The Cultural Significance of Friends - Or what you think will last, won't

[Avilan the Grey]

Let's begin with saying that I'm definitely a Friends over Seinfeld person.

I find it interesting though that now when Friends is on Netflix, it has connected with the same demographic that loved it when they... I mean we... were young.
To the point where one of the series writers' daughter had friends of hers in school trying to tip her off about this great "new show" called "Friends" on Netflix... :smallbiggrin:

At the same time shows that the "snobs" back then insisted would be everlasting, primarily Seinfeld have basically faded away.

edit:
In 2015 the Comedy Central (UK) for example had an 11% increase in viewers for their Friends episodes. Netflix USA spent a ridiculous sum of money per episode. And it's money well spent.

[An Enemy Spy]

How has Seinfeld faded away? I bet I could go up to almost anyone I see on the street and make a Seinfeld reference and they would know what I'm talking about.
Did you just make this thread so you could crap on Seinfeld fans because you liked Friends better?

[Hiro Protagonest]

If less people are watching Seinfeld, it's because Friends is on Netflix, while Seinfeld is Hulu+ exclusive. I know people in my age group (college age) who have watched it, and the only reason I haven't given it much of a shot is because I tried the first episode and didn't really like it, I should probably start with Season 2 or 3. I've watched an episode here and there. I've seen plenty of gifs and references from it.

I've watched more Friends because for a while, my nightly ritual included watching TV, and Friends was on at that time, with Seinfeld being earlier.

[BWR]

I guess the people I talk with are weird because not a soul has mentioned either show in any conversation ever since they were airing the first time around. Certainly not in the last few years.

[Kitten Champion]

If less people are watching Seinfeld, it's because Friends is on Netflix, while Seinfeld is Hulu+ exclusive. I know people in my age group (college age) who have watched it, and the only reason I haven't given it much of a shot is because I tried the first episode and didn't really like it, I should probably start with Season 2 or 3. I've watched an episode here and there. I've seen plenty of gifs and references from it.

Yeah, the first season of Seinfeld is pretty unpolished, but it's only 5 episodes. Season 4 and beyond are where it really picks up if I recall correctly.



I've watched more Friends because for a while, my nightly ritual included watching TV, and Friends was on at that time, with Seinfeld being earlier.

I had the same thing, but rather it was Seinfeld which was always on at the time-slot when I was eating. I've only seen sparse episodes of Friends, by the time I was old enough to be interested it was already in its later seasons and I guess I never grew invested.

I see occasional Seinfeld references online, and I can see its influence on more recent works - but like BWR - it's not like people mention either really. The most talk I've heard about a 90's sitcom in 2016 was Fuller House.

[Avilan the Grey]

How has Seinfeld faded away? I bet I could go up to almost anyone I see on the street and make a Seinfeld reference and they would know what I'm talking about.
Did you just make this thread so you could crap on Seinfeld fans because you liked Friends better?

The big difference is that the newer generations relate to Friends, not to Seinfeld. That said, I doubt it would work on me (you walking up to me in the street). Friends yes. Simpsons yes. Frasier? Probably. Seinfeld? Eh. I am not very confident in my knowledge about that show; in fact I probably score higher on a Will & Grace quiz. I DID watch the show off and on, but that's more a discussion about personal taste and that's not really what this is about.

Anyway, I am not so sure. If you talk to a 19 year old girl today, randomly picked off the street (that sounded REALLY bad :smallwink:) then I am not at all convinced that she'll respond if you just lob a random Seinfeld line at her.

[Lethologica]

(a) Was Seinfeld ever a youth draw? It's a bunch of crusty adults being snippy to each other. Friends is twentysomething bait through and through.
(b) I appreciate how the grandiose language of the OP is used to dress up an unprovoked and insubstantial assault in what I assume is a perennial fanboy war.

[Dienekes]

The big difference is that the newer generations relate to Friends, not to Seinfeld. That said, I doubt it would work on me (you walking up to me in the street). Friends yes. Simpsons yes. Frasier? Probably. Seinfeld? Eh. I am not very confident in my knowledge about that show; in fact I probably score higher on a Will & Grace quiz. I DID watch the show off and on, but that's more a discussion about personal taste and that's not really what this is about.

Anyway, I am not so sure. If you talk to a 19 year old girl today, randomly picked off the street (that sounded REALLY bad :smallwink:) then I am not at all convinced that she'll respond if you just lob a random Seinfeld line at her.

Wait, young people end up being more interested in a show about over romanticization with trite pairings that shouldn't work but we're expected to root for because they're center stage?

Stop the presses.

[Avilan the Grey]

Wait, young people end up being more interested in a show about over romanticization with trite pairings that shouldn't work but we're expected to root for because they're center stage?

Stop the presses.

Ah. But is the show "worse" because it's not about middle age losers losing at things?

And no this is not a fan-war thing. I am genuinely amazed of Friend's lasting appeal. Yes I bought the Blu-ray box. But I also respect other people's tastes. After all, some people apparently like Breaking Bad, as unfathomable as it is.

[Lethologica]

Acknowledging that other tastes exist is hardly the same as respecting them. Your characterization of Seinfeld, your unconcealed glee at its supposed loss of cachet, your random lashing out at Breaking Bad...these comments do not indicate that you respect others' tastes.

You can be genuine about your Friends fandom and still be engaging in a fan-war, albeit mainly with invisible 'snobs' from some other place and time. I'm not sure what you expect out of this thread besides an allergic reaction to that provocation.

[Avilan the Grey]

Acknowledging that other tastes exist is hardly the same as respecting them. Your characterization of Seinfeld, your unconcealed glee at its supposed loss of cachet, your random lashing out at Breaking Bad...these comments do not indicate that you respect others' tastes.

You can be genuine about your Friends fandom and still be engaging in a fan-war, albeit mainly with invisible 'snobs' from some other place and time. I'm not sure what you expect out of this thread besides an allergic reaction to that provocation.

Not sure why you react the way you do. Yes my quip might have been a little pointy, but the Breaking Bad one was definitely only pure fun; I am fully aware that it's one of the most watched series in the last 10 years, if not longer, and I can't stand it (the show, not that it is liked). It still doesn't mean that I think people who like it are "wrong". It only means I don't share their enjoyment.

[Dienekes]

Ah. But is the show "worse" because it's not about middle age losers losing at things?

And no this is not a fan-war thing. I am genuinely amazed of Friend's lasting appeal. Yes I bought the Blu-ray box. But I also respect other people's tastes. After all, some people apparently like Breaking Bad, as unfathomable as it is.

Not at all. But when you put the reason a show has survived and is superior to a different show is because it better hits the demographic that it is designed to hit as opposed to the show that is not designed to hit that demographic. And your evidence is just this demographic likes it without looking to the demographic targeted by the other show, well, I think you can realize just why your logic is flawed.

[thorgrim29]

Well I've never watched Friend, so I couldn't comment about it vs Seinfeld. Over here (Quebec) Seinfeld isn't very popular, my brother and I used to watch reruns on Fox but a lot of people don't watch tv in english and I can't imagine Seinfeld translated well (most things don't but sarcastic humour REALLY doesn't). No idea about friends...

Now the reason why I decided to write this post:

Seinfeld is going to feel very familiar to people in their early 20s, they (I'm 26 so they) pretty much all watched How I Met Your Mother and that was more or less a light-hearted version of Seinfeld, with a lot more likable and relatable characters and a boatlod less subtlety. At the same time fans of dark humour will find it pretty tame. George doesn't fail as hard or as grandiosely as Rusty Venture, Elaine and Jerry's relationship isn't as interesting as Archer and Lana's, the sense of futility can't begin to match Bojack Horseman, Kramer isn't as quirky as Sheldon, Barney is more entertaining with his parade of girls of the week than Jerry etc...

Seinfeld was too influential for it's own good I think, like I mentioned I watched it pretty early, when I was around 17 or 18, so I loved it because it was fresh to me, besides I like subtle and minimalist humour. For a current audience I'm not sure there's a lot to it. That said I'm sure it would do well on Netflix, if only because it's available outside the US, including places where those shows I mentioned haven't penetrated the culture as much.

[nyjastul69]

I've watched my fair share of both shows. I found that I loved hating the Seinfeld characters and disliked liking the Friends characters. Obviously I prefer Seinfeld. I think they were both very well written shows though.

[Ricky S]

I am an aussie and both shows were run quite a lot while I was growing up, when i was 15 i got into friends and maybe 17 when i got into seinfeld. Both shows hit the mark extremely well which is why they are so popular. They are so relevant even today, I feel that if you have watched friends, seinfeld and himym then you have gotten a pretty good education in social situations.

On the issue of popularity im sure if you talked to an 18 year old now they wouldnt necessarily have watched either but the fact that there are still reruns means people will still get into it. I am a 90's kid so my parents watched both a lot so when i was older I was already exposed to it.

Some people have no hope though, I spoke to a girl who had literally never heard of Game of Thrones. Ok, I get that it is not everyone's cup of tea but to not have heard of it at all astounded me. "Do you live under a rock?"

[RossN]

Seinfeld's devotion to “no hugging, no learning” probably does leave it a little dated, because in practice it meant the characters were inherently static. George Constanza is a brilliant, brilliant character but give or take some less polished writing he is essentially the same person in Season 1 as he was in Season 9. In contrast Friends saw its main characters from single twenty-somethings to thirty-somethings with families. I think Seinfeld was a superb, razor sharp show but I can see why it might be less identifiable to some people today given it lacks the freshness and topicallity it had when it was first on.

[russdm]

Never understood the Appeal of Friends, personally. It felt like a bunch of Morons living in a moronic city (New York City) having brain-dead adventures. I enjoyed Seinfeld, maybe because it was actually funny? or that they used actual gags rather than falling back on relationship "Issues". To be honest, it comes across like a crappy solely xander-focused version of Buffy minus all of the vampire stuff, or some dark version of sesame street. I barely watched any because it just couldn't get my interest ever.

I enjoyed Cheers, Frasier, Wings, and MASH, but the friends characters just seem to mary sue-ish and you never could see anything interesting; the gang seemed just too dull and boring, your typical New Yorker idiots who probably helped shape how moronic and idiotic Americans would look to other countries.. I paid attention mostly to joey or phoebe(Lisa Kudrow's character) because they seemed to have an actual storyline while I remember barely anything from the others beyond Ross-Rachel Romantic Plot Tumors Latest Xtreme Redux edition (Weren't they constantly fighting over everything, hitting on each other, then just breaking up to do it all over again pretty much every episode?)

Plus, the song intro was lousy once the show seemed really lousy, since the song make it look like there would be fun, then it ended up just another Ross/Rachel having "Romance" troubles again.

With it being available on Netflix, I think I will pass. There is way better TV to watch that happened the same time of better quality.

[Crow]

or that they used actual gags rather than falling back on relationship "Issues".

"We were on a break!"

:smallannoyed:

[Mystic Muse]

The Ross and Rachel plot tumor is one of the biggest drags on the show, yes. When rewatching with my family, we skip their relationship drama because it gets old and dull, really really quickly.

[DiscipleofBob]

My wife actually watched Friends for the first time recently on Netflix. I remembered watching it as a kid, thinking that now I'd find it horribly dated and unfunny like Full House or other sitcoms.

Actually, she loved it. And despite knowing most of the plot and jokes, it was still funny for me. The plot is just compelling enough to not immediately get bored. Even though, yes, the worst parts of the show involve Ross/Rachel (and eventually Ross/Rachel/Joey), it's still interesting, and the characters and their relationships actually grow and change over time.

By comparison, neither my wife or me could ever find the appeal in Seinfeld. No offense to fans of the "show about nothing," but for us, it was never actually funny and the characters were completely unrelateable, usually because they acted like *******s, idiots, or both.

But if I were to compare Friends to a sitcom, it'd be Big Bang Theory. Because when I think about my nerd friends, I don't picture a bunch of Revenge of the Nerds stereotypes with PhDs. I picture the sarcastic quipper who jokes to hide the fact he's stuck in a dead-end corporate job (Chandler). I picture the guy who, even though he's the nerd with an academic career, he can still make bad relationship mistakes, and yes it was his fault, but he's still human (Ross). I picture the woman overcoming childhood self-esteem issues by being a control freak and winning her friends over with cooking (Monica), or the nice but weird hippy chick with the craziest stories (Phoebe). These are all people I know or am in some place or another, and I think that's what makes them personally relatable, at least for me. All six Friends are basically kids who should have grown up right now and are trying desperately hard to correctly 'adult' with very mixed results.

[Avilan the Grey]

Seinfeld's devotion to “no hugging, no learning” probably does leave it a little dated, because in practice it meant the characters were inherently static. George Constanza is a brilliant, brilliant character but give or take some less polished writing he is essentially the same person in Season 1 as he was in Season 9. In contrast Friends saw its main characters from single twenty-somethings to thirty-somethings with families. I think Seinfeld was a superb, razor sharp show but I can see why it might be less identifiable to some people today given it lacks the freshness and topicallity it had when it was first on.

Exactly. The character ensemble in Friends all have character arcs. All (even Joey despite his Flanderization) grow and change notably over the years and they are definitely not in the same place even just a few years into the show as in the beginning.

Seindfeld has zeror character development. However there is also another issue: Seinfeld Is Unfunny (not my argument, it's a Trope). Meaning that when the show started it's humor was really considered edgy. By the end of the run there was nothing special with the humor, people had become used to it, and so the one thing the show really had going for it had become flat.

I am also guessing that the very concepts that Friends helped popularize still are going and that makes it feel familiar: A semi-equal cast of characters (How I met Your Mother, Big Bang Theory, Modern Family etc) with proper character development is more or less the staple of sitcoms after Friends.


My wife actually watched Friends for the first time recently on Netflix. I remembered watching it as a kid, thinking that now I'd find it horribly dated and unfunny like Full House or other sitcoms.

Actually, she loved it. And despite knowing most of the plot and jokes, it was still funny for me. The plot is just compelling enough to not immediately get bored. Even though, yes, the worst parts of the show involve Ross/Rachel (and eventually Ross/Rachel/Joey), it's still interesting, and the characters and their relationships actually grow and change over time.

By comparison, neither my wife or me could ever find the appeal in Seinfeld. No offense to fans of the "show about nothing," but for us, it was never actually funny and the characters were completely unrelateable, usually because they acted like *******s, idiots, or both.

But if I were to compare Friends to a sitcom, it'd be Big Bang Theory. Because when I think about my nerd friends, I don't picture a bunch of Revenge of the Nerds stereotypes with PhDs. I picture the sarcastic quipper who jokes to hide the fact he's stuck in a dead-end corporate job (Chandler). I picture the guy who, even though he's the nerd with an academic career, he can still make bad relationship mistakes, and yes it was his fault, but he's still human (Ross). I picture the woman overcoming childhood self-esteem issues by being a control freak and winning her friends over with cooking (Monica), or the nice but weird hippy chick with the craziest stories (Phoebe). These are all people I know or am in some place or another, and I think that's what makes them personally relatable, at least for me. All six Friends are basically kids who should have grown up right now and are trying desperately hard to correctly 'adult' with very mixed results.

What he said! :smallbiggrin:

[Tvtyrant]

I doubt either of them is going to be remembered in 30 years, honestly. There have been a lot of sit coms since I Love Lucy, and they don't stand out very far from the rest.

[Anonymouswizard]

As an early 20s Brit I've only watched Friends, and although it was fun at first it just got boring.

Also, for the Ross/Rachel relationship drag, what annoyed me was how whenever they introduced a better match for Ross they'd always find some way to get back to the same plot. I should mention that by comparison I enjoy the Penny/Leonard relationship on The Big Bang Theory because not only have they moved past that stage for good (and it was never as bad as on Friends) I feel like the writers actually tried to turn them into a decent match for each other (YMMV).

[Murk]

I agree that though it seems Friends is more popular than Seinfeld, even in the Netherlands (both series have been on reruns on tv now and then), I do not really think that means it is necessarily "longer lasting".

Sure, Friends has a larger amount of people that enjoy it (I assume; I don't know any actual statistics), but those people also enjoy dozens of similar sitcoms. Friends, maybe due to its popularity, has spawned so many similar sitcoms (a lot of them of equal quality) that people who enjoy that kind of humor don't necessarily need Friends anymore. Sure, if someone shows it, they'll watch, and they still like it very much, but it's not unique (anymore).

Seinfeld, though, is as far as I know still alone in its type of jokes. At least, I have never seen anything similar. That means it still has a niche to fill on its own. People who like Seinfeld humor specifically only have Seinfeld to turn to.

So, we have two niches, so to say. The "Friends niche" is much, much bigger, but it is filled to the brim. If more and more sitcoms like it get produced, the need for Friends becomes smaller. It becomes the one of many - still enjoyed by a lot of people, but nothing special (except for nostalgia).
The "Seinfeld niche" is much, much smaller, but it only has Seinfeld. As long as no sitcoms like it get produced, it will keep its niche all for itself.

Which leads me to think that Friends has a head start, and a big one, but that its own popularity will eventually cause it to become "just another one of those", while Seinfeld might actually slowly edge towards cult status.

If nothing changes in sitcom land, that is.

[nyjastul69]

Seinfeld's devotion to “no hugging, no learning” probably does leave it a little dated, because in practice it meant the characters were inherently static. George Constanza is a brilliant, brilliant character but give or take some less polished writing he is essentially the same person in Season 1 as he was in Season 9. In contrast Friends saw its main characters from single twenty-somethings to thirty-somethings with families. I think Seinfeld was a superb, razor sharp show but I can see why it might be less identifiable to some people today given it lacks the freshness and topicallity it had when it was first on.

I think this difference is feature, not a bug. The fact that the Seinfeld characters don't grow much makes it much easier to watch the show for me. If I missed 6 episodes in a row, no worries, I know exactly what's up.

Friends is more difficult and less enjoyable for me to follow because if you miss 6 episodes in a row you may very well be lost. Wait... why did they all flip flop their gf/bf's again? YMMV.

[Murk]

Friends is more difficult and less enjoyable for me to follow because if you miss 6 episodes in a row you may very well be lost. Wait... why did they all flip flop their gf/bf's again? YMMV.

Eh, their personalities are all interchangeable anyway if it's necessary for a joke.

[nyjastul69]

Eh, their personalities are all interchangeable anyway if it's necessary for a joke.

Fair enough. But that's more of a flaw than a feature.

[CozJa]

Let's begin with saying that I'm definitely a Friends over Seinfeld person.

I find it interesting though that now when Friends is on Netflix, it has connected with the same demographic that loved it when they... I mean we... were young.
To the point where one of the series writers' daughter had friends of hers in school trying to tip her off about this great "new show" called "Friends" on Netflix... :smallbiggrin:

At the same time shows that the "snobs" back then insisted would be everlasting, primarily Seinfeld have basically faded away.

edit:
In 2015 the Comedy Central (UK) for example had an 11% increase in viewers for their Friends episodes. Netflix USA spent a ridiculous sum of money per episode. And it's money well spent.

Didn't know about Netflix, or about the fandom wars... Interestingly, I may say that in my homecountry it's similar: almost everyone my age (yeah, I was born in that decade where Terminator was still a new thing) remembers Friends (wich I loved), while Seinfeld (wich I liked) was easily forgotten. And strangely Friends was not only a "generational" thing, because now, in 2016, one of the major national Tv networks still has it in its afternoon schedule.

P.S.
The funniest thing was that the first half of the series was bought by one network while the last half by another one. So when we had the last seasons of Friends in prime time in one newtwork, there where syndications of the firsts in another network :smallbiggrin:

[russdm]

As an early 20s Brit I've only watched Friends, and although it was fun at first it just got boring.

Also, for the Ross/Rachel relationship drag, what annoyed me was how whenever they introduced a better match for Ross they'd always find some way to get back to the same plot. I should mention that by comparison I enjoy the Penny/Leonard relationship on The Big Bang Theory because not only have they moved past that stage for good (and it was never as bad as on Friends) I feel like the writers actually tried to turn them into a decent match for each other (YMMV).

I think this might be an issue here. Ross/Rachel is almost have the show it seems, or at least eats up a third of the plotlines alone. The Big Bang Theory did relationships better.


I agree that though it seems Friends is more popular than Seinfeld, even in the Netherlands (both series have been on reruns on tv now and then), I do not really think that means it is necessarily "longer lasting".

Sure, Friends has a larger amount of people that enjoy it (I assume; I don't know any actual statistics), but those people also enjoy dozens of similar sitcoms. Friends, maybe due to its popularity, has spawned so many similar sitcoms (a lot of them of equal quality) that people who enjoy that kind of humor don't necessarily need Friends anymore. Sure, if someone shows it, they'll watch, and they still like it very much, but it's not unique (anymore).

So, we have two niches, so to say. The "Friends niche" is much, much bigger, but it is filled to the brim. If more and more sitcoms like it get produced, the need for Friends becomes smaller. It becomes the one of many - still enjoyed by a lot of people, but nothing special (except for nostalgia).
The "Seinfeld niche" is much, much smaller, but it only has Seinfeld. As long as no sitcoms like it get produced, it will keep its niche all for itself.

Which leads me to think that Friends has a head start, and a big one, but that its own popularity will eventually cause it to become "just another one of those", while Seinfeld might actually slowly edge towards cult status.

If nothing changes in sitcom land, that is.

I think this will affect how much Friends continues. It is a story about 20ish somethings in New York, which removes any real interest beyond New Yorkers since it does not have the same feel for somebody living elsewhere. How applicable is the life situation of somebody in Chicago to what friends experienced? Big Bang Theory is set in California, but it is not New York. New York was covered in Seinfeld as well, and it isn't America. How much of the plotlines were affected because of where the show is set as compared to something more general? I liked White Collar, but it really couldn't have happened anywhere really other than New York. Can you say the same of Friends? Would it have worked in Detroit or Chicago or Los Angeles? Can you move the show or imagine it in a different city and have the show still work? If not, doesn't that put it solely in one place?

Friends is also an 80s/90s show, so how it is might have changed a lot as well. Even then there was little chance people could afford the apartments the Friends characters appear to have.


I think this difference is feature, not a bug. The fact that the Seinfeld characters don't grow much makes it much easier to watch the show for me. If I missed 6 episodes in a row, no worries, I know exactly what's up.

Friends is more difficult and less enjoyable for me to follow because if you miss 6 episodes in a row you may very well be lost. Wait... why did they all flip flop their gf/bf's again? YMMV.

I feel like the Ross/Rachel issue is just going to overwhelm the show to the point it gets frustrating to watch. That a couple of times having relationship problems work, but considering what I know about the show, it grew to be the most memorable aspect about the show.


Fair enough. But that's more of a flaw than a feature.

Agree with that. Interchangeable personalities means little to differentiate between characters and you forget who was who.

[Phobia]

I watched both. Friends was a sitcom that was on in the 90s. Seinfeld literally permeated popular culture to the extent that I can't show it to people because literally every trope or joke that Seinfeld did has been mined out for a thousand different shows. Main characters became more and more unlikable jerks after Seinfeld came out. It changed the entire landscape of every sitcom that came after it. You tell me which one had a lasting impact.

[russdm]

I watched both. Friends was a sitcom that was on in the 90s. Seinfeld literally permeated popular culture to the extent that I can't show it to people because literally every trope or joke that Seinfeld did has been mined out for a thousand different shows. Main characters became more and more unlikable jerks after Seinfeld came out. It changed the entire landscape of every sitcom that came after it. You tell me which one had a lasting impact.

Wouldn't that mean it was Seinfeld, not Friends?

[Silfir]

I've never lived in the US, let alone New York, and I found Friends perfectly relatable. It was a huge hit in Germany, anyway.

The main strength of the show, as far as I'm concerned, is chemistry. Even in weaker seasons and with weaker scripts, I still enjoy watching it for the characters. They're all at least capable to excellent comedic actors, and you can tell they're having a lot of fun working together. If it's not a well-written or particularly smart sitcom (I think it's both - depending on the season you watch, at least) or a ground-breaking one (that probably goes to Seinfeld, from all I've heard), it's definitely still a damn good one just on the strength of the acting.

Never watched Seinfeld - it wasn't a thing in Germany. (I think it ran - but it had a fraction of Friends' ratings if it did.) I'm not equipped to make a comparison - but I'm given to suspect that the shows have different strengths and weaknesses, and which you prefer depends on your personal tastes.

[RossN]

I recently rewatched Seinfeld and I was surprised how many of the jokes have dated, either because they were excessively topical (ie. an episode based aound the 1993 New York Mayoral Election or George Steinbrenner being a significant reccuring character) or because the social mores they depict have moved on (a subplot in the final over which news is appropriate to deliver over a cell phone.) Everyone (rightly) remembers 'no soup for you' and 'not that there's anything wrong with it' but other elements have aged.

Of course Friends has this issue too (Joey's soap opera career now feels very 90s), but because that show was focused so strongly on relationships it is probably less a prisoner of its time and place than Seinfeld, which was more focused on the minutiae of life.

[BWR]

Is now where I piss off both camps by saying I found neither of them particularly funny (Friends being marginally less unfunny than Seinfeld, which failed to elicit a single smile from me)?

[Tvtyrant]

Is now where I piss off both camps by saying I found neither of them particularly funny (Friends being marginally less unfunny than Seinfeld, which failed to elicit a single smile from me)?

I don't see why it would, since humor is so specific. I giggle over puns that make other members of my family incensed, and find comedy of errors skits hard to watch due to humiliation empathy.

[Phobia]

Wouldn't that mean it was Seinfeld, not Friends?

What about my post made you think I meant it was Friends?

[cobaltstarfire]

Seinfeld, though, is as far as I know still alone in its type of jokes. At least, I have never seen anything similar. That means it still has a niche to fill on its own. People who like Seinfeld humor specifically only have Seinfeld to turn to.


I dunno, I haven't seen that much of Seinfeld, but if Seinfeld humor mostly boils down to jackasses being such to each other, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia might also fills that nich?

Though there's a lot of if's because what I saw of Always Sunny kind of disgusted me how terrible all the characters were to each other, and I was too young to really "get" most of what I can remember of Seinfeld.

(doing a quick google search of Always Sunny Vs Seinfeld tells me that they are about in the same vein...with Always Sunny taking it even further I guess)


I said all of that, but that just means there are at least two shows that cater to people instead of just one?

Though I can't really think of any sitcom that is like Friends either, mostly cause I don't really watch them. Most of my sitcom exposure came as a child via AFN (armed forces network), so MASH, Friends, Seinfeld, Frasier, Cheers, and Wings are the ones I can readily pull up the names of, and remember with varying amounts of clarity. Also I Love Lucy, but I can't recall where/when I actually watched that very very old tv show...

[Murk]

I dunno, I haven't seen that much of Seinfeld, but if Seinfeld humor mostly boils down to jackasses being such to each other, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia might also fills that nich?

Though there's a lot of if's because what I saw of Always Sunny kind of disgusted me how terrible all the characters were to each other, and I was too young to really "get" most of what I can remember of Seinfeld.

(doing a quick google search of Always Sunny Vs Seinfeld tells me that they are about in the same vein...with Always Sunny taking it even further I guess)


I said all of that, but that just means there are at least two shows that cater to people instead of just one?

Though I can't really think of any sitcom that is like Friends either, mostly cause I don't really watch them. Most of my sitcom exposure came as a child via AFN (armed forces network), so MASH, Friends, Seinfeld, Frasier, Cheers, and Wings are the ones I can readily pull up the names of, and remember with varying amounts of clarity. Also I Love Lucy, but I can't recall where/when I actually watched that very very old tv show...

Well, that's the problem with not living in the US but seeing some of its series, then. That's on me. I don't know Always Sunny in Philadelphia, so to me Seinfeld seemed like one-of-a-kind. The basis of Friends, (this group of Friends who have troubles with life, especially relationships, especially relationships with each other) has been done often. How I met your Mother comes to mind, but it's pretty much the fundament for most sitcoms nowadays.

Which isn't to say Seinfeld has more significance - spawning a whole sleuth of rip-offs is as much significance as you can get, so Friends wins that.

[An Enemy Spy]

I dunno, I haven't seen that much of Seinfeld, but if Seinfeld humor mostly boils down to jackasses being such to each other, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia might also fills that nich?

Though there's a lot of if's because what I saw of Always Sunny kind of disgusted me how terrible all the characters were to each other, and I was too young to really "get" most of what I can remember of Seinfeld.

(doing a quick google search of Always Sunny Vs Seinfeld tells me that they are about in the same vein...with Always Sunny taking it even further I guess)

Always Sunny definitely takes some cues from Seinfeld but the two shows are far from clones of each other. IASIP is about four social rejects whose plans are constantly thwarted by their own selfishness, stupidity, and lack of self awareness. Seinfeld is more about the silly nuances of our society and each character has a different method of trying to navigate through them.

George is the bottom feeder, who never finds any longterm success because he's never willing to do the work required to maintain it. He tries to get through life by always cheating the system; creating the illusion that he's a hard worker, lying about his accomplishments to women, and always trying to get away with doing the absolute bare minimum required of him, and often even less than that. And yet he rails against the unfairness of the world that never lets him get away with it.

Elaine is the social climbing career woman. She follows the rules society has set for her but is often undone by the stupidity of the people above her. However, whenever she gets a chance to be in charge, she proves to be just as incompetent herself as they were. Elaine has a barely restrained contempt for the people around but always proves herself to be just as petty and small minded. Her relationship with David Puddy is a microcosm of this. He is someone who is physically satisfying but that she doesn't have to respect because Elaine feels like he's essentially beneath her in both mental capacity and in aspiration to be better. And yet, she constantly demonstrates that she is no better than him, and she always crawls back to him, because like it or not, mediocrity is the best she can do.

Kramer ignores the rules of society, and the rules of society ignore him. He has no job but always has money. He has no manners and no charm but has lots of friends and can always have sex whenever he wants. He fills his apartment with all manner of bizarre items like hot tubs and chicken coops. He cavorts with celebrities, has foreign visitors live in his apartment, and spends his days doing whatever wacky things he wants to. As George put it once, his life is a fantasy. By shedding the artificial bonds of society, Kramer has in a way transcended society.

Jerry is the observer in the back. While George and Elaine's attempts to get ahead in life send them from job or apartment or major relationship to another, and while Kramer is constantly devising his latest harebrained scheme, Jerry's life never changes. While everybody is else is scrambling around, he just sits back and watches, occasionally prodding them along to their inevitable amusing downfall or mocking their stupidity, confident that it will never blow back on him in any significant way. Jerry is so emotionally detached that even his own losses rarely elicit much more from him than minor irritation. A girlfriend dumps him? Whatever, he'll have a new one by the next episode. His neighbor steals all his groceries? He can just buy more. The only thing Jerry really cannot stand is something that shatters his personal comfort, like the episode where his girlfriend puts a mystery item of his in the toilet and he's so disgusted by it that he throws out almost everything he owns.

I think simplifying these characters down into, "They're selfish jerks" or something like that is a real oversimplification misses the mark what Seinfeld really is about.

[2D8HP]

I've only read the first and last couple of posts, so I may be repeating someone.
Seinfeld re-runs are still on broadcast television in my area. Friends is not.
'Nuff said.

[cobaltstarfire]

I think simplifying these characters down into, "They're selfish jerks" or something like that is a real oversimplification misses the mark what Seinfeld really is about.

Now try to explain that to a me that is less than 8 years old. :smalltongue: "They're jerks being jerks to each other" is the way people describe it, so that's the best I can manage.

Though I can remember Kramer pretty well apparently, cause I have very vague memories of the chicken thing...and him bursting through doors and in general making weird faces and stuff. He was basically Gonzo only human as far as I could tell.


I only saw a couple of minutes of Always Sunny, and was turned off by it pretty much immediately though. It can't be entirely "they're terrible human beings, and it's being played for laughs" because I was fairly amused by what of House I watched, and Jayne (from Firefly) is a character I enjoy a lot even if I'd hate to know him. Maybe there need to be some...nicer-ish characters around to balance out the terrible for me or something.

[An Enemy Spy]

Yeah, I love It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia but it's definitely not for everyone. The show has a sadistic streak a mile wide and the characters are all horrible people though Dee, Mac, and Charlie have a few redeeming qualities to balance them out a bit. Dennis and Frank on the other hand are thoroughly detestable. One of the things that makes it work though are that the characters are almost never rewarded for their bad behavior. At the end of each episode they're just as hated, miserable, and destitute as they were at the beginning, if not more so. Watching terrible people bring about their own comeuppance can be very cathartic and very funny.

[Thrudd]

I saw both shows as a kid when NBC Thursday nights were "Must Watch TV", and thought them both hilarious at the time. School lunch-talk was often quoting things that happened in both shows. Both are still in syndication all over the place. When I see episodes now, I feel neither one has aged well. Friends started later and went on later, so its later seasons seem a bit less dated, but it is still near unwatchable for me. Seinfeld's look and content is so specifically early 90's that it's hard to watch, as well.

For non-English speaking markets, Friends would definately translate much more easily, it makes sense that it is more popular. Seinfeld's humor and stories would be very hard to replicate in another language, I'm guessing most places found that to be the case and didn't bother airing it.

Friends could be taking place in any large city, really. It's technically New York but it could be anywhere. Seinfeld is very specifically New York, the city's almost like a character in the show.

I think both had equal cultural impact, together they revived the high-profile sitcom and both are remembered fondly (even if we don't all want to rewatch them). Seinfeld has more funny quotable and memorable moments, in my experience. More shows followed the Friends formula in years after, but to be fair it is hard to copy Seinfeld's formula without being Seinfeld (or Larry David: Curb Your Enthusiasm was pretty great).

I enjoyed How I Met Your Mother, but one of my favorite shows of this century is more in the vein of Seinfeld than Friends: Arrested Development. Those characters absolutely do not learn anything, most are self-absorbed, and it is amazing.

[Winter_Wolf]

I think Seinfeld described itself pretty well: "it's a show...about nothing." And I'll still watch it for a while if it's on, but Freinds won't get the time of day from me. I'm with BWR, neither show does much for me.

[dps]

IMO, both shows were only moderately funny, but I don't think there's any real question that Seinfeld was much more influential as far as the content of later shows is concerned. That doesn't really mean that Seinfeld reruns will be more popular than Friends reruns with later generations, though. Ultimately, though, I think both will continue to be popular enough that they'll run in reruns forever, like I Love Lucy or Gilligan's Island.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

At the same time shows that the "snobs" back then insisted would be everlasting, primarily Seinfeld have basically faded away.

Says who? Seinfeld is still a very important and discussed show. It's influence is still discussed and considered in academic circles even to this day. It has a huge influence in internet subcultures (particularly vaporwave). I almost never see Friends discussed unless it's as a condescending nod to 90s shows that have aged poorly while Seinfeld is still acknowledged as an important and incredibly well-written series.

Certainly its influence is probably more lasting than the actual show itself (Curb Your Enthusiasm and It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia are better shows in almost every regard) but that influence has made it last a heck of a time.

[Bohandas]

Let's begin with saying that I'm definitely a Friends over Seinfeld person.

I find it interesting though that now when Friends is on Netflix, it has connected with the same demographic that loved it when they... I mean we... were young.
To the point where one of the series writers' daughter had friends of hers in school trying to tip her off about this great "new show" called "Friends" on Netflix... :smallbiggrin:


A mistake which is only possible due to the show starting to fade into obscurity, likely due to the characters being irritating, the plots not compelling, and the jokes unfunny. At least to anyone outside of a shrinking subset of their key demo.

[BannedInSchool]

Well, thanks to this thread I had to go watch the Whitesnake "Here I Go Again" video. Turns out I only remembered about 5% of it. Funny. How she ended up with Jerry I'll never know.

Regarding the TV shows, I think I saw most of both of them when they originally aired, but possibly more of Seinfeld in reruns, and neither for a while now. I could imagine I'd find the banter in both flat now, but with Seinfeld I still think of some of the bits as "Classic". With Friends there are a few bits I still think of as amusing, but the running gags I'm thinking I couldn't stand to see again.

[MLai]

I don't personally tune in to sitcoms, but I've seen a lot of both shows because my roommate watched them all the time, and had the complete DVD collection of Seinfeld which he watched every night.

I really don't see how Seinfeld is about "jerks being jerks to each other". They seem like perfectly normal Sunday-strip type of characters to me, like Dilbert. Sure, they never grow... but it's a sitcom... that's how sitcoms are, right? They only grow if they have child actors in them.

Anyways, they don't seem mean to each other or to the world at large, at all. The show is not mean-spirited; that's silly. But then, I spent most of my life in NYC so maybe I'm not the best to judge?

[DJ Yung Crunk]

I don't personally tune in to sitcoms, but I've seen a lot of both shows because my roommate watched them all the time, and had the complete DVD collection of Seinfeld which he watched every night.

I really don't see how Seinfeld is about "jerks being jerks to each other". They seem like perfectly normal Sunday-strip type of characters to me, like Dilbert. Sure, they never grow... but it's a sitcom... that's how sitcoms are, right? They only grow if they have child actors in them.

Anyways, they don't seem mean to each other or to the world at large, at all. The show is not mean-spirited; that's silly. But then, I spent most of my life in NYC so maybe I'm not the best to judge?

http://i.imgur.com/r2AxFLp.jpg

...

...

H-How do you reply to something like this?

[Avilan the Grey]

I don't personally tune in to sitcoms, but I've seen a lot of both shows because my roommate watched them all the time, and had the complete DVD collection of Seinfeld which he watched every night.

I really don't see how Seinfeld is about "jerks being jerks to each other". They seem like perfectly normal Sunday-strip type of characters to me, like Dilbert. Sure, they never grow... but it's a sitcom... that's how sitcoms are, right? They only grow if they have child actors in them.

Anyways, they don't seem mean to each other or to the world at large, at all. The show is not mean-spirited; that's silly. But then, I spent most of my life in NYC so maybe I'm not the best to judge?

So what you are saying is that for the love of god don't try to be friends with New Yorkers? :smallbiggrin:
Seriously, the characters in Seinfeld are not people I would like to be around. When they're not mean spirited they are self-sabotaging and neurotic. And not in a fun way. Oh and unless you made a funny, Dilbert IS Jerks being Jerks to Each other. That's ALL that comic strip DOES.

[russdm]

So what you are saying is that for the love of god don't try to be friends with New Yorkers? :smallbiggrin:


It is the Big Rotten Apple, isn't it? Home to trouble-makers, and Money Grubbing Money Guys? The Big Apple of Rotten? A place that could very well fit Obiwan's comment about a hive of scum and Villainy? (That would be without leaving Wall Street)

The rest of the city sounds nice though. Maybe interesting with interesting people to meet.



Seriously, the characters in Seinfeld are not people I would like to be around.


What about the Friends' characters? What would you say? I wouldn't want to be around the Seinfeld people, and probably not the Friends characters either. Does whether you would want to be around them affect your attitude about which show would more lasting?

(Only asking out of curiousity. Having heard about Breaking Bad and how the character is, makes me view the show as being really bad and not worth watching, can't understand the appeal. Feel the same about GoT; can't stand most or nearly all of the characters, and don't understand what why people like it beyond seeing the womanly parts)

[thorgrim29]

Because a lot of people find watching bad people being entertainingly awful is fun

[Bohandas]

Never understood the Appeal of Friends, personally. It felt like a bunch of Morons living in a moronic city (New York City) having brain-dead adventures. I enjoyed Seinfeld, maybe because it was actually funny? or that they used actual gags rather than falling back on relationship "Issues".

This is pretty much exactly the impression I had as well.


I doubt either of them is going to be remembered in 30 years, honestly. There have been a lot of sit coms since I Love Lucy, and they don't stand out very far from the rest.

Seinfeld was the I Love Lucy of its time, in terms of cultural influence and media stauration.

[MLai]

H-How do you reply to something like this?
I have no idea. Probably because I wasn't being ironic. :P


So what you are saying is that for the love of god don't try to be friends with New Yorkers? :smallbiggrin:
Well, the only NYC people I would consider as (once) real friends are from junior high school. "Friends" from any period later than that, you use the term with quotation marks. But isn't that just a fact of adult life?


Seriously, the characters in Seinfeld are not people I would like to be around.
Really? Huh.


When they're not mean spirited they are self-sabotaging and neurotic. And not in a fun way.
Really?


Oh and unless you made a funny, Dilbert IS Jerks being Jerks to Each other. That's ALL that comic strip DOES.
Huh? Really?

So tell me, do you consider it a basic survival rule not to collapse on the sidewalk if you're feeling sick?

[dps]

Because a lot of people find watching bad people being entertainingly awful is fun

When that's what I want, I'll watch Fawlty Towers, not Seinfeld or Friends.

[thorgrim29]

I was talking about breaking bad and game of thrones here. Would also apply to Vikings, my favorite current tv show and not a clear good guy/gal in sight (also not a lot of clear villains unlike GoT)

[Lethologica]

Well, the only NYC people I would consider as (once) real friends are from junior high school. "Friends" from any period later than that, you use the term with quotation marks. But isn't that just a fact of adult life?
No, and also, egad.

[Bohandas]

I recently rewatched Seinfeld and I was surprised how many of the jokes have dated, either because they were excessively topical (ie. an episode based aound the 1993 New York Mayoral Election or George Steinbrenner being a significant reccuring character) or because the social mores they depict have moved on (a subplot in the final over which news is appropriate to deliver over a cell phone.)

Plus a huge number of plots that could have been solved simply by having a cell phone

[Bohandas]

It is the Big Rotten Apple, isn't it? Home to trouble-makers, and Money Grubbing Money Guys? The Big Apple of Rotten? A place that could very well fit Obiwan's comment about a hive of scum and Villainy? (That would be without leaving Wall Street)

The rest of the city sounds nice though.


What about Madison Avenue?

[russdm]

Plus a huge number of plots that could have been solved simply by having a cell phone

Wouldn't that apply to Friends plots as well? Not including any of the Rachel plot tumors. (Why did the writers decide to make them partners anyway, wasn't Rachel a terrible person and didn't Ross marry some chick and give her a kid too? Why was Rachel even chosen as a romance for Ross? It is so out there.

Chandler and Monica was well written from what I could tell, but I couldn't understand anything about why Ross/Rachel was still a thing, Ross is terrible and Rachel almost completely defines Alpha B!t&$ in a weird form.

Ross would have been better off with an older Buffy or maybe one of those actual worthwhile women he was with or even if desperate, Phoebe. But Rachel? Miss Cheerleader-in-Chief herself? Ross is not a Jock.

[Avilan the Grey]

Huh? Really?

So tell me, do you consider it a basic survival rule not to collapse on the sidewalk if you're feeling sick?

?? Not getting the question.

[Bohandas]

I didn't get that reference either

[russdm]

Are you trying to co-opt the parable of the Samaritan into a New York setting?

[MLai]

?? Not getting the question.

I didn't get that reference either

Are you trying to co-opt the parable of the Samaritan into a New York setting?
Uhh, no. I am just asking if you consider it a basic rule in your own "Personal Survival Guide" to never just collapse on the sidewalk if you're feeling sick and about to pass out. At the very least, stumble inside a restaurant or something before thinking you can stop walking.

I'm just trying to see exactly how "alien" the city of NY truly is.

[russdm]

Uhh, no. I am just asking if you consider it a basic rule in your own "Personal Survival Guide" to never just collapse on the sidewalk if you're feeling sick and about to pass out. At the very least, stumble inside a restaurant or something before thinking you can stop walking.

I'm just trying to see exactly how "alien" the city of NY truly is.

Didn't you watch Men-In-Black? Its home to aliens. Besides, what other city gets treated like it is the only place that America even happens? Aside from Washington D.C., which has its own problems?

Isn't nearly ever Marvel super-villain in New York City or trying to conquer it? Aren't almost all of the Marvel alien invasions in New York City? Isn't Batman set in New York City? Aren't all the Grand Theft Auto games set in a pseudo-New York City?

If it can all happen there, then what kind of place is it?

[Bohandas]

Didn't you watch Men-In-Black? Its home to aliens. Besides, what other city gets treated like it is the only place that America even happens? Aside from Washington D.C., which has its own problems?

Isn't nearly ever Marvel super-villain in New York City or trying to conquer it? Aren't almost all of the Marvel alien invasions in New York City? Isn't Batman set in New York City? Aren't all the Grand Theft Auto games set in a pseudo-New York City?

If it can all happen there, then what kind of place is it?

Based on that it's apparently America's whipping boy

[An Enemy Spy]

Besides, what other city gets treated like it is the only place that America even happens? Aside from Washington D.C., which has its own problems?

Los Angeles, duh.


Isn't Batman set in New York City? Aren't all the Grand Theft Auto games set in a pseudo-New York City?

Batman is set in the fictional Gotham City, and only GTA IV to my knowledge is in the New York analogue. The others take place in pseudo versions of LA, San Fransisco, Las Vegas, and Miami.

[Bohandas]

Batman is set in the fictional Gotham City

Which is explicitly based on New York

[Bohandas]

Besides, what other city gets treated like it is the only place that America even happens? Aside from Washington D.C., which has its own problems?

Los Angeles, duh.

Actually I'd say that not even D.C. and L.A. get the kind of ridiculously overblown treatment that New York does. It only seems that way because their existence isn't outright ignored like Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, and Huston.

[An Enemy Spy]

Plus a huge number of plots that could have been solved simply by having a cell phone

I've never understood this mindset. Do you watch movies set in the Middle Ages and think "Oh, this plot could be easily solved if they had cellphones! What a dated movie!" If a show set before most people were carrying around cellphones had everyone using cellphones, that wouldn't be right at all.

It's not a dated portrayal of it's time. It's a portrayal of it's time as it truly was without looking back from a later date and projecting a modern viewpoint onto it. That's not dated, that's authentic.

[nyjastul69]

Didn't you watch Men-In-Black? Its home to aliens. Besides, what other city gets treated like it is the only place that America even happens? Aside from Washington D.C., which has its own problems?

Isn't nearly ever Marvel super-villain in New York City or trying to conquer it? Aren't almost all of the Marvel alien invasions in New York City? Isn't Batman set in New York City? Aren't all the Grand Theft Auto games set in a pseudo-New York City?

If it can all happen there, then what kind of place is it?

I'm not 100% sure about GTA 1&2, I haven't played those. GTA 3 is set in Liberty City (AKA NY). GTA Vice City is Miami. GTA San Andreas is LA, San Francisco and Las Vegas. GTA 4 is set back in LC. I'm don't know where latter GTA's are set. Some GTA's are in NY, but not all are set there. FWIW, I think GTA:SA is arguably the greatest video game of all time. I can't play it enough.

[Dienekes]

Which is explicitly based on New York

It has been based on New York, Chicago, or even Detroit depending on who's writing.

[nyjastul69]

It has been based on New York, Chicago, or even Detroit depending on who's writing.

Those cities are used for flavor. Has Gotham ever been set outside of the northeastern US?

[Yora]

I agree that though it seems Friends is more popular than Seinfeld, even in the Netherlands (both series have been on reruns on tv now and then), I do not really think that means it is necessarily "longer lasting".

In Germany we know that Friends is a thing. Seinfeld is something that Americans sometimes mention when talking about TV.

[BannedInSchool]

In Germany we know that Friends is a thing. Seinfeld is something that Americans sometimes mention when talking about TV.
Hmm, could you even air the Soup Nazi episode in Germany, or would it be the Soup <bleep>? He's not a real Nazi. They just call him that because he has very strict rules and punishments regarding how customers behave at his soup counter. You quietly stand in line. When it is your turn you step up to the counter, immediately announce your order saying nothing else, step to the cash register, silently pay and leave. If you break protocol then No Soup for You! Commit enough offenses and you and possibly your friends will be banned. Buying soup for people banned will also get you banned. It's really, really good soup too. :smallsmile:

[Silfir]

It would get tricky if the episode involved Nazi salutes, or Soup Nazi posters with a swastika on them. I do think the episode could run in Germany, though it's possible, depending on when it was that Seinfeld aired here, that they went with a generic "Suppendiktator" instead of "Suppen-Nazi". I'll try to look it up. (EDIT: Nope, he's simply the "Suppen-Nazi" after all.)

There was a Nazi-Germany-themed episode of original Star Trek that never aired in Germany back in the day, so this is definitely an issue one can run into.

[Tyndmyr]

Those cities are used for flavor. Has Gotham ever been set outside of the northeastern US?

Sure. The dark knight films were filmed in Chicago. Well, the first two, anyways.

The last one was the one that went crazy and used shots from everywhere. I guess it had to be an island for plot, and Chicago isn't? It's kind of confusing.

[Avilan the Grey]

AS discussed earlier in another thread:

Gotham used to be Chicago. When the mob, IRL, lost power, it instead became late 1970's / early 1980's New York. And it never left despite New York being a completely different place since decades.

[nyjastul69]

Sure. The dark knight films were filmed in Chicago. Well, the first two, anyways.

The last one was the one that went crazy and used shots from everywhere. I guess it had to be an island for plot, and Chicago isn't? It's kind of confusing.

I'm not concerned about where a movie is shot. That is irrelevant. Is it set in Chicago or NY?

[Bohandas]

It's set in an alternate version of NY with a different official name

[Thrudd]

It would get tricky if the episode involved Nazi salutes, or Soup Nazi posters with a swastika on them. I do think the episode could run in Germany, though it's possible, depending on when it was that Seinfeld aired here, that they went with a generic "Suppendiktator" instead of "Suppen-Nazi". I'll try to look it up. (EDIT: Nope, he's simply the "Suppen-Nazi" after all.)

There was a Nazi-Germany-themed episode of original Star Trek that never aired in Germany back in the day, so this is definitely an issue one can run into.

I think it would help that the soup nazi wasn't German, he was Middle Eastern.

[Murk]

I forgot that most foreign tv is dubbed in Germany. It's possible that has some influence too - I can imagine the jokes in Friends are easier to translate than those in Seinfeld (whereas that issue is less influential with subtitles, since then you can always hear the source material).

[Bohandas]

Hmm, could you even air the Soup Nazi episode in Germany, or would it be the Soup <bleep>?

I never understood those laws. They always struck me as kind of missing the point, like "we don't burn All Quiet On The Western Front anymore, now we burn Mein Kampf"

[SaintRidley]

(Only asking out of curiousity. Having heard about Breaking Bad and how the character is, makes me view the show as being really bad and not worth watching, can't understand the appeal. Feel the same about GoT; can't stand most or nearly all of the characters, and don't understand what why people like it beyond seeing the womanly parts)

You've heard of the genre of tragedy, right? That's what Breaking Bad is. If you don't like tragedies, that's cool. But there's a reason tragedies are popular.

[Silfir]

I never understood those laws. They always struck me as kind of missing the point, like "we don't burn All Quiet On The Western Front anymore, now we burn Mein Kampf"

No one was ever ordered to burn their copies of Mein Kampf. For that matter, it's not even covered by the laws that prevent people from publicly displaying the swastika and such. You could always publish and sell Mein Kampf - provided you had the copyright.

It just so happened that the copyright to Mein Kampf fell to Hitler's heirs after his death along with the rest of his estate - and if you ask now "Who on Earth would actually claim Hitler's estate?" the answer is that, of course, nobody did - which meant that it fell to the German state of Bavaria by default, who chose to exercise their copyright by not publishing it and keeping everyone else from publishing it as well. That copyright expired in 2015, seventy years after Hitler's death, and you can now buy editions of Mein Kampf published in Germany.

Post-Third Reich Germany has never burned any books and never will. Thanks for asking.

So much for the facts - Pretty sure discussing the merits of Germany's policy is a discussion of politics, which is verboten in the forum.

[BannedInSchool]

I forgot that most foreign tv is dubbed in Germany. It's possible that has some influence too - I can imagine the jokes in Friends are easier to translate than those in Seinfeld (whereas that issue is less influential with subtitles, since then you can always hear the source material).

That occurred to me as well, but also with just the tone of voice, in Jerry's mocking for instance. I have heard some baaaad dubbing.

[russdm]

You've heard of the genre of tragedy, right? That's what Breaking Bad is. If you don't like tragedies, that's cool. But there's a reason tragedies are popular.

I thought it was supposed to be a drama, not a tragedy.

[An Enemy Spy]

I thought it was supposed to be a drama, not a tragedy.

I don't think those two are mutually exclusive. And yes, Breaking Bad is absolutely a tragedy. It follows the story of a man who sets out with good intentions and in the end he tears apart the family he was trying to provide for, ruins the life of the young man he took under his wing, and the empire he built comes crashing down around him. If that doesn't sound like a Greek tragedy, I don't know what does.

[Bohandas]

I don't think those two are mutually exclusive.

Indeed, they overlap mor often than not. It's comedy that is incompatible with drama

[Rodin]

Indeed, they overlap mor often than not. It's comedy that is incompatible with drama

I don't think even that's accurate. "Dramedy" is a term for a reason, after all. You can have stories dealing with serious issues in a comedic way, and vice-versa.

[BannedInSchool]

I don't think even that's accurate. "Dramedy" is a term for a reason, after all. You can have stories dealing with serious issues in a comedic way, and vice-versa.

Eh, the far end of comedy that's all gags would be weird to blend with drama, but a drama could have a lot of humor mixed into it. Only old films immediately came to mind, but IMBD categorizes Jerry Maquire and The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain as both Drama and Comedy. Ah, I can click on a category. Other movies also listed as Drama when showing Comedies: War Dogs, Florence Foster Jenkins, Café Society, A Hologram for the King, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Lobster, Mother's Day. And that's in the first 25 comedies listed.

[Avilan the Grey]

Indeed, they overlap mor often than not. It's comedy that is incompatible with drama

One of the most popular TV series in the history of everything disagrees with you:

M.A.S.H. , which basically introduced "Dramady" as a concept.

[Darth Ultron]

Plus a huge number of plots that could have been solved simply by having a cell phone

So, according to my niece who is 16, one of the big things that makes Friends popular is that it has no cell phones. ''People on the show don't call or text, they meet each other in real life and hang out''. This is a huge draw for the generation or two that are social media cell phone junkies.....but might not want to be.

[Velaryon]

The popularity of Friends seems a little more persistent to me, but probably only because it annoys me more. I found Seinfeld to be funny about one episode in five, on average. I could never stand Friends, as I found all six characters obnoxious, unfunny, and unrelatable. And David Schwimmer is just annoying to me regardless of what he says or does.

I think Seinfeld was the more creative and interesting of the shows, and probably the more influential as well. Without Seinfeld, I'm not sure a show like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia would ever have been made, and that would be a real tragedy. They took the idea of unlikable characters that you can still laugh at and made it into amazing comedy that's lasted what, nine or ten seasons now?

[Bohandas]

I could never stand Friends, as I found all six characters obnoxious, unfunny, and unrelatable.

Same here.