famous off of this one part because so many women could so deeply relate to her on "Friends".  I don't know how a shitty actor could make us do that.

 

I agree about Mathew Perry.

It's funny how people can see the same thing and have different perceptions; when I saw the Break Up with one of my friends she found Aniston to be Rachel like whereas I found her character in Morley and me to have Rachel like traits (I haven't seen the other movies you mention). She definitely wasn't Rachel like in Cake. I don't think she's a great actress - in fact I think none of them are great actors; whilst they were all pretty good at the comedic stuff (especially David Schwimmer) they were pretty bad at the dramatic stuff (except for Lisa Kudrow). Despite having common traits with Rachel, I never related to her.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Personally , I think David and Jennifer are great in the dramatic stuff, like in the Season 3 break up.  Matt Perry is pretty weak at it almost every time, but he did better in the earlier seasons, like when Chandler was in love with Kathy.  I think his drug and rehab problems helped lead to some very awkward emotional scenes in Seasons 6/7.

In the same vein I think Matt LeBlanc was great in that Season 1 episode when his father was cheating on his mother, but the show took a very dramatic turn into Joey being a "goofball" and he wasn't really allowed to have those dramatic moments anymore.  Actually in Season 2 with his tumultuous relationship with Chandler he didn't do a bad job either.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[christie]

I dunno; the dramatic scenes often seemed stilted, kind of awkward and not genuine to me and with David Schwimmer and Mathew Perry it was like they were saying "Ok, now I'm being serious" and they would put on their "serious" face and voice.

[Nordly Beaumont]

Matthew Perry doing serious voice was sooooo cringe-y! 

[Irlandesa]

4 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Personally , I think David and Jennifer are great in the dramatic stuff, like in the Season 3 break up. 

I agree.  And I've liked both actors in dramatic work they've done elsewhere.

I think the tricky thing with comedy is that comic actors tend to find the comedic rhythms that work.  Sometimes they can shake things up but when they enter new comedic projects, they fall into the rhythms that work for them.  As a result, the performances can fall into the feeling of "samey" and that came sometimes feel like they're playing themselves because that's the note we see. 

I tend to be more forgiving when I see that in comedy because comedic timing isn't easy.  But when I see it in drama (I see you Jack Nicholson), I am less forgiving.

 

[Inquisitionist]

On 7/20/2020 at 9:30 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

Jen Aniston is definitely not Rachelesque in Office Space, Marley & Me, Horrible Bosses, The Break Up, or The Good Girl.  And yet, even though she was very anti Rachel in "The Good Girl" it was still used an example here of being "bad acting".  So, how can she win?  

I didn't like her performance in The Good Girl because it felt like acting, not being.  Her character didn't feel like a real person to me.  YMMV.

[VCRTracking]

I'm not kidding but the scene where she prays to God in BRUCE ALMIGHTY legit made me cry in the theater.

I don't remember if I already posted this but this is great. SNL's Vanessa Bayer does a fantastic Rachel impression but Nikki Glasser isn't even using words to imitate Jennifer Aniston!

 

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by VCRTracking

[Mr. Meatball Man]

On 7/15/2020 at 3:39 AM, Llywela said:

I think not being able to describe a character in a single word is actually a good thing - it means they have too many facets to be easily summarised, which is actually a sign of depth and strength. A good character shouldn't be just one thing, they should have multiple facets. And the Friends do. Their personalities are explored in wacky, caricature-like sitcom fashion, but they all have multiple facets to their characters and that is a good thing. So no, Rachel can't really be summarised in just one word, because her personality is broader than that. She is spoilt. She is frivolous. She loves to gossip. She is ambitious and wants to be more than she was raised to be. She is also, however, quite lazy. She loves fashion and is good at it. She learns to be loyal to her friends. She is a big sister who loves but is frustrated by her siblings. She wants to find The One and settle down to build a family, but also doesn't want to sacrifice her career to that end. And so on. Those are all facets of her character, which, no, can't easily be boiled down to a single word. But I think she is a stronger character for that.

When I said that, I wasn't trying to say that Rachel was a weak character. She does have multiple facets to her personality. But there's no one trait that stands out in particular, which I can't say for any of the other main characters. Whenever I watch an episode, I'll most likely see a defining trait from each person: Ross is awkward, Chandler is sarcastic, Joey is stupid, Monica is OCD, Phoebe is weird. With Rachel, she doesn't have that, so I don't expect anything special from her. But if I'm being honest, most of the time, Rachel-centered episodes aren't that interesting.

One thing I will say about Rachel is that when the show ended, she had the best character. The most well-rounded character, the most realistic character. Every other person in the main cast was exaggerated and became less human over time, but because Rachel never had one defining trait like the rest of them, that never happened to her. She wasn't as cartoonish or over the top as everyone else. She was the character that had the most potential to exist in real life.

So while Rachel wasn't always the most interesting character to follow, the writers made her the most balanced. She never mastered any particular skill like the other five did, but she managed to be either competent or really good at every skill. The other five didn't.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Maybe I relate to Rachel so much because she's Type B.  Monica is obviously type A.  Ross is somewhat Type A as well.  Rachel and Chandler are Type B and I always favoured them, the same way that I always favoured Jerry and Elaine over George and Kramer (though Jerry is Type A - he's like the male version of Monica).  And Joey and Phoebe are just kind of off the charts, especially Phoebe.  Maybe they'd be EXTREME Type Bs, whereas Rachel would be a more tempered version.

I think the writers wanted Rachel to be "spoiled" but if I had to pick the best word for her as she came about I'd say romantic or impulsive.

Here's a theory of personality

Quote

The Big Five personality traits are extraversion (also often spelled extroversion), agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. Each trait represents a continuum

Phoebe and Joey represent extraversion.
Phoebe, Joey, maybe Ross somewhat as he's a scientist = openness
Rachel, Joey = agreeableness
Monica, Ross = conscientiousness
Monica, Ross, Chandler = neuroticism

Edited July 26, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[Bort]

I found Rachel had some distinctive shifts in her character. There was the spoiled version that we saw in the flashback episode. Then what she became once she moved in with Monica. And then there was how she became once she moved out, especially once she moved in with Joey: super laid back, to the point where she was kind of considered a pushover.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Yeah, to me that's her adapting to her surroundings though.  That's why Rachel strikes me as a prototypical middle or maybe even youngest child, not an oldest (And Monica seems like an oldest, rather than a youngest).  When she's with Monica she has to be a bit high strung.  When she's with Joey she gets to be super laid back.  Like I said, she's agreeable.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[Mr. Meatball Man]

I loved Joey and Rachel as roommates. You're right in that Rachel became more laidback when she was living with Joey. She was a great replacement for Chandler. 

I also like how they had Joey and Rachel stories that only worked as Joey and Rachel stories. Like when they go to the Soapies. I don't think Chandler would even care enough to go there, or pretend he was receiving the award, or steal anything from Jessica Ashley's room.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Rachel also lived with Phoebe, and they had a really good time.  I think Phoebe showed Rachel how to be more carefree, like with the weird jogging.  And Rachel was really irresponsible and burned part of Phoebe's apartment.

14 hours ago, Mr. Meatball Man said:

I also like how they had Joey and Rachel stories that only worked as Joey and Rachel stories. Like when they go to the Soapies. I don't think Chandler would even care enough to go there, or pretend he was receiving the award, or steal anything from Jessica Ashley's room.

Chandler could be kind of mean about Joey's career, but I guess, I have to give him a break because he funded all of it and it was just too long of dealing with it.

As Rachel and Chandler are my favourites, I love their stories together, like the cheesecake one.  Their stories together were so rare.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[Kiki777]

I loved the cheesecake one, especially when Joey catches them eating it from the floor, pulls a fork out of his pocket and joins them.  Dumb as he is, Joey is my spirit animal - loves his food, particularly his sandwiches!

[helenamonster]

3 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

As Rachel and Chandler are my favourites, I love their stories together, like the cheesecake one.  Their stories together were so rare.

Agreed! I also love the whole Joanna arc.

[Ms Blue Jay]

2 hours ago, helenamonster said:

Agreed! I also love the whole Joanna arc.

Good reminder!  And when Chandler tries to set up Rachel with someone from his office, LOL.

[Hiyo]

I liked JA in The Good Girl.

[chitowngirl]

In TOW in Vegas and TO After Vegas, no one explained how Rachel and Ross got the marker off their faces. Such a big deal was made that Rachel couldn’t find a remover and then the next morning, poof, magically gone. 

[LexieLily]

On 7/26/2020 at 4:15 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

As Rachel and Chandler are my favourites, I love their stories together, like the cheesecake one.  Their stories together were so rare.

I just saw TOW Two Parties on TBS a few days ago and it reminded me that it wasn't a full storyline, but they had a nice scene on the step between their apartments when Rachel was lamenting her parents' divorce and how hard it was just to hear them bitch about each other all night.

[Ms Blue Jay]

38 minutes ago, LexieLily said:

I just saw TOW Two Parties on TBS a few days ago and it reminded me that it wasn't a full storyline, but they had a nice scene on the step between their apartments when Rachel was lamenting her parents' divorce and how hard it was just to hear them bitch about each other all night.

This is a different one, "The One with the Fake Party", but ---

Quote

Rachel: Hey.

Chandler: Hey.

Rachel: You're a pathetic loser, right?

Chandler: Oh-ho, yeah!

Rachel: Sit!

(He does so, and immediately starts looking pathetic.)

On YouTube:

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Ms Blue Jay

[Crs97]

When we find out Chandler is going to propose, he has toured and fallen in love with the museum wedding site Monica loved.  It always bothered me that they got married in a hotel instead.

[Nellise]

7 hours ago, Crs97 said:

When we find out Chandler is going to propose, he has toured and fallen in love with the museum wedding site Monica loved.  It always bothered me that they got married in a hotel instead.

The museum was booked far in advance (3 years I think) and Monica put her name down just in case. They called because there was an unexpected opening (although why Monica was called and not the 100s of others in line ahead of her was a plot contrivance) which probably didn't really work. I think the story was more about Chandler accepting the idea of marriage more than that specific place being important to them.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Nellise

[Nordly Beaumont]

3 hours ago, Nellise said:

although why Monica was called and not the 100s of others in line ahead of her was a plot contrivance

That drove me nuts! I think other shows have done that, too. Last on the list gets bumped to #1 when there's a cancellation? Um, no.

[christie]

4 hours ago, Nellise said:

The museum was booked far in advance (3 years I think) and Monica put her name down just in case. They called because there was an unexpected opening (although why Monica was called and not the 100s of others in line ahead of her was a plot contrivance) which probably didn't really work. I think the story was more about Chandler accepting the idea of marriage more than that specific place being important to them.

I always thought that Chandler liked the venue and had secretly arranged for Monica to do the museum tour. If memory serves me  correctly (it's been a while since I've seen this episode) after the message on the answering machine we see Chandler speaking on the phone to someone (Phoebe?) and he asks if *woman's name* showed them around and what she (Phoebe?) thought of it and thus I thought that Chandler had arranged the trip along with Phoebe and had set up the message on the answering machine since he was pretending to Monica that he didn't want to get married so that the proposal would be a huge surprise.

[Quof]

Nope, you've got that backwards.  Monica sees the museum, Hildi leaves the voicemail, Chandler freaks out, Monica calms him down.  

Then Monica leaves, Phoebe comes out of the bedroom and asks Chandler "Did Hildi show you the place?" and Chandler answers "Yeah, it's beautiful."  And the crowd goes wild.

What??????

 

[JAYJAY1979]

On 7/20/2020 at 9:30 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

Matthew Perry did that too - Fools Rush In, Three to Tango, Serving Sara, The Whole Nine Yards.  He's very Chandler-esque in those.  Maybe it's typecasting.

Jen Aniston is definitely not Rachelesque in Office Space, Marley & Me, Horrible Bosses, The Break Up, or The Good Girl.  And yet, even though she was very anti Rachel in "The Good Girl" it was still used an example here of being "bad acting".  So, how can she win?  When she's like Rachel "she's playing herself" when she's not playing Rachel "she sucks at acting".  Hmm!  Interesting.  Personally, I think she's a great actor and I don't think anyone can doubt how iconic the Rachel Green role was, meaning that she unexpectedly became uber-famous off of this one part because so many women could so deeply relate to her on "Friends".  I don't know how a shitty actor could make us do that.

 

Derailed with Clive Owen..she played against type.

[Ms Blue Jay]

7 minutes ago, JAYJAY1979 said:

Derailed with Clive Owen..she played against type.

Same with Cake, Dumplin', The Morning Show, Office Christmas Party.

[Nellise]

9 hours ago, christie said:

I always thought that Chandler liked the venue and had secretly arranged for Monica to do the museum tour. If memory serves me  correctly (it's been a while since I've seen this episode) after the message on the answering machine we see Chandler speaking on the phone to someone (Phoebe?) and he asks if *woman's name* showed them around and what she (Phoebe?) thought of it and thus I thought that Chandler had arranged the trip along with Phoebe and had set up the message on the answering machine since he was pretending to Monica that he didn't want to get married so that the proposal would be a huge surprise.

Chandler is by himself in the apartment when the call comes in. He's an extremely method actor if he prearranged that call and his freakout on the answering machine because there was no one there to see him do that. (Unless Chandler knows we're watching him and this is a much different show than I thought.)

[Hiyo]

Quote

It always bothered me that they got married in a hotel instead.

It never bothered me, since in-between we found Monica's parents pissed away her wedding fund, and then Chandler had to end up paying for a less lavish wedding.

Quote

Nope, you've got that backwards.  Monica sees the museum, Hildi leaves the voicemail, Chandler freaks out, Monica calms him down.  

Then Monica leaves, Phoebe comes out of the bedroom and asks Chandler "Did Hildi show you the place?" and Chandler answers "Yeah, it's beautiful."  And the crowd goes wild.

What??????

We find out in the next episode, Phoebe ran into Chandler looking at wedding ring brochures in-between his freaking out and Monica calming him down, which made sense to me.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Hiyo

[mojoween]

The funny thing about Friends, and actually a lot of shows up to that time, is that it ran when syndication wasn’t much of a thing and in order to watch an eposode twice, you had to wait for a rerun in the summer or after sweeps.  So the writers probably felt like they had some latitude because people were probably going to see each episode once.  You couldn’t even buy a season unless you were loaded and could afford the VHS copy.

That’s my fanwank why the flashback episodes were so wildly inconsistent, anyways.

[Katy M]

39 minutes ago, mojoween said:

The funny thing about Friends, and actually a lot of shows up to that time, is that it ran when syndication wasn’t much of a thing and in order to watch an eposode twice, you had to wait for a rerun in the summer or after sweeps.  So the writers probably felt like they had some latitude because people were probably going to see each episode once.  You couldn’t even buy a season unless you were loaded and could afford the VHS copy.

That’s my fanwank why the flashback episodes were so wildly inconsistent, anyways.

Syndication of reruns was "much of a thing" in the '80s.  But, if you mean probably not until the show completed its first run, I'd agree.

[Bort]

11 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Syndication of reruns was "much of a thing" in the '80s.  But, if you mean probably not until the show completed its first run, I'd agree.

Long running shows would still be on the air and also in syndication. I remember watching 5 episodes of Cheers a day — six if it was Thursday, because that was the day new episodes ran.

Honestly, I think continuity problems have nothing to do with that and more to do with writers trying to make a deadline and just not sweating the details as much as we do.

[Llywela]

Has anyone here seen this video - 2020 as told by FRIENDS 😃

[cherrypj]

On 8/7/2020 at 6:49 AM, Llywela said:

Has anyone here seen this video - 2020 as told by FRIENDS 😃

"You’re fake laughing too, right?"

"Oh, the tears are real."

[Nellise]

On 8/7/2020 at 5:49 AM, Llywela said:

Has anyone here seen this video - 2020 as told by FRIENDS 😃

Is there some reason people think Friends is an acronym? It's written as F.R.I.E.N.D.S. in a lot of fan places.

[Bort]

The title card has those dots between the letters. I personally never thought of them as periods, apparently other people do?

[helenamonster]

I always assumed people adopted that stylization when typing things out because "Friends" is a common noun that gets used a lot outside of talking about the show, and the dots were a shorthand way of making it obvious what they were talking about.