Why was "Friends" so popular?

[quote]Cast chemistry

Yes.

I think it was the first Gen X sitcom - the intro song definitely is Gen X angst.

What other show prior to this was centered around 6 friends in their 20s? Sure Seinfeld was a huge hit - but they were 30s/40s (or appeared older) and had more of a Boomer mentality.

Sarcastic, self-effacing, their lives aren't that great - it struck a chord with a lot of 20s and 30s in the same situation.

Some people say it was a rip-off of Living Single on Fox, which I believe debuted a year before (?). Could be - but I doubt it.

Lisa Kudrow and David Schwimmer were the brains behind that operation.

Friendless Frauen

Watching paint dry was better than Friends.

[quote]Some people say it was a rip-off of Living Single on Fox, which I believe debuted a year before (?).

You are correct. Living Single premiered in 1993, Friends a year later in 1994.

I'd rather half watch a comforting and kind funny Friends episode than browse through a dull complainer's dreary thread about it on DL.

I’d rather watch GG

I started watching it in reruns and got hooked almost immediately… same thing happened with The Office. But not Seinfeld.

Looked stupid to me -- I've never watched it.

Never watched Will and Grace either. Same reason.

Liked Seinfeld, though.

It was a fantasy version of NYC for Middle America.

"Friends" was an easy show that put a pat veneer on an idea that really gained traction in the 90s (maybe it came from "The Real World" on MTV earlier in the decade): this idea of young men and women living seamlessly and platonically together in urban rent-share apartments, navigating the ups and downs of romantic, professional, and creative life as quirky social equals. This was the great dream (and greater delusion) of the 90s.

FWIW, I never watched "Friends" and didn't relate to it at all. Ditto "Sex and the City," "Seinfeld," or any of the other shows set in New York that tried to approximate young people's reality.

I never watched it until it went into syndication. Take it for what it is - mindless entertainment that is sort of funny and basically harmless.

Some people say it was a rip-off of Living Single on Fox

Others say it was a copy of the Ellen sitcom originally called These Friends of Mine which debuted in March. Friends debuted in September.

R6 - apparently NBC wanted Cameron Crowe to make the film Singles into a sitcom but he passed, so they started working with others on the idea.

Warren Littlefield passed on Living Single and regretted it - so the origination story is a bit cloudy and stole from different ideas.

It did benefit from coming in after Seinfeld in its early days.

R16 - It was sandwiched between Mad About You and before Seinfeld - two huge hits. Probably one of the most enviable placements a new show could ask for.

Then Mad About You was moved and Friends was the intro at 8pm and boosted Caroline in the City and The Single Guy and that Brooke Shields show later.

Back when we watched network TV all night.

I can't even name a single sitcom that's currently airing on one of the big three networks. What a different world that was r17, everybody and their brother watched network tv back then.

[quote] The comedy wasn't particularly innovative.

I always thought that was one big reason for the success. The show didn't go against the viewers' conventions. There was nothing to get used to; it was instantly consumable - for years to come. And all the drama was predictably inconsequential because whatever happened, they would stay friends. I didn't mind this. Nowadays with the continuous deterioration of the country, silly and harmless entertainment is my go-to short term fix, so I don't have to shoot myself or the TV.

I still don't understand Jennifer Aniston.

Not many shows about 20 somethings on US TV back then. Yes as a lead or supporting character-- but an ensemble cast of young people and their lives was new. Save of course "living single". Like someone above said-- it was like a more scripted version of the Real World.

r20 I think it was the girl next door thing.

It was cleverly designed pleasure product that appeals to people's brains.

Most series are built on a formula and Friends formula was really strict.

3 stories per episode. A - main B - call it the subplot C - joke anecdote

In 20 something minutes. 3 acts. Introduction Development Conclusion

So Act 1 - Introduction A - main B - call it the subplot C - joke anecdote all introduced.

etc

etc

The mini story the "anecdote" has an arc, amazing, thought it only take a minute or two to play it out. In Act III. the solution of the anecdote is usually funny and the mind really likes the closure.

The cast was stellar and likable, and had great chemistry with each other.

Because they were THERE for each other.

The difference between Friends and other shows with static concepts and cast chemistry was how it resonated with the zeitgeist. There's a reason different creatives were working on ideas about groups of young singles living together in the city: this was happening, though less successfully, in real life. Friends was the fantasy.

Where everyone is good-looking, a professional chef cooks for them, work problems get resolved in the end, the banter is witty, and nothing fundamentally changes.

R18 - I'm with you - I just presume there are a ton of CSI, Law & Order, Chicago (fill in the blank), and Bachelor/Bachelorette crap.

Look at the network line-up for 2024-2025, it's AWFUL. Feels like cable stations than network.

Game shows, Police and Hospital crap, a smattering of sitcoms, sports and reality shows.

Original programming is dead. I don't understand how people can watch these FBI/CSI and hospital shows infinitum year in and year out. It's soooo repetitive.

Friends did not benefit from Seinfeld. Who is trying to rewrite that narrative. It got higher ratings in its first year than Seinfeld. Seinfeld was just starting to be a ratings success the season before Friends came out. The first couple seasons ratings bad to meh to just ok, and it was almost canceled twice but cultural taste— the “right” demographic along with critical acclaim. I almost want to say the year Friends came out, is when Seinfeld became a ratings juggernaut.

And Friends wasn’t the first Gen X sitcom. Both Living Single and Martin predate it.

If we want to be real about it, A Different World is the first Gen X sitcom that was also a mainstream success.

R26 Good looking?

R27 you are typing in a forum for old gay men who pursue the same interests over and over and over every year and then repeat them all again the next year. Or every season. Department Stores of Yesteryear, for example. Golden Girls. Sandra Bernard and Rosie.

Oooh department stores!

🫖 🍰 🧵

Apropos of living in an idealized NYC where nothing that bad occurs and attractive/well-groomed people all get along, 9/11 *never happened* in "Friends" NY. Weird.

Even SNL, which is (supposed to be) comedy, or at least comedic relief, has taken a beat to acknowledge tragedies IRL.

Was 911 in sex and the city?

R34 - there was a note on the season 8 premiere about it. But everyone was traumatized and needed escape.

SATC didn't address it either. Plenty of other people were - trauma isn't a great thing for a comedy show because if there is any light-hearted treatment of it - somebody is going to get offended.

Best to just skip it altogether. People were on edge. Nothing they said or did would be without criticism or comment.

R33 I didn’t make this thread you lunatic.

SATC did a subtle tribute in the final scene.

How could it have same director as W&G but be so unfunny?

r35 No. They did do an episode about fleet week that kind of nodded to patriotism at the time.

New York wasn't central to any of the plot elements of Friends. This was an idealized fictional world that could have been set in any urban area. It wasn't necessary to mention 9/11.

Speaking of comedy right after 9/11 (not "Friends," so ,off-topic), this was Jon Stewart's first "Daily Show" after 9/11--they went off the air for some days immediately after the events, so this was September 20-something, but I thought it did a decent job of acknowledging the scale of tragedy and finding some catharsis in humor.

I come down on the side of thinking you *had* to say *something* if your show was based in or on NYC. It was too cataclysmic an event to ignore. And, really, one of the smarmy things that TV and film do really well is emotional manipulation through the tragicomic.

R41 Friends New York seemed like Seattle. Just did.

r43 definitely. And why was the coffeehouse called Central Perk when it was in the Village?

R43 - I have to agree. It didn't feel particularly New York - and Seattle was huge culturally at that time. Plus, if they had wanted to make the film Singles into a sitcom - that would have a bit of that feel.

Seinfeld felt definitively NYC to me. Mad About You felt a lot more NYC than Friends did.

The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd was the best NYC show.

Maybe Friends doesn't seem much like NYC because it's farfetched to imagine that a bunch of young people working dumb jobs would be living in the city (and the Phoebe stereotype of a coffee-bar singer is more a Seattle thing), but it was definitely set in Greenwich Village.

I don't think Middle America or the rest of the Must See TV viewership would have batted an eye about a Greenwich Village coffee shop being called "Central Perk." It was just all New York-type references. In today's Manhattan, there would be 350 private-equity-funded Central Perks all over the freakin city, everywhere *but* Central Park.

There were a couple of years in the mid-90s when NYC, though very much on an upswing, was dotted with individually owned coffee shops; entire neighborhoods in Manhattan were still affordable, and cell phones were not widely owned or in use. Friends exists in that faraway bubble.

R48 - True - there were always coffee shops and coffee places (even just to get coffee at a deli from those blue and white Greek cups). I don't recall a huge push for Starbucks and chain coffee places like the rest of America saw. And I lived 2 blocks away from the original Friends apartment.

I wouldn't say entire neighborhoods were affordable in Manhattan - LES was still a dump then and maybe above 116th, but I can't think of any affordable neighborhoods in Manhattan in 1994. Maybe Hell's Kitchen/Clinton?

R47 Oh yeah I definitely agree. Hell, to middle America there is no difference between Brooklyn and Detroit. But as somewhat who partially grew up in New York, it just didn’t feel like New York. I mean sometimes it did Rachel as the JAP, Matt Le Blanc’s personality but them together as a core group of friends and the supporting characters, minus Janice and Jen’s dad. It just didn’t feel like New York overall. But yeah middle America couldn’t tell the difference, especially in the 90s before constant travel and 24/7 connectivity.

R48 Manhattan was not affordable for that class of young arrivals, in the 1990s. Possibly for Ross and Chandler. There was a backstory that one of the apartments was an auntie's rent control one.

Cast chemistry definitively. They worked together as a team very well. Most of them were very talented: I’d argue that David was most talented, but he and Jennifer worked even better as a team than they did separately. Courteney had the most experience and she had seen how the Seinfeld cast worked when she was a guest on it a few months before Friends started.

R51 - Monica’s grandmother, not aunt.

[quote]There was a backstory that one of the apartments was an auntie's rent control one.

R51, Monica's apartment was actually rent controlled in her Grandma's name.

And though it's not really mentioned, I think that Phoebe inherited her Grandmother's apartment after she died.

R45 - “ Seinfeld felt definitively NYC to me. Mad About You felt a lot more NYC than Friends did.”

Mad about You had several crossovers with Friends.

Because the 90s were a cultural wasteland, OP.

R54 - including Lisa Kudrow, who was great on Mad About You.

There was something about the styling of Cental Perk and Monica's apartment that felt somewhere else - Seattle was a good reference. It was even more Brooklyn (at the time) perhaps than Manhattan.

The most Manhattan apt on that show was Ross's apartment. Joey and Chandler's apt was - just not distinct/anywhere.

R54 - Yes. There were several episodes where Lisa played both Phoebe and Ursula. Lisa is very good at dramatic roles as well, such as The Opposite of Sex.

I think Friends also succeeded because it had just enough hugging: not too much like Family Ties and a lot of 80s show and not too little like Seinfeld.

That makes total sense, r15. When I watched Singles a few years ago, I felt like I was watching a big budget version of Friends.

They're both about people who have the trappings of adult success (nice homes and jobs) but spend all their time on immature drama like whether or not a boy likes them.

R59 - only a couple of them had real careers in both the film and on Friends. I wouldn't say they were that successful at all - which is identified in the intro song.

And yes - we all get caught up in dating and relationship drama in our 20s.

Bless your heart, r60. I was talking about the characters in the show/movie. Not the actors.

I still think their problems were a little juvenile for their age.

The cinematic companion to "Friends" is "Reality Bites". That crew is a bit younger than their NYC counterparts, and the setting is Texas but the angst is real, man.

that Brooke Shields show later.

R17 - Suddenly Susan 1996 - 2000.

I think it was the girl next door thing.

R22 - I think Aniston added some exoticism to the cast. Must have been her Greek sensuality. She could project beauty without really being beautiful.

Monica was the girl next door/Mother Hen. Phoebe was the kook.

R62 - Friends was not as angsty as Reality Bites. Not in the same ballpark.

Winona did have a memorable episode on Friends.

Oh dear R61!

Every time I tried to watch it, I always felt like if I lived in NY, these are the kind of people who would not be friends to me. Very hetronormative vibes with an undertone homophobic jokes.

As stated upthread, the idea indeed came from Cameron Crowe's movie, Singles. The Real World also certainly dovetailed with the zeitgeist of Gen Xers "bein' all in their 20s and living together" that was the mid-90's.

What I never realized until this thread is that Living Single, Martin, and even A Different World were not only first to do this kind of thing as a sitcom, but were entirely Black-focused. Obviously, Friends was not.

Didn't Boomers start this with Three's Company?

Both Living Single and Martin predate it.

R28 - I never saw Martin.

It was comfort television.

Never liked it. Tried to watch it but couldn’t.

Martin and Different World weren't really in this category - but they were definitely the first Gen X comedies. Facts of Life had people at school living together, so DIfferent World wasn't unique in that aspect.

I watched Living Single and Martin - as a young white gay in NYC - but a lot of young people of all ages watched Fox then. It was the hip, younger station - it had Arsenio and In Living Color and MadTV (? I think) as well.

Living Single is a close comparison - but it felt like it was more focused around the 4 women in the show, while the 2 guys were more secondary characters. It wasn't a 3 female/3 male cast with all having relatively equal parts.

That was the other part of Friends - they all had major parts. Yes, some story lines in the beginning focused on Rachel/Ross - but generally it was pretty even as if there were 6 leads. There was no 'main' character in Friends, unlike Seinfeld, Martin or even Living Single, which seemed to have Queen Latifah as the focus.

It was popular because it wasn’t unpopular, dopey Dan!

Do I have to spell everything out for you all???

R12 Seinfeld was binned to the 11.30 dead zone in the UK because it was just too niche and unrelatable - and Seinfeld (from the little I saw) just didn't translate

Nobody thought Friends reflected New York it was just sitcom land full of spoilt rich kids on what would be called now "the spectrum".

[quote]Seinfeld was binned to the 11.30 dead zone in the UK because it was just too niche and unrelatable - and Seinfeld (from the little I saw) just didn't translate

Seinfeld was not popular outside of the US because - there's really no other way to say this - it was very "Jewish" humor. The show was just too Jewy New York and it didn't translate internationally.

R76 - but it translated to Iowa and other areas not exactly known for Jewish humor.

You are right of course - it also bombed in Germany. But it didn't start off well in the US either - it took 2 seasons to get its footing. It was by no means an immediate success.

Then it took-off somehow and became water-cooler conversation, which was a phrase used a lot then.

I thought it was fine - but I was never ga-ga over it. I feel like it was a "you ever notice when..." shtick for middle-aged white people. I thought Kramer was supremely unfunny usually.

"Friends" (still available on Netflix, at the time) kept me sane and grounded during the 19 months it took me to secure employment, after being laid off from a long-term job, at the tender age of 58.

Wasn't Kudrow actually a bit older than the rest of the cast and yet playing someone in her 20s? I tried watching a couple of times but it wasn't funny plus I just couldn't relate to any of the cast or the premise. Never understood why it was so popular,

[quote]but it translated to Iowa and other areas not exactly known for Jewish humor.

Jewish humor plays all over the US, regardless of whether Jews live there or not. Outside the US it doesn't.

Birth years of the Friends cast:

Lisa Kudrow - 1963

Matt Leblanc - 1967

Matthew Perry - 1969

Courtney Cox - 1964

Jennifer Aniston - 1969

David Schwimmer - 1966

Kudrow was the oldest and technically a Boomer, not Gen X. If you go by 1964 as the year Gen X starts.

Kudrow made the show for me, really. I still watch it for her.

If you know, you know.

The characters were born 1967 to 1969.

What was amazing to me is how Courtney Cox, clearly the most beautiful woman on the show - there were some seasons where she was just arresting with that blue eyes, black hair combo - was somehow not pretty and Rachel was the hot one.

Same with the guys early on - Ross was NOT hot and less attractive than Matt Perry and Matt LeBlanc. Yet he was the one women were crushing on.

Somehow they wrote the characters so that hardly any of them had any sex appeal - at least to me.

One of the most brilliant episodes was the flashback in Season 2 when they were all in high school. Fat Monica, Rachel's old nose, Chandler's hair - just hilarious.

The show is god-awful. For some reason Britain is obsessed with it.

Seinfeld was pretty huge here in Australia

R86 - Rachel as the “hot” one did not take off until well into the second season.

Me too, OP. I'm a Boomer who thought it was a Gen X Seinfeld wannabe and couldn't relate.

Decades later, I would be a captive audience on JetBlue SFO-BOS 4 times a year for 5 years and ended up being pulled in by its easy to watch, mindless humor. Having a cocktail, then a glass of wine with the snack box while watching back to back Friends episodes became a ritual. When the entertainment system went down, I didn't care if I finished an episode or not.

I just can't read books, watch long movies, or sleep on planes.

My fiance, who flew BOS-SFO 4 times a year and is four years older, simply couldn't relate to it at all; he couldn't get past ambiguously employed perky white kids living in huge apartments in Manhattan.

Ross had a real job and I think Chandler did as well.

They all had jobs. But Monica, Rachel, and Joey had periods of unemployment.

And Phoebe was a handjob queen

R86 They wrote the characters to be everyone's friends not crushes. They were quirky, flawed and sometimes cartoonish sitcom characters. The writing at the time felt a bit more current in terms of dialogue. The show was very of its time. It was an international sensation and still lives on in syndication.

Could you imagine if Friends were made today? The all-white cast would be unacceptable.

R93 -

INTERVIEWER: Reason for leaving last job?

PHOEBE: Oh...yeah, they thought I was a whore.

I’m glad they never tried to “reboot” this show. It was fine and of it’s time, but needed to end when it did. It’s great to watch now as a bit of nostalgia.

This is a show, amongst many, that holds no appeal for me. What surprises me is the scale of its popularity, not necessarily that it's popular at all.

The writing wasn't funny enough to interest me. The set decor wasn't chic enough. The outfits weren't stylish enough and the cast wasn't good looking enough. Not a single thing is great enough to keep me interested.

I may be the only member of my generation (Gen X) who has never seen a complete episode of Friends. I've only seen clips of the show and from what I've seen it isn't all that funny. I was 18-28 during the original run of the show (1994-2004) and living in NYC and it was nothing like the NYC I was living in. AT ALL. It was like a Middle American Frau's version of what life in NYC was like. It just seemed so lame and "safe" to me.

I am Gen X and never watched it either. I was more likely to watch 90210 reruns than Friends.

R91 - Chandler was a mid level executive who specialized in statistical analysis and data reconfiguration. He was not a transponder.

R98 not everyone requires season subscriptions at La Scala and the Schaubühne.

NYC in the 90s was pretty wild if you were in your 20s. Obviously, a network tv show couldn't portray the reality of being a young person in NYC back in those days.

[quote][R91] - Chandler was a mid level executive who specialized in statistical analysis and data reconfiguration. He was not a transponder.

He was a transponster, you idiot.

It was a fad. It doesn’t hold up, otherwise it would have been reimagined by now.

The humour was just too bland and safe for me: the characters were all too nice and also (except David Schwimmer) too pretty. It would pass half an hour but I never really laughed at any of the jokes. I think it mainly functioned as a comfort blanket.

One of the main reasons is because there wasn't all that much to choose from. There were only three networks when Friends first aired and cable TV was nothing compared to what it is today.

So a large number of viewers chose to watch Friends. It was pretty funny, it had attractive characters, and occasionally could be a little soapy.

I didn't watch it then (because I did tape the soaps) but started watching it in reruns and still do occasionally. It's just easy to watch.

R104 -That’s not even a word.

R108, You and your steady hand. I’M NOT MOVING!