>Friends S1
>Rachel doesn't know Chandler
>Friends S3
>Flashback episode shows Rachel first met Chandler months/a year before the events of the pilot
>Friends S5
>Rachel and Chandler now apparently met during their highschool/college days a few times
>Friends S10
>Rachel and Chandler made out one time during highschool/college
I hate when shows retcon their characters history
Everything after season 1 was a dream of Chandler's. That's why he got to marry a hottie.
Watched an episode not long ago
>established early on that rachel was the slutty cheerleader in high school
>she tells a story of when she shared a drunken kiss with another girl
>phoebe doesnt believe her because of how "boring" and "vanilla" rachel is
>this is also despite the fact monica and rachel made out with phoebe in the room several seasons before
Also, the B plot of the episode is Chandler picking out a tuxedo, and Rachel giving him shit for watching E! and never watching ESPN, and not knowing sports, when in early seasons the guys are constantly going to hockey and basketball games
Decent show, awful continuity
Friends pussified an entire generation of men. It's a beta training series. All of the characters are horrible friends, and when you take the laugh track away it gets really creepy.
as someone who thinks friends is the best sitcom ever, this is triggering me so hard right now
is seinfeld good? i get american humor, but jerry himself as a comedian is kinda meh
plus, he's the jewiest of jews
>>63444376
>and when you take the laugh track away it gets really creepy.
literally reddit
>it's a Phoebe gets the spirit of an old woman trapped in her body episode
da fug was that all about
The biggest retcon was that Monica and Rachel lost all contact after high school, then the show quietly changed it to act like they had always been together.
Monica wasn't even invited to her wedding.
>>63444468
silly 90s hijinks.
>>63444376
>chandler is funny and quickwitted
>joey is charismatic and literal sex god
>ross is book smart and honest
>monica is organized
>rachel is a slut but emotionally connected
>phoebe is weird but thick skinned
BY YOUR POWERS COMBINED, I AM THE PERFECT HUMAN
plus friends is consistently really funny
>>63444499
Pheobe was the biggest slut.
>>63444443
>it's only not okay when TBBT does it!
All comedy series with a laugh track are literal lowest common denominator shit.
>bluray is released
>it's not the full uncut episodes
why even bother?
Matthew Perry has a freak hand google it
Every sitcom's continuity is bullshit, who gives a shit
>In Friends, Ross is shown in later episodes as having a long standing passion for dinosaurs, that stretches back to childhood. However, in the first season, he states he only picked paleontology as his major on a dare.
>Friends was notoriously bad at doing more harm than good with their retconning, as the episode The One Where Chandler Can't Cry goes to show. The entire premise of the episode was (in typical Friends fashion) exactly what it said on the tin. Only, Chandler was easily the most emotional of the boys, and had several earlier episodes revolving around this fact. He had the same thing happen with his sudden and crippling fear of dogs. The same episode that introduced Chandler's dog phobia also reveals that Ross hates ice cream... despite the fact that a past episode (The One After the Super Bowl) shows him just fine with eating it.
>Also, in "The One With the Prom Video", it's clear that Chandler had never seen Fat Monica or pre-nose job Rachel, but in a later episode he was retconned into meeting them...and actually caused Monica to lose weight!
>Phoebe has never been in a relationship that lasted longer than a month, or lived with a partner, both of which happened at previous points in the series. While the whole living with a guy issue can be brushed off due to the fact Phoebe broke up with him after one night of living together, another episode had a boyfriend of Phoebe's mentioning that they have been together over a month. Phoebe also once mentioned, nearer the end of the series, that she had never been married before. She technically had - she married a Canadian man who she thought was gay so he could get a green card.
>In yet another late season episode, it's suggested (through a throwaway line) that Ross got drunk and slept with the cleaning lady as a teenager. Really puts his constant whining during the first two seasons about Carol being his first and, until the start of Season Two, only sexual partner in a new light, doesn't it?
>>63444511
Pheobe was most likely a whore at some point.
>>63444525
including seinfeld?
i only said it because i saw (yes, on reddit) exactly that line in a popular post
To be fair they met maybe like 3 times before the pilot.
They might've just forget each other.
Did they ever explain how Pheobe and Joey became friends with the other friends?
>>63444862
You could excuse the S3 flashback, since it was a very brief meeting, but not the others. She wouldn't have forgotten the toe incident, or making out with him. And Chandler wouldn't have forgotten the girl his best friend was in love with.
A Friends episode should be watched, enjoyed and instantly forgotten. Thats the only way to enjoy it. Even on a marathon.
Do you think Joey and Phoebe ever got jealous of the fact that Monica, Rachel, Ross and Chandler were obviously much closer with each other and the inner circle of their friendship group.
>>63444604
Did you see Back to Earth though, it was a little odd at the beginning when they were doing typical Lister/Rimmer shenanigans in the sleeping quarters but there was no laugh track. It was like the actors were subconsciously waiting for/expecting laughs because they were so used to doing it in front of an audience, and none came.
I enjoyed Back to Earth but I prefer Dwarf with a laugh track, no matter how much of a pleb that makes menice off topic post
>>63444405
Larry David was also a big writer on it, so it can't be that bad.
>>63444376
>take the laugh track away
watched an entire episode like this once, very strange
>>63445586
I think it's only strange because a lot of times the actors take a pause to let the audience laugh, so it doesn't feel like a natural conversation.
>>63444997
They talk about it in one episode. I think where they make a pact to get married at 40
>>63444869
there was an episode that explains how Joey moved in with Chandler
and Phoebe used to be Monica's roomate, they mention it dozens of times
>>63444499
I used to listen to Friends on the radio. I had a night job and one of the local stations here broadcast the audio for some reason so I would listen to shows.
I liked Joey and Phoebe the best, found chandler and monica so-so and really hated Ross and Rachel. But for several years I had no idea which actor went with which character.
Also for a couple of seasons I only listened to Fraiser and was under the impression that Daphne was an elderly plump woman for some reason and didn't pick up on any of the Niles stuff. Finally actually watching the show for the first time was pretty surreal.
>>63444819
Seinfeld still works without a laugh track. It's genuinely funny and doesn't actually have to clue the audience in to what their jokes are. Watching Seinfeld without a laugh track is like a tame episode of Sunny.
>>63447298
That's fascinating, really. I can definitely see where you'd pick up on that perception of Daphne. That show relied so heavily on visual cues though, I can't imagine what that experience must have been like.
>>63447517
It was weird. Having seen them both since then in re-runs, I would say Fraiser lost more without the visuals than Friends did. But overall Fraiser was probably the better show.
I don't understand criticism of a laugh track for sitcoms.
It's a show, it's as show-like as possible and almost 'recorded' instead of 'filmed'. It's essentially watching a comedy play on the tv, there's very little cinematography or complex things that try to make it serious television - instead it just has sets, characters and (funnily enough) situational comedy. It would be weird if it took itself seriously, comedy that isn't show-like has to use a different sort of style, and usually rely on other things.
I think fundamentally it's visual comedy (slapstick all the way to serious film with laughs) and 'show' comedy for lack of a better name (a slight step up from stand-up, with basic narrative and sets to have setups and payoffs).
It might be cheaper a lot of the time, or less effort, but you could say the same about plays compared to films - you can't just make blanket statements about all of them.
TBBT is total shit, though.
>>63447818
How would you feel about having a laugh track in a comedy movie though? Or can you imagine watching The Simpsons with a laugh track?
I get what you're saying, but I find in most cases laugh tracks are distracting. Normally when you're watching a comedy, something funny happens and you laugh because you found it funny. Laugh tracks are essentially there to tell you when you're supposed to laugh. It sounds like a minor distinction, but I don't think it is. It's the difference between discovering the comedy for yourself and reacting as part of a crowd.
There is something to be said about a sitcom being like watching a play with an audience, but I still think they're in general more distracting than successfully giving a sensation of being in a crowd.
>>63448162
It depends on the style of comedy in the movie. If you take stuff like the Pink Panther films or the original slapstick comedies of Keaton and Chaplin and have them "step back" a little bit where there's very little camera work and style involved in the comedy, then a laugh track could work (I guess) - but the length of them would probably make it unsuitable to the illusion and effect of watching a show or display of comedy rather than watching film that's funny.
>I get what you're saying, but I find in most cases laugh tracks are distracting. Normally when you're watching a comedy, something funny happens and you laugh because you found it funny. Laugh tracks are essentially there to tell you when you're supposed to laugh. It sounds like a minor distinction, but I don't think it is. It's the difference between discovering the comedy for yourself and reacting as part of a crowd.
>There is something to be said about a sitcom being like watching a play with an audience, but I still think they're in general more distracting than successfully giving a sensation of being in a crowd.
I agree, but I don't think that laugh track can just be written off as wasteful or an automatic negative. I grew up watching old BBC comedies and most of them used a laugh track because of the open sets, visual style of comedy and lack of camera work and most of the time it's not particularly noticeable. It also acts as a slight reprieve for the actors, or even setup for "comedic tension," and though it still does effectively prompt or promote laughter at certain points, most of the time if the comedy is funny enough that's not noticeable.
The effect of being in a crowd watching it doesn't ever really work, but I don't think that's the intent - if there was no laughter so you were essentially the only audience then it would be weird, and the comedy material would have to be rewritten and rely more on visual aspects and timing than the dialogue and actions themselves.
>>63447818
Laugh tracks are literally there to assist with the ratings. Studies show that people respond more favorably to episodes with laugh tracks than the exact same episode without one. Essentially, they're there for shit-tier humor and used to brainwash the sheeple into thinking it's hilarious.
And you're surprised that a board which revolves around debating pleb vs patrician hates them?
>>63448162
Laugh tracks also helps with comedic timing. If you have a laugh track it's easier to make a comedic pause work. It also helps shitty actors appear good actors, like Matt Leblanc.
>>63444321
I agree with you on the first part but the stuff about Chandler isn't that weird.
I'm not a sports fan in the slightest and I couldn't tell you a thing about players, games or scores but I still like watching hockey and football games live because of the atmosphere and the excitement.
OFFICIAL FRIENDS CHARACTER POWER RANKINGS
>carrying the show tier
Late seasons Ross
Early seasons Chandler
>god tier
Late seasons Chandler
>good tier
Joey
Rachel
>shit tier
Monica
Early seasons Ross
>get the fuck off my show tier
Phoebe
>>63448744
I find it amazing that so many people hate Monica compared to Rachel and yet she was the main attraction when they made the show.
>>63444198
Penis
>>63448789
Agreed. Really she was the only halfway tolerable female on the show I thought. Annoying, but at least she was rational and took care of her own shit.
Rachel was just every shallow, self absorbed cunt that I l later learned to hate in high school, and Phoebe was less than useless.
>>63444559
Every time I search Google Images for Matthew Perry I find a treasure trove of /tv/ reaction pics.
