So what did I think of the final episode of "Friends?" It was an unpredictable episode with a predictable ending. I'm doing this separate from "Cowboy Pete," which I'll have a new one up of tomorrow.
I figured the twist involving Monica and Chandler becoming parents would be that the birth mother would change her mind, not that she was popping out twins (Chandler's delivery of the line, "Join me, won't you?" in urging Monica to come aboard on his rising panic underscores why Matthew Perry is one of the best comic actors alive.) And I figured Ross and Phoebe were heading to the wrong airport simply because they didn't ask which one to head to, a question any New Yorker would *always* ask, if nothing else because there's JFK and LaGuardia (let alone Newark) to distinguish between.
And I figured Ross and Rachel would wind up together for one simple reason: "Friends" has never been about being groundbreaking. It's about being a satisfying way to kill half an hour. Producing a finale episode that deals with Ross losing Rachel for good without being a bummer would have been an amazing challenge for the writers, and one that they apparently wanted no part of. Can't blame them in the least. Consequently, "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" remains the single best ending to a sitcom every.
What's interesting is that the finale of "Friends" really underscores the nature of "Happy ending." Happy endings only occur in fiction. In real life, all stories end sadly. "Until death do us part" sounds very romantic until, y'know, the death part. There were any number of moments in my first marriage where, if we'd faded to black and run the credits, it was a happy ending. For that matter, if I'd had the good grace to be run over by a truck seven years ago, that marriage would have been considered a success.
The truth is, Ross and Rachel won't make it as a couple. No way. Saying "We won't be stupid anymore" is nice, but it's not enough, because stupidity isn't the problem. The problem is, in the final analysis, they're still just two people who care only about what they themselves want. And the proof of that is that not once, not a single time in all the back and forth, did either of them consider what would be best for their daughter. Ross never said that he wanted he and Rachel and Emma to be a family. Rachel gave no consideration to the difficulties of being a single mother raising a child in a foreign country with no support system (her sole focus was the money and opportunity the job offered.) They wanted what they wanted with no real consideration given to the other's needs except in the most transitory of ways. Ross nobly decided to put Rachel's needs above his own; that self-sacrifice lasted, subjectively speaking, less than a week, at which point it was "Screw it, I want Rachel to stay with me." Interestingly he never once considered the notion of moving to Paris to be with *her* and their daughter. (As opposed to, I suspect, the far more adult and mature Frasier Crane whom, I suspect, is going to uproot and move to Chicago to be with his girlfriend.)
Am I making too big a deal out of it? Considering the massive amount of coverage it's gotten, no, I don't think so. The amount of ballyhoo elevates the amount of scrutiny to which something should be subjected. Plus the subject of fathers and their obligations toward doing all that's humanly possible for their daughters' best interest is something that I place a great deal of stock in...even when it comes to lightweight sitcom entertainment.
PAD
Different tastes.
"Satisfying way to kill a half hour"?
More like die of boredom.
Where I can watch reruns of GET SMART over and over or, in a different genre, any B5 episode (the unfortunately few written by a certain Peter David standing out even among that cream of televised crop) and where I've had to go to great lengths to get a DVD set of James Burke's original CONNECTIONS series because I've been wearing out the tapes, I almost fell asleep from lack of interest less than ten minutes into the only FRIENDS episode I tried to suffer through, and even the presence of one of my favourite actresses (Maggie Han) couldn't keep me from turning the figurative dial partway through the one and only SEINFELD I tried to sit through.
I guess it's a good thing the TV executives don't use me in their test audiences.
What happen at the end after Rachel showed up at Ross's door? My TIVO stopped recording at that point and I missed the very end!! =-(
Thanks,
James
"And the proof of that is that not once, not a single time in all the back and forth, did either of them consider what would be best for their daughter."
My wife and I were saying the same thing last night. Where does Emma fit into the equation? That has been a running question in my house since she was born.
The thing to consider about writing this show is the core audience they are trying to reach. The demographic they are appealing to is, for the most part, not a demographic loaded with sons and daughters. Kids don't come to the forefront of their lives, so they wouldn't necessarily "identify" with the part children play in a parent's life.
Let's not forget that Phoebe had surrogate triplets many a season ago, and yet we never hear a thing about them. Ben, Ross' child from his first marriage, hasn't been seen in years.
I've always seen the children of Friends as a way to keep the parents of their target demographic from losing interest in the growth of the characters.
Yes, I was sort of offended by how Emma was not part of the equation for Ross and Rachel. Of course, I'm traditional enough that I think they should have married and at least *tried* to make the relationship work when Emma was born.
That said, I can't imagine any mother uprooting her child, even one as young from Emma, from her whole family -- two sets of grandparents, her aunts and uncles, and, oh yeah, her father, who rather than possibly seeing her every day would see her once a month at best.
This *wouldn't* be a good thing to do for Emma. Sure, she might make friends in Paris (with a single mother who has a tremendously demanding job and would probably have to leave her with a nanny a great deal of the time) but she might also be horribly alone. Compare that with her life in New York with what we know is a loving extended family and Rachel essentially made a lifestyle altering change for Emma (I don't think I'm being facetious -- we're talking about Emma potentially winding up a completely different person than if she were raised near in family in New York).
All this for a job, when we've seen that Rachel has held a job for about two years at the most. It's not even like moving to be with someone you love (that generally has a more open-ended future).
And if I were Ross, I wouldn't be racing to the airport to keep Rachel here, I would be doing so to keep my daughter in my life. As goofy as Mrs. Doubtfire was, I imagine many single fathers can empathize with the line, "I need to see my children every day, not just on weekends."
I worked last night, so taping "Friends" would have meant missing "Tripping the Rift" -- and comedy with a crude purple space captain with lots of head tentacles trumps Pretty White People With Problems (to use an old Mad TV line) every time!
"Friends" has always been superficial. Early on half of them were supposedly poor (Phoebe was a street performer, Monica was unemployed, Rachel was a waitress), and they had two massive Manhattan apartments; they also dressed perfectly. A recent article in Time or Newsweek pointed out that the show was so light, even normally controversial events (gay marriage, single parenthood) came & went on the show with no real attention and lasting consequences. The article also pointed out that the show pretty much forgot about Ross's other child, Ben. (From the comments above, I'm guessing he was barely or not mentioned in the finale.)
As for Ross & Rachel, I definitely could not care less. "Friends" has been one of the worst offenders of the A-B, B-A, A-B formula. Person A has a thing for Person B, but Person B doesn't know it. Person B find out and feels for Person A, but by then Person A is with someone else. Then Person A falls for Person B, but by this time Person B is unavailable, and so on. Eris knows how many times "Friends" has run to this well. (The runner-up for this was "Frasier," but they wrapped that up with Niles and Daphne's marriage. And they didn't have them breaking up and making up every few weeks.)
I won't miss the show. While it did have some funny moments, overall it was mediocre excapism at best.
Now let's get ready to discuss the "Invader Zim" DVD out Tuesday!
Agreed about the Emma angle of things...but (and don't laugh, everybody's got one)...
yes, you're all reading WAY too much into it. the show isn't (and has never claimed to be) anything but good escapist fantasy fun. that's why 9/11 was never mentioned. that's why they can own a huge apartment in manhattan but seemingly be unemployed at least half of the time. that's why 6 people can spend so much time together, and never once in 10 years have a (serious) fight.
suspension of disbelief. embrace it for you'll enjoy movies and tv that much more :)
I think PAD hit the nail on the head. Friends was never about being a breaking ground series. It's a very conventional sitcom, which is why I knew from season one that Ross and Rachel would never have their "together forever" until the very last episode. It's also why I knew Eric wouldn't decide to keep her babies. I'm just thankful they got the retrospective crap out of the way in the first hour, rather than make a clip show like Seinfeld did.
A more daring final episode was Cheers, where Sam decides that he's happy with his life rather than chase one last chance at "forever" with Diane.
As for kids on Friends, yeah, it was annoying how they were just props to be brought out when a joke was needed. I think the writers were petrified of turning the show into a family sitcom instead of one about urban twentysomethings.
Friends was never ground breaking like the way Seinfeld was. So there shouldn't had been any doubt that Ross and Rachel were finally going to get back together. Personally, my biggest disappointment since the birth of Emma, all of a sudden, Ross' son Ben seem to have vanished. Sure he got an honorable mention last night, but does anyone else find it amazing of the sloppiness of the writers to not have included Ben over the last few years? There should had been a story of him reacting to a new sister. Or if they wanted to write the character out, explain that he and the lesbian mothers have moved, or something.
that's why they can own a huge apartment in manhattan but seemingly be unemployed at least half of the time.
You know, I think the funniest line in the episode was Chandler's remark about how rent control made their apartment a "friggin' steal."
I didn't even consider Emma for a second. If the show is going to ignore her (as sitcom babies are traditionally ignored, from Murphy Brown's to, yes, Ross' first child), then I'm gonna ignore her, too. But it did tick me off that neither Ross, nor Rachel, nor anyone involved in the show, apparently, considered that ROSS could go to PARIS. What, they don't have paleontology in France?
Also, the duck and the chick? And the foosball table?? You REALLY want to spend your last show revisiting those things? Wow. Whatever. It's your hour, I guess. Still, at least it wasn't 50% clip show, like the cop-out final episode of Seinfeld.
James: What happen at the end after Rachel showed up at Ross's door? My TIVO stopped recording at that point and I missed the very end!! =-(
They cut to Monica's apartment where all six are finishing the move (Rachel's wrapped around Ross' neck).
Chandler cracks wise about the virtues of rent control. Joey mopes that the place is so empty. He also, hadn't noticed that the walls were purple (or pink). He's going to miss them so much!
Monica: Don't worry, I left 3 Lasagnas on your fridge.
Laugh track.
Monica realizes that at one time or another they all lived in that apartment.
More jokes about the virtues of rent control.
Phoebe points out that Ross hadn't lived there.
Monica explains that Ross lived one year with their Grandma (after college) 'cause he dreamed of becoming a dancer. (This coerced joke/revelation is there because...)
Monica tells Chandler she was asked to leave her keys behind, so she puts hers on the table; then follows Chandler.
Aparently Joey had his, still.
And Rachel too.
Phoebe (of course).
...and Ross (hence the joke).
They all agree they don't have to leave right now, and figure they could go for some coffee.
Chandler asks if they know of a place (this is taking place as they exit the apartment and move towards the hallway).
We pan through the empty apartment.
Six keys sit on the kitchen den, then the door... the end.
Credits... (nothing, be back next week for Frasier.)
I agree with your assessment of Friends but I would have to take issue with MTM as the best ending ever. Newhart's finale was simply the best ever, not just because you didn't see it coming but because it just felt right.
I was thinking Ross could've gone to court to keep his daughter in America, but considering Emaa went the way of Ben (not seen in ages) it was never a serious option.
Funniest moment of the night was right near the end, Ross and Rachel talking about being together forever, and Ross saying "..Unless we're on a break." Perhaps the total blandness of the rest of the episode amplified the funniness of the line, but a good laugh was needed at that point.
With Airport Harassment, I mean Security like it is, I'm surprised Rachel wasn't arrested for causing the "Airplane Falange"-scare...
Ross stated once before that he wouldn't move from New York, back when Emily wanted to live in London, because he wouldn't leave Ben. I'd assume that's probably the reason he didn't suggest moving to France as well.
JD
I second Newhart being the best ending ever.
And the crack about Ross and dancing lessons was unnecessary for the keys. It felt like a cheap laugh to me. Many people give out keys to friends/family. (to check on the place when you're out of town/let you in if you lock yourself out..etc) I'd expect Ross to have a key being Chandler's friend, and Monica's brother.
Phoebe was supposed to have twins, and had triplets instead. That joke had already been used, they just varied it slightly. (Though the line about Erica thinking "two heartbeats" meant hers and the baby's was funny...she must have failed health class if she thought the doctor could hear her heartbeat when listening in the area of her womb.)
I've always felt Schwimmer (Ross) was the best actor of the three guys -- not exactly saying much. (And the actress who plays Phoebe for the girls)
The best sitcom ending was The Odd Couple. Not all that likely, but at the same time, it acknowledged that Felix and Oscar would never stop being who they are, and it brought the right kind of closure.
Never watched Friends. Never plan to. Hate most sitcoms nowadays. I say, give me the classics of the 60s and 70s, and don't bother me with any of these raunchy, fiarly shallow shows. (After eight years of Joss Whedon, all sitcoms look bad.)
As a writer, even a corny one at that, I think the Romantic thing to do would have been to beat Rachel to Paris (and have the Airport/I love U/scene there). You know, on account that Ross was at JFK and Rachel was in Newark.
So in some ways, I figured that's what was going to happen because "the I changed my mind at the last possible minute and got off the plane" is so clichéd, and higly unlikely.
And of course, Ross could always apply for a Fulbright in Paris. In fact, his career could've been better off because of it.
On previous episodes Ross did mention that he couldn't leave Ben behind; eventhough the poor kid has been MIA for the last 36 episodes. So that's that.
Either way, the show Friends has never sacrified trendiness for substance (so I doubt they would start now). Plus I understand the fact that they wanted the last scene to showcase all six.
(I wonder if PAD would've done a Flashforward or Flashback in that situation.)
On the subject of up rooting Emma, I have to disagree. She is small enough were her self awareness of the situation would have been minimal. Plus, she could have benefited from the exposure to various languages. This is a thing that I've talked with professionals about and they all agree that the time to move (for those of us with families seeking career advancement) is when the kids are still small (and to some degree, more resilient). The move would've been more devastating to a six or seven year old. Coincidentally, I know of sixteen and seventeen year olds whom even though they were ready to go to college, were devastated by a move on their junior and senior years because the curriculum did not translate well from one school to another (and that sort of opened a new can of worms).
On a lighter note, did any one keep thinking... "Oh!!! I bet NOW is when the Homeland Security People will take Rachel away. Nope? Maybe NOW!!!"
Honestly, how could any three people cause that much disruption in an airport and not get arrested in this day and age?
On a lighter note, did any one keep thinking... "Oh!!! I bet NOW is when the Homeland Security People will take Rachel away. Nope? Maybe NOW!!!"
I really thought the left falange incident would've put her on the "no fly" list.
I kept thinking at the end: this isn't the end of a series, this is the end of an apartment.
Aside from that, everything is pretty much status quo enough to continue the series should they want to.
The episode itself was pretty solid, when not scrutinized too closely. Good fun, some good jokes, some nods to running gags and themes. I had fun watching it but they played it very, very safe...
"I agree with your assessment of Friends but I would have to take issue with MTM as the best ending ever. Newhart's finale was simply the best ever, not just because you didn't see it coming but because it just felt right."
"Newhart" was a great ending, granted, but it required knowledge of another television series in order to understand it. Granted,chances are that anyone watching "Newhart" had also been a fan of "The Bob Newhart Show," but you can't assume that. On that basis, the end of "Newhart" was essentially an in-joke, and if you weren't in on it, then it left you scratching your head.
Whereas the final episode of "MTM" worked entirely within the context of the series. It contained the glorious twist of the single most incompetent person at WJM keeping his job while everyone else gets fired. It had the priceless visual gag of everyone in one clump shuffling from one side of the room to the other. And it forever hijacked the song "It's a Long Way to Tipperary."
PAD
Oh, and just for the record...I did see the ending coming in "Newhart."
I was sitting there with my then-wife, I saw Bob get hit in the head with a golfball, and I said, "Watch him wake up next to Suzanne Pleshette and the whole series was a dream." Twenty seconds later, that's exactly what happened.
My future ex looked daggers at me. In retrospect, that might have been the beginning of the end of the marriage, right there.
PAD
They actually did address the reason for the apartment being so affordable many many years ago. (Third season, at the latest.)
It's a silly sit-com. It gave me a number of laughs. I enjoyed it for 10 years. It had a predictable, but Feel Good ending. And it had enough "Serious Real World Logic Flaws" in its premise that it made for a great drinking game. But so what? It was a fun show.
I'm surprised at the amount of vitriole it brings out in people sometimes. (And then we can start with, "Oh, but it doesn't bother you that Superman has x-ray vision," etc. etc.)
I just like to laugh sometimes.
Agreed about NEWHART being the most clever and original (not to mention funny) ending.
I'd nominate the last episode of season 1 of MURDER ONE (season 2 was so different it may as well have been another show entirely) if it weren't the wrong genre. If only for the tag line of the (finally revealed) killer telling (attorney) Hoffman "I want you to know. I enjoyed killing her. I took great pleasure in strangling her with my own hands." To which Hoffman, on his way out, dryly replies "Some free legal advice: I wouldn't make that the cornerstone of your defense."
B5 should get it, given how solid the rest of the series was, but two things made the last episode less than perfect for me. The contract problems with Christian had her out of the last season and someone else taking her place in the B5 organization, but she's back in the finale and, because it was shot the year before, the prominent new character wasn't. Too, they didn't cover the Telepath War, nor whatever happened to Bester.
Missed the ODD COUPLE one, however. How did that work out?
Excellent review. The bit about Ross and Rachel's attitude towards Emma reminded me of this National Review column I just read at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/hibbs/hibbs200405070850.asp
Who says liberals and conservatives can't agree every once in a blue moon?
As for my opinion on the finale: good, but not great...and no Dr. Drake Ramore in the clip show?!? Blasphemy!
-Dave O'Connell
I didn't watch the last episode. Frankly, I was just "Friend-ed" out after all the hype.
I do really think too much is being read into a sitcom. I mean, the very fact that it's a "situation COMEDY' divorces it from any "reality" in my view.
I mean, come on, during the entire ten year run, only ONE black person even had a recurring role on the show. In NEW YORK, of all places and NO H ispanics as far as I know. (Incidentally, the USA TODAY ran a picture of actors and their recurring roles on Friends. Guess who was missing?" Admittedly, the list was all comprehensive, but for simple notoriety's sake it should have been there)
Re: The Odd Couple - I hope anyone who cares has seen this. I thus warn you otherwise of a spoiler...
Felix finally loosens up just a bit and remarries his ex-wife. It was a bit unlikely that such a thing would happen in real life, but it felt right.
As adorable as Jennifer Aniston was/is-- the "Friends" writers have been characterizing Rachel as being more self-obsessed than ever during the show's last several years.
So much so, that I quit watching "Friends" altogether a few years back. (Rachel was my favorite character.)
So it was no surprise, when I came back to the show about a year ago-- that none of Rachel's main character traits had changed with Emma's birth.
Under those circumstances, her deciding to leave without considering Emma into the equation seemed perfectly natural.
I would like to note, however, that Courtney Cox looked absolutely stunning pregnant on "The Tonight Show"-- proving once again that actresses who practice near anorexia is a bad, bad, thing.
While I agree that the ending for MTM and Newhart were classics, my all time favorite ending is, without a doubt, the final episode of "St. Elsewhere". Classic!
Den,
The funny thing about the falangee thing is that it wasn't Rachel's fault. She simply had the "bad luck" to be seated next to a (literally) raving paranoid. She was obviously being rational & reasonable about the whole thing, in fact trying to distance herself from the whole paranoid scene, right up until the plane was completely emptied. It was the stunt that we heard over the answering machine that would have gotten her black-listed.
"(Incidentally, the USA TODAY ran a picture of actors and their recurring roles on Friends. Guess who was missing?" Admittedly, the list was all comprehensive, but for simple notoriety's sake it should have been there)" - EClark1849
I'm guessing Aisha Tyler as Charlie...which is really odd considering that Greg Kinnear is there, and his role was dependent upon Charlie's character existing (he showed up to win her back from Ross).
Have to say thumbs down to Mary Tyler Moore being
the "best" finale. If you can't go with Newhart,
then you've got to consider MASH. I thought
St. Elsewhere was clever, but I wasn't a fan.
Some who were said they felt cheated.
Kindof thought the ending might involve Ross going
to France, but this worked out just as well.
Will they continue as a couple? Doesn't matter.
They're forever locked into limbo as a couple
walking off into the sunset. Or to the coffee
shop.
I thought Ross might propose, but then, I figured
they'll probably save that for a Joey sweeps
episode. I think it's going to need all the help it can get.
I hesitate to mention this. This is just a
whacky notion that hit me during this week's
Frasier. I agree with PAD that Frasier will
probably be moving to Chicago. It's easy to
presume that from the previews.
I wonder if he'll set up shop as a psychiatrist?
Maybe buy out a retiring doctor's practice?
sadly enough, in this day and age, the self obsessiveness I think is a pretty accurate portrayal of how people act. Selflessness and consideration of others - even when it comes to family or children went the way of the dodo a long time ago. I would imagine both Rachel and Ross's behavior are pretty typical.
The funny thing about the falangee thing is that it wasn't Rachel's fault. She simply had the "bad luck" to be seated next to a (literally) raving paranoid.
But that's what would've made her getting banned funny! Because it wasn't her fault.
As for my opinion on the finale: good, but not great...and no Dr. Drake Ramore in the clip show?!? Blasphemy!
He was in it. They aired the shot of him taking his tumble down the elevator shaft.
I forgot to watch FRIENDS last night as I was in the middle of listening to King Crimson's most recent cd.
My favorite last comedy episode was BARNEY MILLER.
SPOILIER WARNING
BARNEY MILLER ended with all of the detectives going their separate ways as their building was delcared a historical monument since it was discovered that Teddy Roosevelt worked out of it when he was NYC's Police Commissioner. What I remembered was that Barney finally made it to Inspector. I won't tell you anymore in case any of you who don't know are interested in actually seeing the episode.
As for NEWHART, Peter, is it possible that you heard of the ending earlier? The reason I say this is that a friend told me of the ending a year previously when it looked like the show was going off the air at that point in time. I assume that the script was being held in reserve for quite a while.
J. Alex
Actually, I think fullest appreciation of the "Newhart" finale required knowledge of two other shows - not only "The Bob Newhart Show", but also the incredibly cheap "Bobby shower" routine in "Dallas". Newhart, in his traditionally understated way, thoroughly skewered his (former) employer, CBS, in that scene. I loved every second of it. :)
Honestly cant say with the exception of checking out Jennifer Aniston or catching something funny from Matt Perry while flipping channels i ever watched Friends or truly understood the appeal.Of course i dont get Seinfeld either.This is not a slam on the shows ,there are people who think im a moron for enjoying Angel,and Smallville on a regular basis.Different strokes is all it is.
Besides i hate getting involved in too much series television as it seems like a lot of the shows i enjoy become cancelled not too long after i begin watching.Murder One ,Twin peaks,American gothic just to name a few.
As far as series finales go one of my favorites /least favorites was Quantum Leap the fact that they mention Sam never returned home was kind of a downer even though Al was reunited with his one true love.Worst series finale had to be the Xfiles.My god what a mess the last season and a half of that show was with the quest for Mulder episodes (ugh)
Off topic saw that Charisma Carpenter is going to be in Playboy.Be still my beating heart!!!!
Kelsey Grammar is already making noises about wanting to return to the character of Frasier in a different city with a different supporting case. Chicago would probably work.
Personally, I hope they don't do it. I was tired of the character about five seasons ago. It would have to be an amazing new ensemble to breathe new life into the character.
I'm mad they had Duck Junior and Chick Junior but no Marcel Junior. That is all.
And here, I always thought Charles Schulz had been the one to hijack "Long Way to Tipperary." It was weird to be watching MTM and be reminded of WWI.
The thing I adore most about this thread is that people are actually CONSIDERATE enough to put spoiler warnings in front of show descriptions for:
Barney Miller, St, Elsewhere, Newhart, Mary Tyler Moore, etc.!!
I guess with the rapid proliferation of TV DVD box set collections-- you can NEVER be too careful whose $69.95 + investment you might be ruining!
And, young whippersnapper that I am, I connect "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" with Crow T. Robot in the MST3K movie.
Hey, where'd everybody go?
(I'm sure I'd have loved the MTM finale, having heard so much about it and the series as a whole ... but a bit before my time. MASH, yes; Cheers, yes; MTM, no.)
TWL
Off topic saw that Charisma Carpenter is going to be in Playboy.Be still my beating heart!!!!
Possibly the most disappointing layout in a trend of disappointing celebrity layouts. Better pictures pretty much anyplace else she's been featured.
I definitely agree with Peter, and with those of you who thought the ending of FRIENDS was, uh, flat...especially the whole Rachel/Ross thing!!! Others here have already pointed out the Emma thing, so I won't go there again...
There were some great bits...my favorite being Joey saying to Ross..."could you get me a muffin?"
BTW, the hype wasn't over last night...at work today the television in the lounge was tuned to OPRAH, and it was Oprah doing her obsequesious and fawning best (I swear that woman gives James Lipton a run for his money!) with the cast.
One tidbit I did find out about Matt Le Blanc in, of places, IN STYLE magazine...he dyes his hair because he is gray!
Mindy
Re: best Sitcom finales: Has everyone else forgotten "Goodbye, Farewell, Amen"? Now _that_ was a way to end a series.
But what do I know; I liked the Cheers and Seinfeld finales better than Newhart's any old day...
The most hilarious comment on the "Friends" finale has to go to Jon Stewart.
I'm paraphrasing here but he said something close to:
"Folks, I don't even watch the show and I'm sick of it."
PAD, I notice a couple of mentions of your 1st marriage on the blog today. Anything else to say? Just curiosity from someone who has followed your work but not much in your personal life (I think I remember figuring it out from the dedications in the "Imzadi" books)
I loved it, perhaps because I have maintained a policy of watching Friends only every year or so because the episodes are so much the same. I was curious to see how they'd wrap it up, so I made this one of them. And as always, it was very good for what it is: classic clean screwball comedy.
I agree w/ PADguy that Perry is a terrific comic actor. The whole cast, actually, is head & shoulders above almost anybody else working on TV today at that brand of comedy.
Objections to the repetitiveness & lack of development miss the point. Look, sticoms are like comic books. They're not REALLY sequential, they're theme-and-variations. They pretend to be sequential to keep you coming back. Over ten years, they repeat ad nauseam. And that's ok. There are occasional actual changes (examples chosen not-quite-at-random: Aquaman losing a hand, Hulk turning out to be an MPD shapeshifter), but basically, it's SUPPOSED to repeat the classic stuff. Just like all Roman comedies had the same 6 characters bashing each other over the head w/ sausages.
Sure, there are shows w/ real changes & growth, like All in the Family. But these are pushing the boundaries of the form. Nothing wrong with just doing the form very very well.
You know, I was watching the ending of the show, wondering just who was keeping Emma, because she didn't appear with Ross or Rachel at all... and then it dawned on me that Ross moving to Paris would not only keep him with Rachel and Emma, but also put him close to Ben (who is in Germany, I think?)... and it just seemed so... odd (well, actually, stupid)... that they wouldn't go with that ending for Ross and Rachel instead. You know, Rachel get's off the plane, and Ross say "We're both moving to Paris", or is having tenure -that- important to him?
I think the Sienfield ending was worse, but at the same time, it perfectly captured the lives of those four characters. In the final analysis, the Sienfield cast were a comletely unlikable group of people, but *damn* they were funny. The Friends cast were mostly as unlikable, but not nearly as funny.
PAD says: "Matthew Perry is one of the best comic actors alive"
I agree...THE WHOLE 9 YARDS is one of my favorite guilty pleasures, due almost entirely to the nude shots of Amanda Peet, by which of course I mean Matthew Perry's hysterical performance. Ok, it's basically Chandler as a dentist but it's great. Didn't bother seeing the sequel, there was just no earthly reason for that movie to exist.
Speaking of series ending...they say that the next Godzilla movie (which looks like a mofo, what with about 20 different monsters and direction by the certifiable madman who made VERSUS) is the last one...ever! Life would have little meaning if it weren't for the fact that I've heard this tune before. The Big G will outlast us all.
So do you figure that Rachel remembered to call
her mother, or were she and Emma over the Atlantic
while the "friends" were saying goodbye?
...well, the finale was self-aware enough to have one of the characters (was it Chandler or was it Monica) even say 'it's like the end of an era', so it gets points for that...
Plus, it really beats the saccharine ending to 'Family Ties'. ugh
but, no, nowhere near as cool as 'Newhart' or 'MASH'. Heck, even 'Twin Peaks' had the whole 'Where's Annie! Where's Annie!' freak-out at the end - it didn't justify the fact that the show should have ended a half-dozen episodes earlier (or, my pick, never ended at all), but it did add a suitably creepy/wonky ending to the whole series.
But when you get right down to it, at least it is over :)
That's "How's Annie?", not "Where's Annie?"
One of the creepiest moments network TV had that year. Brr.
TWL
As the moderator of the Friends boards at Nitcentral, (the board for the finale is at http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/21963/23974.html?1083986897) I thought it was pretty good (as were the two episodes preceding it), particularly given the overall low quality this season. While I could’ve done without the nauseating clip show (the fourth or fifth one of the series) cluttering up my tape before the real finale began, the actual episode was good. The jokes were pretty good, and I liked the developments. And even though the resolution of the Rachel/Ross story was somewhat pre-ordained for years, I really liked the execution of it, a vast improvement over the “development” in the previous episode. And the final scene? Perfect.
Peter David: Interestingly he never once considered the notion of moving to Paris to be with *her* and their daughter.
Luigi Novi: Well, maybe because doing so would mean that he’d have to leave his SON in the States with his mother, and wouldn’t be able to see him.
Peter David: Am I making too big a deal out of it? Considering the massive amount of coverage it's gotten, no, I don't think so. The amount of ballyhoo elevates the amount of scrutiny to which something should be subjected. Plus the subject of fathers and their obligations toward doing all that's humanly possible for their daughters' best interest is something that I place a great deal of stock in...even when it comes to lightweight sitcom entertainment.
Luigi Novi: So why not make as big a deal over how they always leave their front doors unlocked? Isn’t that just as important a health and safety issue? :-)
It’s a fluffy, funny sitcom, Peter. It has hardly ever been “realistic.” I expected Emma to be a point of conversation, or even for Ross to flat-out forbid Rachel from going to France with her, since, if I understand U.S. custody laws correctly (let me know if I’m wrong), it’s illegal for a parent to remove a child from the country without the other parent’s consent. But when that point was glossed over, I moved on. It’s always been about the situations that could be made funny, not plausible scenarios. That’s why it’s called a SIT-com.
I agree that it was never meant to be ground-breaking, but I couldn’t help but notice that the characters lives did develop and experience change, making it more realistic character-wise than say, Star Trek: Voyager, which I found odd for a sitcom, which normally don’t do such things. I fell in love with these characters, which is far more than I can say for the ones on Seinfeld.
James: What happen at the end after Rachel showed up at Ross's door? My TIVO stopped recording at that point and I missed the very end!!
J. Alexander: I forgot to watch FRIENDS last night.
Luigi Novi: SPOILER WARNING: They embraced and kissed, and said that this time, no more messing around, no more being stupid, they wanted to be together. Ross then added… “Unless we’re on a break….”, and then was contrite for making that joke.
The next scene saw the six friends say goodbye to the now-empty apartment, which Phoebe pointed out every one of them has now lived in at one time or another. When Ross pointed out that he hadn’t, Monica reminded him about that summer during college when he lived with their grandmother when he was trying to be a dancer, a fact Ross lamented had gone unmentioned for almost ten years. Monica then said Traeger asked them to leave their keys on the counter on the way, which they they did.
All six of them.
They then walked out into the hallway towards the stairs, and into sitcom history.
END SPOILER WARNING.
If you want me to send you a tape with the entire ep, including those last two scenes, go to http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/21963/23974.html?1083986897, and post a request for it, and I’ll send you one. :-)
Bob Figarotta: Let's not forget that Phoebe had surrogate triplets many a season ago, and yet we never hear a thing about them.
Luigi Novi: Frank Jr. (Giovanni Ribisi) brought them by for Phoebe to take care of in The One Where Ross is Fine, the second episode of this season.
James Lynch: "Friends" has always been superficial. Early on half of them were supposedly poor (Phoebe was a street performer, Monica was unemployed, Rachel was a waitress), and they had two massive Manhattan apartments;
Luigi Novi: Monica was not unemployed; she was a chef. She did spend most of the second season and more than half of the third season as a waitress in a theme diner after losing her chef’s job, but soon regained another. Joey was the third member of the “poor half” when he was a sporadically-employed actor. I don’t know if Joey and Chandler’s apartment counts as “massive,” but Monica and Rachel’s was rent-controlled because the lease was in Monica’s late grandmother’s name, who originally lived there.
Charlie Griefer: yes, you're all reading WAY too much into it. the show isn't (and has never claimed to be) anything but good escapist fantasy fun. that's why 9/11 was never mentioned.
Luigi Novi: 9/11 was mentioned in a title card tribute to the people of New York City at the end of the (IIRC) 8th season premiere.
Charlie Griefer: that's why they can own a huge apartment in manhattan but seemingly be unemployed at least half of the time.
Luigi Novi: The only one of the four who lived in those two main apartments whom it could be said was employed that much was Joey, and only until the seventh season, when he regained his soap opera gig. Even then, it would be more accurate to say his work was sporadic.
red-Ricky: Phoebe points out that Ross hadn't lived there.
Luigi Novi: No, Phoebe was the one who pointed out that they had all lived there. Ross was the one who said he didn’t.
red-Ricky: Monica explains that Ross lived one year with their Grandma (after college)…
Luigi Novi: He spent a summer living there during college, actually.
Bladestar: With Airport Harassment, I mean Security like it is, I'm surprised Rachel wasn't arrested for causing the "Airplane Falange"-scare...
Den: I really thought the left falange incident would've put her on the "no fly" list.
Luigi Novi: Rachel didn’t start it. It was the wimp sitting next to her that started screaming it to everyone after he overheard her on the phone with Phoebe. No one else even knew that Rachel had anything to do with it except that one weenie, so wouldn’t have been able to arrest her for it.
John: Phoebe was supposed to have twins, and had triplets instead.
Luigi Novi: No, that never happened. There were never supposed to be twins. Frank Jr. and Alice wanted a baby. The invitro thingee resulted in three. There was never any talk of twins.
Dean O: Off topic saw that Charisma Carpenter is going to be in Playboy.Be still my beating heart!!!!
Luigi Novi: As well as other such body parts, no doubt. :-)
Slick: and then it dawned on me that Ross moving to Paris would not only keep him with Rachel and Emma, but also put him close to Ben (who is in Germany, I think?)
Luigi Novi: No, he lives in the city with his mother Carol and his mother’s lesbian life partner, Susan.
MAN, I watch that show too much. :-)
No, I had absolutely no previous knowledge of the ending of "Newhart."
As for the finale of "MASH"...no. Oh, God no. Overblown, overlong, hopelessly padded, incredibly depressing and, ultimately, a cheat. We were repeatedly told we would see them go home. We didn't. We saw them leave the MASH unit, but that's not the same thing. I wanted to see BJ hug his wife and kid, I wanted to see Hawkeye's dad. We saw none of that and it was an incredible letdown. Any number of episodes of MASH were infinitely superior to the finale, including--if you want a "going home" motife--Henry Blake's farewell.
Besides, I was talking about sitcoms, and there was nothing comedic about that final two hour echhstravaganza.
Now if you're talking the best final episode of a dramatic series, then, kiddies, you're talking "The Fugitive," one of the most widely series wrap-ups in history.
PAD
I gave up on Friends sometime between seasons 4 and 5 myself because there always seemed to be something up against it that I was interested in, but unfortunately didn't last. Like "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" last year and "Tru Calling" this year. And before anyone complains, I sincerely hope I'm wrong and "Tru Calling" does get renewed, but remember: this IS Fox we're talking about.
Meanwhile, not to take anything away from all the comments I've heard about other great series finales, let's discuss another aspect of endings.
What do you think will happen in current hit TV shows when they end?
A few examples off the top of my head.
JAG: Harm finally comes to his senses, retires from the military outright, opens a private practice and marries Mac.
SIMPSONS: Homer's last brain cell (there can't be that many left to begin with!) dies, leaving Marge a widow. Marge then realizes that life in Springfield s*cks. She packs up the kids, moves somewhere else, and they all live happily forever.
Well, Ross didn't consider going with her because he had just made tenure at the school he was teaching at. Meanwhile, she had a job offer from her previous employer for the same amount as she was going to be making in Paris. Probably should've been mentioned in the finale, but at least, they had some reasoning. Likewise, most people would've missed the fact that the apartment was rent-controlled even though it was mentioned in a much earlier season. Everyone has seen some friends episodes, but few have bothered to watch them all.
First, on Friends: I thought the character of Phoebe got shafted in the episode, all in all. Except for a bit mentioned in the beginning, she hardly got any real attention at all. It seemed like all of the others, whether it was Joey dealing with the others leaving, Chandler and Monica with the kids, and Rachel and Ross with each other (unless they're on a break. I loved that line.), got to wrap matters up and get some closure in their lives. Now, maybe the rest of the season already took care of that for Phoebe; I haven't seen it, so I don't know. But it seems like the writers just didn't know what to do with her at the end. Which is a shame, because she was definately the most unique character. (Which may explain the difficulty)
As for endings in general, I think the one that stuck with me the most was the ending of the comedy "Dinosaurs". SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the episode, the father, Earl, is basically put in charge of the world and screws everything up, wiping out species, causing a global heatwave, and following through with a nuclear winter. In the end, the kids say something like, "I guess we'll just have to do things better when we're in charge", and it starts to snow, in such a way that you know that tomorrow isn't something that's going to happen for dinosaurs at all. The rather pointed environmental message aside, I remember finding it very disturbing that a comedy could end on such a dark and dispairing note.
My son and I used to call Friends "JAB," as in, "Let's watch JAB tonight," which stood for "Jennifer Aniston's Boobs."
We never complained about the silly plots. Except that I hated the monkey. I hear David Schwimmer hated the monkey too.
Peter: This is why I like you so much....you nailed on the head again!!! I completely agree with your sentiments on the final episode. They tried to fit to much in a small time period.I don't think it was well thought out but hey.....
You know, since we literally don't see Emma, this escaped me, but...
Rachel and Ross don't have a baby; they have a two-year-old. A baby can at least be passed from one off-screen person to another like a highly-demanding object; but a two-year-old? That kid should be running all over the place.
Be still my beating heart AS WELL AS OTHER BODY PARTS NO DOUBT ....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!
Pretty good ,i deserved that one !:)
Be still my beating heart AS WELL AS OTHER BODY PARTS NO DOUBT ....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!
Pretty good ,i deserved that one !:)
Yeah, but all that "beating" affects tends to affect your memory. :-)
Yeah, but all that "beating" affects tends to affect your memory. :-)
Saturday Night Live SPOILER WARNING:
The riff on the Rachel/Ross reunion in the opening skit on SNL just now was a riot. :-)
END SPOILER WARNING
I think the perfect Farscape ending would have been at the end of the phone call(where he's yelling if she got off the plane) if they would have chosen that point to show the credits.
That would have left folks in utter disbelief, which is how Farscape tends to end their cliffhangers..
One of SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE's better one-joke sketches was seeing Snoop Dogg incredibly depressed, and complaining to his homies, about how "Friends" was off the air and now he had nothing to do on Thursday nights now. It reminded me of all the complaints about the nearly-completely caucasian cast (and NYC world) to see one of the biggest rappers bemoaning the end of this whitebread sitcoms ("And with 'Frasier' going off next week, I don't know what I'll do.") 'Twas also fun to see his crew have no idea how to react, never having watched the show ("I liked the one where that blonde one--" "That was Phoebe" "Yeah, where Phoebe got hit in the nose with the baseball." "Yo, man, that was 'The Brady Bunch'!") It's easy to watch "Friends" (or now it's repeats) and see why there's a pretty big divide between the viewing habits of whites and blacks.
My feelings on the show were best summed up in an old Married... With Children ad campaign.
In the words of Al Bundy "Friends. Don't have 'em, don't want 'em, sure as hell don't want to watch 'em."
The writers missed a wonderful opportunity for a HUGE twist. Remember when Ross and Rachel got married in Las Vegas a few years back? Then, after they got back, Rachel insisted to a very hesitant Ross that he see a divorce lawyer (Ron Glass of "Barney Miller") and personally take care of the situation? At the end of that episode, Ross merely walked back into Central Perk and TOLD Rachel that he had seen the divorce lawyer ... BUT WE NEVER ACTUALLY EVER SAW HIM SEE THE LAWYER TO DO THIS! I honestly thought the writers had kept this plot point under their hat all this time -- that Ross never actually DID go back to the divorce lawyer and that Ross was the only one who knew that he and Rachel were really still married. This revelation would've been an inventive -- and VERY in-character -- way to wrap up things in the final episode. (Instead, all we got was 2 Bing babies instead of 1.)
Actually, If I recall correctly, that very next episode focused on Rachel finding out that Ross had not, indeed done as he said, and he got in big trouble over it. In other words, they've been that route, and it was resolved. Plus, that would be pretty skeevy, even for Ross.
Personally, I've always noticed that the age group currently in its mid-30s(Formerly known as the Gen-Xers) tend to pay attention to their kids a lot less than other age groups. (My dad's a pediatrician, and he's noted that generally the 40 year old and 20 year old parents in his practice have better parenting skills than the 30 year olds.)
This is also why we've had to put up with all this overzealous MPAA and rating systems crud in recent years. The parents want the government to raise their children for them.
It's my personal opinion that Friends was never a masterpiece but I don't think it was ever meant to be one. It was however meant to be funny and I find that that's something that it excelled at most of the time; so it deserves my praise for a job well done.
Someone else mentioned here that the finale didn't feel so much as the end of the series but rather the end of the apartment, and I have to agree with that. Monica and Chandler moved upstate, but their jobs are still in the city so there's no reason they shouldn't all be able to continue to hang out almost as much in the future. That's why I thought that in the end Rachel would go to Paris, and Ross would follow her there (why would his desire not to be far from Ben be any stronger than not being far from Emma?); and I also thought that they'd have at least planted the seed of Joey's move to LA, so that it would be clear that the group dynamic could remain the same.
I agree also with PAD that Ross and Rachel will probably not last (or at least have a very bumpy ride ahead of them), I was thinking the exact same thing as I watched it; and I'm sure that Ross was too, hence his "on a break" joke.
I wish they had fast-forwarded through time a bit so that we could have had glimpses of the characters' fates. That's one thing I loved about another series finale which I coincidently just happened to see again tonight: "Mad About You". It was infinitely better and probably the best sitcom finale that I have seen (never saw the MTM one so I can't compare), and I loved that they cast Janeane Garofalo as the grown Mabel.
I'm not going to spoil things for those who might not have seen it, but it gave us a good sense of closure and a feeling that the show could have gone on for years, with the situations and ideas changing as time went by. Plus the "where are they now" that ran during the closing credits was fun and even had loose ties to Friends with the reveal that Ursula eventually becomes the Governor of New York (hey, stranger things have happened in real life).
Raphy
I was going through this entire thread, waiting till the end, and I kept thinking about the MAD ABOUT YOU ending - it was, at the very least, one of the most satisfying series endings. Funny, poignant and completely appropriate.
As I recall, the final episode of Cheers actually did a flash-forward as well , as did VOYAGER (if you didn't see those episodes, I won't spoil them here) and I would've loved to see a flash-forward, say 20 years into the future for FRIENDS.
David
Saw only the final bit of the Mad About You finale, but I was about to bring it up too since it stuck in the mind so much.
So, is there going to be a "Frasier" talkback?
At least Roz knew where her daughter was, brought
her along to Martin's wedding (where she filled
in as flower girl), and took the new job that was
offered to her (Kenny's old management position).
Also, it had a monkey. Much cooler than Chick 2
and Duck 2.
Hmmm...the final Shelly Long episode (pre the final Cheers episode) did a flash-forward, but the series finale did not.
I enjoyed FRIENDS a great deal over the years. It wasn't ground-breaking, but it didn't have to be.
Obviously, this final year was padded. Really, Rachel and Ross should have gotten together when they became parents. It became obvious, that the FREINDS writers were going to make us wait until the very end of the series.
It's nice that they wrapped the ending up in a pretty package, but wouldn't it have been more realistic for Ross to move to Paris with Rachel?
I agree with PAD that Rachel and Ross don't have much chance of making it in the long haul. I imagine if we see a reunion show in 15-20 years, Chandler and Monica will be very happy, and R&R will be divorced and bitter.
(Delayed comment to this since the episode has only just been shown in the UK.)
I know what people mean about the unsatisfying aspects of Rachel's move to Paris. In a way, it reminds me of the final episode of "My Two Dads", where Joey's girlfriend got a job offer in a different city (or possibly country), and she'd be taking her baby daughter with her. Joey wanted her to stay, and said something like "You'll be taking her [baby] away from all her friends". Reply: "Well, I'm sure they'll write to each other, as soon as they've learnt how", i.e. it wouldn't be particularly disruptive. In the end, Joey wound up leaving with them. I can understand why Ross would be reluctant to do that (since tenure is extremely sought after in academia), but he should have at least considered it.
Coming back to "Friends", it doesn't bother me too much that we haven't seen much of Ben/Emma in the last couple of years, since we can assume it's going on off-camera (in the same way that we haven't seen much of people's time at work). To quote from one of the "Frasier" scene titles - "three weeks passed without anyone saying anything funny, and then...".
What bothers me a bit more is that we see Ross and Rachel together without Emma. In Ben's case, he's presumably with Carol and Susan, but it in Emma's case she'd either be with a babysitter or a grandparent. I can understand leaving her with other people during the day, so that Ross/Rachel can pursue their careers, but if you do that in the evenings too so that you can pursue your social life then I think that's misplaced priorities.