# "Friends" Reunion



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Kewl.

HBO Max Wants To Know, How You Doin'? As It Teases 'Friends' Reunion


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

That's a separate paid channel, no?  I just cruised through the zillion HBO channels I have and that's not one of them. The other one that's free if you have HBO is HBO Go. Kinda pisses me off that I pay a ton of $$$ to have all the HBO channels and I would have to pay more per month to get this one.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

sharkster said:


> That's a separate paid channel, no?  I just cruised through the zillion HBO channels I have and that's not one of them. The other one that's free if you have HBO is HBO Go. Kinda pisses me off that I pay a ton of $$$ to have all the HBO channels and I would have to pay more per month to get this one.


It's not available anywhere until May. If you subscribe to HBO directly, HBO Max will be the same price ($14.99) that HBO Now is currently. It's not entirely clear what will happen with HBO bought through cable companies.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

HBO Max is AT&T’s upcoming streaming service. It’s not really HBO in the sense that you are thinking of it; AT&T is just using the HBO brand to lend the service some cache.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> HBO Max is AT&T's upcoming streaming service. It's not really HBO in the sense that you are thinking of it; AT&T is just using the HBO brand to lend the service some cache.


Except it does include everything HBO currently has.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

_
"Have you heard about HBO Max? Looking to add another app and monthly charge to watch things? HBO Max has you covered. It's gonna have all your favorites. Reruns of The Big Bang Theory, reruns of Friends, reruns of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. You can pay for all of those through HBO Max. 
*HBO Max: It's not HBO. It's just TV.*"
 - Last Week Tonight, John Oliver _


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

realityboy said:


> Except it does include everything HBO currently has.


What I meant is that AT&T is using the HBO brand on a new product that is decidedly not what HBO has ever been. You happen to get the old product along with it.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> What I meant is that AT&T is using the HBO brand on a new product. You happen to get the old product along with it.


True, and with the Max, I would think it would include Cinemax which it does not. The marketing made this confusing.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Meh....unscripted/reality/docu/hyper reality...... meh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

realityboy said:


> True, and with the Max, I would think it would include Cinemax which it does not. The marketing made this confusing.


I thought they had olans to include Cinemax later.


----------



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> I thought they had olans to include Cinemax later.


From what I have read, AT&T is not shutting down Cinemax but people expect it to fade away. No new original content will be made for Cinemax.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

The HBO Max app will probably eventually replace both the HBO Now and HBO Go apps. HBO will basically morph into being the prestige content brand inside the broader HBO Max service. As you can see from this screenshot of a beta version of the app, it will feature branded content hubs, of which HBO is the main one, but over half of the content included will reside in one of the other hubs. In other words, HBO Max will offer everything HBO does plus a lot more. It will have over twice the number of hours of content as HBO alone does (in the HBO Go and HBO Now apps).










YouTube TV is the first cable TV service that they've struck a deal with but I expect all the big ones will follow suit -- Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Cox, Altice, Hulu with Live TV, etc. And what the means is that they won't sell "just HBO" any more. They'll sell HBO Max. You'll still get the HBO linear channels and its on-demand library via your cable box/app but if you want to access the rest of the content inside HBO Max, the non-HBO stuff, you'll probably need to use the separate HBO Max app. To use that app, you'll either need to authenticate your cable TV credentials (like you do now with HBO Go) or you'll need to have a standalone $15/mo subscription to HBO Max (like you do now with HBO Now).

No word yet whether the live linear HBO channels will be streamed inside the HBO Max app. But we do know that they later plan to offer an option bundle(s) of live cable channels in the HBO Max app, as Hulu already does. My guess is that they do include at least the main linear HBO channel in the app at launch. We'll see.


----------



## Hot4Bo (Apr 3, 2003)

I really have no need for HBO at all but I am hoping there will be a free trial so I can watch this one-time special and be done with it.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I think every service these days offers a 7-day trial...


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

sharkster said:


> That's a separate paid channel, no?  I just cruised through the zillion HBO channels I have and that's not one of them. The other one that's free if you have HBO is HBO Go. Kinda pisses me off that I pay a ton of $$$ to have all the HBO channels and I would have to pay more per month to get this one.


If you pay for HBO thru your cable provider, you *should* get a free subscription to HBO-Max. Which, just to be clear, is a streaming service, like Disney+ or Netflix.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

astrohip said:


> If you pay for HBO thru your cable provider, you *should* get a free subscription to HBO-Max. Which, just to be clear, is a streaming service, like Disney+ or Netflix.


Nope.

_Have you heard about HBO Max? Looking to add another app and monthly charge to watch things?_
_*HBO Max: It's not HBO. It's just TV.*_


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

too early to say Nope. HBOMax doesn’t exist yet.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

lambertman said:


> too early to say Nope. HBOMax doesn't exist yet.


True, but they are already saying that HBO Now subscribers will get HBO Max free. HBO through a cable subscription get HBO GO for free, not HBO Now

See: HBO Max

_Offer available only to new and existing HBO NOW subscribers who subscribe through hbonow.com and are billed by HBO. Offer not currently available to HBO subscribers that obtain their subscriptions through third-party providers that are authorized to distribute the HBO NOW service._

_*HBO Max: It's not HBO. It's just TV.*_


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Negotiations continue, though. 

We pay $15/month for HBO anyway, so we’ll just drop XfinityHBO and subscribe to Max directly if need be. I’m sure Comcast is well aware of this and will make some sort of deal.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Seems that’s it’s a better deal for HBO if you subscribe directly 
(and Comcast can’t make a deal for HBO Max if HBO doesn’t offer it to them) 

I stand by my “Nope”


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> True, but they are already saying that HBO Now subscribers will get HBO Max free. HBO through a cable subscription get HBO GO for free, not HBO Now
> 
> See: HBO Max
> 
> ...


Except they are working on deals with providers to get HBO max included with hbo subs. YouTube tv is on board, for example. Lots of time yet. We don't know who will get it and who won't.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> Seems that's it's a better deal for HBO if you subscribe directly
> (and Comcast can't make a deal for HBO Max if HBO doesn't offer it to them)
> 
> I stand by my "Nope"


What makes you think they won't offer it to Comcast. In November, the head of WarnerMedia said he hoped they would get their providers on board. He specifically mentioned Comcast.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I was referring to HBO Max being given to current HBO subscribers for free, I don’t see this happening.


----------



## Aaron Malloy (Oct 30, 2019)

I'll bet they're paying the cast a king's ransom for this. And it's a smart move to draw attention to their offering.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Aaron Malloy said:


> I'll bet they're paying the cast a king's ransom for this. And it's a smart move to draw attention to their offering.


Yes, it has been reported that each of the cast members will get paid at least $2.5 million to participate in the reunion show. That's a minimum of $15 million for just the six of them.

Of course, that's nothing compared to the $85 million per year that HBO Max will be paying for the streaming rights to the old episodes.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> I was referring to HBO Max being given to current HBO subscribers for free, I don't see this happening.


That is exactly what WarnerMedia is looking to do, though. That is what he was talking about.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

TonyD79 said:


> That is exactly what WarnerMedia is looking to do, though. That is what he was talking about.


I don't understand the benefit to Comcast paying more money to HBO for HBO Max, and then giving it to their customers at no additional fee.

Nope, don't see that happening.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> I don't understand the benefit to Comcast paying more money to HBO for HBO Max, and then giving it to their customers at no additional fee.
> 
> Nope, don't see that happening.


Why should they charge more money for Comcast to get HBO Max? HBO & HBO Max are the exact same price to customers. I would think they'd be the same price for resellers as well. Although the fact that we're only 3 months out and no one has made a deal other than YoutubeTV is odd.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

realityboy said:


> Why should they charge more money for Comcast to get HBO Max? HBO & HBO Max are the exact same price to customers. I would think they'd be the same price for resellers as well. Although the fact that we're only 3 months out and no one has made a deal other than YoutubeTV is odd.


The new Model is to offer Titles only available streaming for an additional fee for the service (CBS All Access, the now defunct FX+, Disney+, Peacock, etc)
HBO gets _shares_ a fee from the Cable Subscribers, but gets 100% of the fee from HBO Now / Max. HBO is paying big bucks for a TV show (that is still in reruns on Broadcast and Basic Cable), and will most likely be doing the same for new shows only available on Max.

Comcast may offer HBO Max, but i don't see it being at the same cost of the current HBO package. If Cable Companies get HBO Max, My guess is that there will be 2 HBO packages available, with Max about $5 more than the HBO package.

There is competition now between the Cable Companies and HBO. Cable wants to keep the fees they get from HBO, so they have a reason to want to be able to offer HBO Max, but HBO also has a reason to get customers to drop their HBO Cable package and Stream.

Offering HBO Max to Cable does not make sense to me. I don't see it happening.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

astrohip said:


> If you pay for HBO thru your cable provider, you *should* get a free subscription to HBO-Max.
> 
> 
> Tony_T said:
> ...


Yeah, I spoke too soon, and with incomplete info. HBO is negotiating to make it available at no charge for anyone who currently pays for HBO thru their cable provider (eg Comcast), but those negotiations are still a WIP. But if you pay for it thru an ATT provider, it will be free (negotiating with themselves?).

So... we'll see.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> Comcast may offer HBO Max, but i don't see it being at the same cost of the current HBO package. If Cable Companies get HBO Max, My guess is that there will be 2 HBO packages available, with Max about $5 more than the HBO package.


Why would anyone pay an extra $5 to Comcast when they could just subscribe directly?

This also applies to anyone that currently purchases HBO Now through Roku, Amazon, Apple, etc. as well as the cable companies. AT&T is currently allowing them to take a percentage of the subscriber fee in order to remain on these platforms. They could continue doing exactly what they're doing now with HBO Max (at least for now).

Edit: Not that your scenario is implausible in the least. AT&T could decide that it wants everyone subscribing directly with them so it gets all of the subscriber fee. It's just not how they've worked so far.

I also find it ridiculous that we're still just guessing on this a few months out from launch.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

realityboy said:


> Why would anyone pay an extra $5 to Comcast when they could just subscribe directly?


Some (many?) subscribers get HBO through a package (i.e. with SHO), and canceling HBO may save them $10, so no savings if switching to direct stream)



realityboy said:


> This also applies to anyone that currently purchases HBO Now through Roku, Amazon, Apple, etc. as well as the cable companies. AT&T is currently allowing them to take a percentage of the subscriber fee in order to remain on these platforms. They could continue doing exactly what they're doing now with HBO Max (at least for now).


But (as of now), only direct Now subscribers can get Max for same cost, not purchases through Amazon, Hulu, etc. If I were currently streaming HBO through Amazon, I would immediately switch to HBO Now.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> Some (many?) subscribers get HBO through a package (i.e. with SHO), and canceling HBO may save them $10, so no savings if switching to direct stream)


Oh, I fully expect those packages to go away.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

realityboy said:


> Oh, I fully expect those packages to go away.


I don't see Cable ever going alá carte only.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> I don't see Cable ever going alá carte only.


I just meant HBO. It was always separate on Time Warner in the markets that I had cable. Spectrum includes it in several packages, but they've recently removed Cinemax from those so I could see HBO eventually getting removed. I guess they could keep a cheaper HBO (no Max) in the packages. I agree that they won't add Max to packages. I could see AT&T letting them resell Max for $15 but not undercutting them.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I have Optimum, and their top tier package has HBO, SHO and STARZ.
If they were to drop HBO from the package, then it would be better for me to just get HBO ala cart and drop SHO and STARZ. For the few shows I watch on SHO, I would just pay for 1 mo and binge. There’s nothing for me on STARZ. Then I would have no problem dropping HBO also and getting HBO Max direct stream (while I prefer recording on TiVo with a 1Pass, with a no commercial option, I could do the streaming. I read that HBO Max will add a commercial based option in 2021)
I really think that HBO wants the whole pie themselves and will compete head-to-head with Cable, and I believe that they will win. I believe that HBO programming is that good.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Also, I haven’t seen anything from HBO Max that mentioned 4K and/or HDR.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

realityboy said:


> Also, I haven't seen anything from HBO Max that mentioned 4K and/or HDR.


HBO took forever to offer movies in OAR. They are hardly a bleeding edge picture and sound quality outfit.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Tony_T said:


> I don't understand the benefit to Comcast paying more money to HBO for HBO Max, and then giving it to their customers at no additional fee.
> 
> Nope, don't see that happening.


Because if Comcast doesn't do this, and still charges their customers $15/mo for regular HBO, lots of Comcast's customers will say, "Why am I paying Comcast $15 for HBO when I could pay that same amount and get all of HBO *plus* lots more content for the exact same amount through the HBO Max app?" The only reason to stick with regular HBO as opposed to HBO Max would be because you don't want to bother switching inputs from your X1 (or TiVo) box over to your smart TV/Roku/Apple TV/Fire TV/Android TV device. That would be reason enough for some folks not to switch. But many (most?) others would switch over to HBO Max (since they're already used to accessing certain apps that way anyhow).

HBO Max has put into production a slew of original series, miniseries and movies called "Max Originals" that will be exclusive to the service. They won't air on HBO cable channels and they won't be part of HBO's on-demand platform via cable TV operators or in the HBO Go or HBO Now apps. As those Max Originals gain buzz, they will pull subscribers toward HBO Max in lieu of regular HBO. (Plus HBO Max will also have past popular series like Friends, Big Bang Theory, South Park, Rick & Morty, West Wing, various BBC series, Japanese anime, Looney Tunes, decades of films, etc.)

Awhile back, an industry analyst I read pegged the wholesale rate that cable companies pay for HBO at about $7.65 per subscriber. So if Comcast is charging $15 for HBO, that leaves nearly half ($7.35) for them. That percentage cut is WAY, WAY more than Netflix pays to their distribution partners (to the extent that they pay anything anymore; they no longer allow new sign-ups except directly through Netflix.com so that Netflix controls the billing and takes the full amount).

Surely what AT&T is doing as they negotiate with partners like Comcast is to ask them to replace their existing HBO distribution contract with a new one for HBO Max under which the partner has to pay a *higher* wholesale rate per subscriber, leaving the partner with a smaller cut. But given that HBO Max will be aggressively marketed as a standalone streaming service available for $15/mo (sign up at HBOMax.com!) as the service "Where HBO meets so much more," what choice does Comcast have? These are their 3 options:


refuse to sell HBO Max; keep selling HBO at $15/mo and watch many of those customers cancel and sign up directly for HBO Max at $15/mo.
refuse to sell HBO Max; keep selling HBO, but at a lower price, e.g. $12/mo, to try and prevent their HBO subs from cancelling and switching to HBO Max
replace their existing HBO contract with a new one to sell HBO Max; sell it for $15 (or maybe $16) and place the new HBO Max app on their X1 platform (while also retaining the HBO linear channels and on-demand library as part of the native X1 UI, as they are now).
Any way they go, Comcast will probably see less revenue coming in.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Yeah, I spoke too soon, and with incomplete info. HBO is negotiating to make it available at no charge for anyone who currently pays for HBO thru their cable provider (eg Comcast), but those negotiations are still a WIP. But if you pay for it thru an ATT provider, it will be free (negotiating with themselves?).
> 
> So... we'll see.


I don't see why any negotiation is required for AT&T to give something away to HBO-via-cable subscribers. They must want something from the cable companies. ("Pay us more, or your subscribers will pay us directly and you will get nothing.")


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

I bet a whole lot of people aren't going to read the articles all the way through and will tune in expecting a new episode or reunion movie.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> True, but they are already saying that HBO Now subscribers will get HBO Max free. HBO through a cable subscription get HBO GO for free, not HBO Now
> 
> See: HBO Max
> 
> ...


Your quote really doesn't say that. it says that *HBO NOW* subs through a third party will not get bumped to HBO Max (I take that as possibly getting it through AP, Roku or whatever). So it's yet to be be seen how HBO subs through Comcast, OOL, Dish etc, will be handled.

I have DirecTV, so I'm hopeful, as an AT&T customer we get HBO Max for no additional charge. But we'll see. And if that's the case, then that will play into any decision I make to leave DirecTV.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

As far as the Friends reunion, I'll bet it's going to be kinda bad. Most of these reunions are. Twenty years after the show ended and the actors moving on to new things, I think it will lose it's pizazz. I can see this just becoming a quick payday for the actors and that's it. And I'm not really sure I would subscribe just for that. But who knows? Maybe I'll be completely wrong


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

DougF said:


> I bet a whole lot of people aren't going to read the articles all the way through and will tune in expecting a new episode or reunion movie.


The article was redundant and didn't need to explain that, other than maybe for young people. I've never known of a "reunion special" in the history of television that was scripted. What you're describing is a sequel movie or a reboot, which occasionally even occur with different actors. The definition of reunion special to me is actors sitting around watching clips and sharing memories.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Your quote really doesn't say that. it says that *HBO NOW* subs through a third party will not get bumped to HBO Max (I take that as possibly getting it through AP, Roku or whatever). So it's yet to be be seen how HBO subs through Comcast, OOL, Dish etc, will be handled.
> 
> I have DirecTV, so I'm hopeful, as an AT&T customer we get HBO Max for no additional charge. But we'll see. And if that's the case, then that will play into any decision I make to leave DirecTV.


Reports say at least a year free of HBO Max for all ATT subs. Maybe longer.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

series5orpremier said:


> The article was redundant and didn't need to explain that, other than maybe for young people. I've never known of a "reunion special" in the history of television that was scripted. What you're describing is a sequel movie or a reboot, which occasionally even occur with different actors. The definition of reunion special to me is actors sitting around watching clips and sharing memories.


I think it needed to be clear. I've heard chatter on radio from people who think it is a sequel. Headlines and twitter have not been clear until you dig into it. Banners have said things like "it's happening!" like it is a new episode.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I think it needed to be clear. I've heard chatter on radio from people who think it is a sequel. Headlines and twitter have not been clear until you dig into it. Banners have said things like "it's happening!" like it is a new episode.


Yep. And reboot seems to be a relatively new term for TV. Maybe it's my age showing, but sequel movies or reboots were always called reunions when I was growing up.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Reports say at least a year free of HBO Max for all ATT subs. Maybe longer.


I've seen that too, but I think it's just speculation? Has AT&T made a statement to that effect yet?


----------



## NickTheGreat (Aug 31, 2015)

My wife and I are HUGE Friends fans. I'm curious to see what this is. Sounds like some sort of interviews/behind-the-scenes type of thing? 

Meh


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

NickTheGreat said:


> My wife and I are HUGE Friends fans. I'm curious to see what this is. Sounds like some sort of interviews/behind-the-scenes type of thing?
> 
> Meh


I only skimmed the article. I just assumed it was an actual reunion episode. If it is just interviews and such, meh indeed!


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

It's just to draw attention to HBO Max since they will now be the place to stream Friends


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I've seen that too, but I think it's just speculation? Has AT&T made a statement to that effect yet?


WarnerMedia Unveils HBO Max


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Trailer available:






Debuts May 27.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> I think it needed to be clear. I've heard chatter on radio from people who think it is a sequel. Headlines and twitter have not been clear until you dig into it. Banners have said things like "it's happening!" like it is a new episode.


My wife, who is brilliant other than her taste in men, also thought this was a new scripted episode up until yesterday.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

'Friends' reunion faces backlash for lack of diversity among guests


----------



## Lenonn (May 31, 2004)

lambertman said:


> My wife, who is brilliant other than her taste in men, also thought this was a new scripted episode up until yesterday.


For everyone who thinks people understand this is a reunion gathering of the cast and not a new episode of the series, just go to Twitter and search for information on the special. There are plenty of people who either don't understand it or have learned it only to be completely disappointed. And it's not like everyone involved haven't been clear about what this is and isn't from the first rumors until now.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

A possibility better title would have been "Friends: The *Cast* Reunion"


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> A possibility better title would have been "Friends: The *Cast* Reunion"


At least they didn't call it The One Where They Reunite.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

gchance said:


> At least they didn't call it The One Where They Reunite.


No, it's called (officially) "The One Where They Get Back Together"

So you were close


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> No, it's called (officially) "The One Where They Get Back Together"
> 
> So you were close


Damn. That totally makes it sound like an episode.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Should have been “The One Where The Cast Get Back Together”


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I’m glad it isn’t an episode. It would be odd or contrived since they all changed their lives at the end. Leave the story be.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

I agree. I think Kaufmann and Crane have had the right perspective on it. Which is, a follow-up doesn't make sense to do because the show was about the time in young peoples' lives when one's friends are one's family. All of the characters save Joey were establishing their own actual families by the time the show concluded. The premise had expired.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Several of my best friends from my youth I still consider family and we stay in touch and some I see regularly.

The powers-that-be certainly could've come up with some compelling reason for the gang to get back together along with some complications and so on. Perhaps it could have had something to do with their kids. That's just one thought, the possibilities are endless. I'm still disappointed and consider this a completely blown opportunity.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

It’s not that they couldn’t “come
up with something”. It’s that it’s their show and to them, the creative premise was exhausted.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Hcour said:


> Several of my best friends from my youth I still consider family and we stay in touch and some I see regularly.
> 
> The powers-that-be certainly could've come up with some compelling reason for the gang to get back together along with some complications and so on. Perhaps it could have had something to do with their kids. That's just one thought, the possibilities are endless. I'm still disappointed and consider this a completely blown opportunity.


Nah, it would have wound up being panned by everyone. Fans would say "That's now how I remember the character" Critics wold have panned it for whatever vindictive reason they would want to. Just bringing something that's been away for so long is usually a disaster (with a few exceptions). Look at Murphy Brown, a well respected show in it's day, but they brought it back and it was terrible. I think they took the safest way to do this, just have a reunion show with the cast members reminiscing about it (though I do question the guest list).


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Personally I thought Murphy Brown always sucked large so I'm not at all surprised the reboot sucked large as well. We have no idea how Friends would have turned out because they're not going to do it; it indeed may have sucked or it may have been the greatest thing since sliced bread. While I agree that a lot of these things blow, there are, as you say, exceptions. I believe Mad About You, another show with an exceptional creative team, has a reboot that has been praised on these boards quite a bit. And the Friends folks only had to come up with one episode. It's a shame.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Hcour said:


> Personally I thought Murphy Brown always sucked large so I'm not at all surprised the reboot sucked large as well. We have no idea how Friends would have turned out because they're not going to do it; it indeed may have sucked or it may have been the greatest thing since sliced bread. While I agree that a lot of these things blow, there are, as you say, exceptions. I believe Mad About You, another show with an exceptional creative team, has a reboot that has been praised on these boards quite a bit. And the Friends folks only had to come up with one episode. It's a shame.


The thing is, for the cast (and production team) it's much safer to do what they are doing. There was a great ending to the series, and the difficulty and risk of making a one off sequel and make one well would be difficult. Plus it might not have been easy to get them for the few weeks it would take to produce a new episode (which would probably wind up 2 hours). And expensive. This way, they only had to be together for a couple of days, do the interviews and be done with it. I agree, Mad About You pulled it off. It's an exception. I guess the Conners did too (but didn't watch either Rosanne or the Conners, so I can't say). And they are whole series. One episode though, I don't know. The one opportunity the may have missed though, is a potential sequel. Ross's kids Ben and Emma would be in their early 20s and ripe for a spinoff and they could have done something.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

A fleeting thought went through my mind regarding the above posts about the list of guest-stars for the special, which was: guest stars? Why are there so many guest stars? Apparently it's a weakness of the special:

'Friends: The Reunion': A Meandering Trip Down Memory Lane


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Another review:

'Friends' Reunion: The One With the 'Remember the One With &#8230; ?'


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Guest stars? Could they BE any more Hollywood?


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

I watched it this morning. I was expecting a massive train wreck based on the reviews, but I enjoyed it and thought it was a fun look back,
Maybe the trick is not to think about how each of them are getting $2.5M for showing up.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Donbadabon said:


> I watched it this morning. I was expecting a massive train wreck based on the reviews, but I enjoyed it and thought it was a fun look back,
> Maybe the trick is not to think about how each of them are getting $2.5M for showing up.


Thanks for the review! I look forward to watching it soon - maybe even today.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

I'm glad it's not new scripted episodes - they wouldn't live up to expectations.

Listening to them reminisce is enough for me - I like that kind of stuff. Looking forward to it.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

I think the advance reviews were spot-on in terms of the special's strengths and weaknesses. The main, if not only, reason there was demand for this in the first place is the natural chemistry and love among these six people, and so it was an odd creative choice to do some of the things they did to stifle it. Indeed by far the best stuff was them by themselves (in front of a crew, of course) reminiscing. That criticisms notwithstanding, I did quite enjoy the special overall, because that good stuff was so good. Their tenderness towards each other is really lovely. Like, when Aniston and Schwimmer read the scene where Ross and Rachel first kiss, there was a neat two-level thing going on where we were watching two actors slip back into roles and act opposite each other, but it was also Aniston and Schwimmer volleying a huge amount of real-life affection back and forth over the table. 

On a less highbrow note, Jennifer Aniston has been the only celebrity never to have fallen off my "list". I might literally still have a crush on her. Wow.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

PIVOT!


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

I thoroughly enjoyed it, in particular "I SH*T HERE - Matt Leblanc". And the weight jokes. "Remember when we could all fit through the door?"


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

If it would have been a new "episode", I would have watched it immediately. Since it's more like a talk show with all the cast members, I'm sure I'll watch at some point, but not in any hurry. Oh, and James Corden? When I do watch, I'll probably be muting him as I go.


----------



## angbear1985 (Aug 25, 2006)

I don't have HBO+ wish there was another way I could watch this soon.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> If it would have been a new "episode", I would have watched it immediately. Since it's more like a talk show with all the cast members, I'm sure I'll watch at some point, but not in any hurry. Oh, and James Corden? When I do watch, I'll probably be muting him as I go.


They actually talk about that in here how there COULDN'T be a new ep without really screwing it all up

And James Corden was just fine

I thought overall it was really good! For something like this you either have them all just sitting there talking or you try and ep and it always sucks.
This was a great mix and was a lot of fun


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

Wow... Popular reunion!

'Friends' reunion leads to 30% download bump on HBO MAX: Data


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

I liked that it was long enough to feel like you had enough... I always hate the Survivor reunion shows that seem to have so little time, they are forced to just brush over the discussion quickly and without a lot of satisfaction... This one felt long enough...but not too long...

I liked seeing the set, with all the different rooms that they filmed in...

Mathew Perry was pretty quiet and reserved... Everyone else was pretty talkative and seemed excited to be there...

I agree with some of the criticisms that some of the guest stars were unnecessary and random... What the heck was BTS doing there? And Justin Bieber?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> I think the advance reviews were spot-on in terms of the special's strengths and weaknesses. The main, if not only, reason there was demand for this in the first place is the natural chemistry and love among these six people, and so it was an odd creative choice to do some of the things they did to stifle it. Indeed by far the best stuff was them by themselves (in front of a crew, of course) reminiscing. That criticisms notwithstanding, I did quite enjoy the special overall, because that good stuff was so good. Their tenderness towards each other is really lovely. *Like, when Aniston and Schwimmer read the scene where Ross and Rachel first kiss, there was a neat two-level thing going on where we were watching two actors slip back into roles and act opposite each other, but it was also Aniston and Schwimmer volleying a huge amount of real-life affection back and forth over the table.*
> 
> On a less highbrow note, Jennifer Aniston has been the only celebrity never to have fallen off my "list". I might literally still have a crush on her. Wow.


I don't think I'll ever understand how the Ross/Rachel thing was such a huge piece of pop culture. I always hated the Ross character so much. I could never fathom why fans of the show wanted Rachel to get together with him, and why they were so excited when they "finally" kissed.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

He became my least-favorite character about halfway through the run, when they totally changed his persona and Schwimmer really leaned into it. It was so extreme that even the other characters didn't like him. I'll never understand why they did that. (I'm one of the probably few people who doesn't think the [admittedly, famous] "Pivot!" scene referenced above is particularly funny, because the larger context for it is Ross being completely intolerable.) So while I was conceptually happy that they put Ross and Rachel together in the end, emotionally it did nothing for me because they had completely ruined him. Before all that, though? I was all in on those two.

Related: one of the other small moments that I liked in this retrospective was Aniston and Schwimmer shooting that last kiss in Ross's apartment after she gets off the plane. They finish the take, you can hear, "Cut!", and the two of them continue to embrace for another ten to fifteen seconds.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I’m not done watching (about 2/3 through) but I think they did great. Most of the “guest appearances” are extremely quick and mostly organic. BTS, for example, was a quick shot in the midst of fans across the world showing the impact of the show. So, to pan a show that runs 1:44 for a few seconds here and there is infantile. 

But I think they did a great job of actors being in and out of character. The table reads are terrific and using vehicles like the quiz done again was inspired.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

I watched last night with my wife and daughter. We're all big fans. My wife and I were hooked from the beginning, so our kids grew up watching it; we still binge watch quite often. Friends premiered at a time in our lives when we were the same age as the characters. Even though our group was in the married and starting families stage, the dynamic of the characters resonated with us. We're still close with most of our friends from those days.

We really enjoyed reminiscing with the cast. Glad they kept the guest star stuff brief. Actually wouldn't have minded seeing more with the ones who'd actually been on the show. The behind the scenes stuff, the out takes and interviews with the creative team were all great. Watching the cast interact with each other by themselves and the table reads were really cool, too.

Over all, well done.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

My sister watched it and said it was good. 

I might watch it someday. After I've watched a thousand others things I'd like to watch.


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

Didn’t pay much attention to this, but was thinking this was going to be a reboot of the show giving us a view of the where the characters were now in their lives. I was disappointed that it’s an interview of the actors.


----------



## ThePennyDropped (Jul 5, 2006)

The part I enjoyed the most was the table read of the scene where Ross is looking over ugly naked guy's apartment. Lisa Kudrow was even funnier than she was in the original episode.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

markymark_ctown said:


> Didn't pay much attention to this, but was thinking this was going to be a reboot of the show giving us a view of the where the characters were now in their lives. I was disappointed that it's an interview of the actors.


It's much more than an interview. They do table reads. They reenact some stuff. They did a very good job.


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> It's much more than an interview. They do table reads. They reenact some stuff. They did a very good job.


Right. Still not what I expected.

I'll probably watch it anyway


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

hapster85 said:


> I watched last night with my wife and daughter. We're all big fans. My wife and I were hooked from the beginning, so our kids grew up watching it; we still binge watch quite often. Friends premiered at a time in our lives when we were the same age as the characters. Even though our group was in the married and starting families stage, the dynamic of the characters resonated with us. We're still close with most of our friends from those days.
> 
> We really enjoyed reminiscing with the cast. Glad they kept the guest star stuff brief. Actually wouldn't have minded seeing more with the ones who'd actually been on the show. The behind the scenes stuff, the out takes and interviews with the creative team were all great. Watching the cast interact with each other by themselves and the table reads were really cool, too.
> 
> Over all, well done.


Looking forward to it. I feel the same way - the characters resonate because we were roughly the same age. I'm glad they did not opt for a "where are the characters now" episode. Let's face it, we're not as interesting or funny in our late 40s and 50s. They wouldn't be either.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> The thing is, for the cast (and production team) it's much safer to do what they are doing. There was a great ending to the series, and the difficulty and risk of making a one off sequel and make one well would be difficult. Plus it might not have been easy to get them for the few weeks it would take to produce a new episode (which would probably wind up 2 hours). And expensive. This way, they only had to be together for a couple of days, do the interviews and be done with it. I agree, Mad About You pulled it off. It's an exception. I guess the Conners did too (but didn't watch either Rosanne or the Conners, so I can't say). And they are whole series. One episode though, I don't know. The one opportunity the may have missed though, is a potential sequel. Ross's kids Ben and Emma would be in their early 20s and ripe for a spinoff and they could have done something.


The "Better Call Saul" reunion show was really good for 5 seasons.


----------



## zuko3984 (May 4, 2002)

MikeekiM said:


> Mathew Perry was pretty quiet and reserved... Everyone else was pretty talkative and seemed excited to be there...


I read that Mathew Perry had some emergency dental work done the day they filmed the reunion. That probably explains why he was so quiet and more reserved.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Hmmm. I guess that would explain why I said to the DW 'He's hammered'!

Still not convinced, given his know addiction problems, he wasn't.


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

markymark_ctown said:


> Right. Still not what I expected.
> 
> I'll probably watch it anyway


We ended up watching it last night. Fun to watch. They addressed not doing the reboot since they ended the show with all the characters 'in a good place.' I think Matt LeBlanc has become my favorite friend after watching him on Episodes.

I could have done without the fashion show.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

MacThor said:


> The "Better Call Saul" reunion show was really good for 5 seasons.


This confused me for a bit -- I think you meant '_The "Breaking Bad" reunion show (BCS) was really good for 5 seasons_.'

AFAIK, there hasn't been a BCS reunion show.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

markymark_ctown said:


> I could have done without the fashion show.


I would have rather seen Mrs. Bieber than Mr. Bieber and once he showed up I was kind of expecting her to come out next.

I called the Thomas Lennon's hands thing but he was gone as soon as he appeared. I would have expected at least more of a greeting with his The Odd Couple co-star than a wave, but maybe that happened off camera.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

zuko3984 said:


> I read that Mathew Perry had some emergency dental work done the day they filmed the reunion. That probably explains why he was so quiet and more reserved.


I detected something physical was going on and hoping he isn't experiencing any serious health concerns. I recall reading around the interwebs that he seemed to be slurring his words. That wasn't what I saw.

Anyway, watched the morning and REALLY loved it! I loved the bit where people from around the world were talking about how and why they loved the show. AFAIK, none of them except Malala were famous people. Just viewers from numerous countries.

I loved the outtakes. I always love outtakes! 

I loved how the cast walked through the sets and talked about it.

The re-reads were pretty funny, especially when they were meshed with the actual scenes.

The costume fashion show was cute. Bieber? Uh, ok.  That was odd but kind of funny, too.

I loved the part with "Phoebe" and Lady Gaga. That was fun.

Janice! Cool that Maggie Wheeler stopped by, as well as others from the show. I would never have recognized JMT who played Gunther.

Corden was just meh for me, but he really never got in the way so I think he did a good job.

All in all I don't think there was a single moment that I didn't enjoy.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

series5orpremier said:


> I would have rather seen Mrs. Bieber than Mr. Bieber and once he showed up I was kind of expecting her to come out next.
> 
> I called the Thomas Lennon's hands thing but he was gone as soon as he appeared. I would have expected at least more of a greeting with his The Odd Couple co-star than a wave, but maybe that happened off camera.


I never had realized that Lennon was in the show until I saw the scene they played, before the hands thing and I thought 'that guy kinda looks like Thomas Lennon'. I'm a big fan so I'd loved to have seen more of him as well.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Hank said:


> This confused me for a bit -- I think you meant '_The "Breaking Bad" reunion show (BCS) was really good for 5 seasons_.'
> 
> AFAIK, there hasn't been a BCS reunion show.


No, I meant it the way I typed it. You just missed the joke.

That's OK, only one poster thought it was funny.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Ok, you guys have convinced me. Everyone seems to have enjoyed it. This sounds like it was pretty good, lots of fun. I will put aside my disappointment and give it a look-see.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Hcour said:


> Ok, you guys have convinced me. Everyone seems to have enjoyed it. This sounds like it was pretty good, lots of fun. I will put aside my disappointment and give it a look-see.


Hope you enjoy it! Seriously, unless you don't like the actors or aren't at all a fan of the show, you will enjoy it. I loved how there was a lot of variety - not just a bunch of people sitting around talking about the show.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

sharkster said:


> Hope you enjoy it! Seriously, unless you don't like the actors or aren't at all a fan of the show, you will enjoy it. I loved how there was a lot of variety - not just a bunch of people sitting around talking about the show.


Totally agree. It's funny how people trusted the creators and actors for 10 years but don't trust that they know what they were doing for this. This was the best reunion show I've seen because they attacked it in many ways.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

series5orpremier said:


> I called the Thomas Lennon's hands thing but he was gone as soon as he appeared. I would have expected at least more of a greeting with his The Odd Couple co-star than a wave, but maybe that happened off camera.


Totally forgot about that reboot, but I think I only watched maybe two episodes.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

sharkster said:


> Hope you enjoy it! Seriously, unless you don't like the actors or aren't at all a fan of the show, you will enjoy it. I loved how there was a lot of variety - not just a bunch of people sitting around talking about the show.


The "Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" reunion show was basically just "a bunch of people sitting around and talking about the show", plus some outtakes. It was fun / interesting for a while, but then started to drag and I never did finish watching it.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

I enjoyed this Reunion show more than the actual series. When the series was airing I thought it was OK but overrated and didn't have to see every single episode if I was pressed for time, which was often. I thought it was more popular than funny, probably because of some will they/won't they relationship stuff with an attractive young cast.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

MacThor said:


> No, I meant it the way I typed it. You just missed the joke.
> 
> That's OK, only one poster thought it was funny.


What was the joke?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I understood the joke to be that Breaking Bad was a 5-season reunion show for Better Call Saul.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Oh, I see that now. Too bad Kim missed the reunion.  

It's also not clear because they both ran for 5 seasons (so far). But whatever, no biggie.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

scooterboy said:


> I'm glad it's not new scripted episodes - they wouldn't live up to expectations.
> 
> Listening to them reminisce is enough for me - I like that kind of stuff. Looking forward to it.


As I expected, I enjoyed it. Well, most of it. I thought the Gaga scene and the fashion show were a waste of valuable reminiscing time, but I'm sure others found them charming.

After watching it, I told my wife that either Matthew Perry was off the wagon or he had dental issues. Hope the emergency dental story is true.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

madscientist said:


> I understood the joke to be that Breaking Bad was a 5-season reunion show for Better Call Saul.


 Yes.



Hank said:


> Oh, I see that now. Too bad Kim missed the reunion.
> 
> It's also not clear because they both ran for 5 seasons (so far). But whatever, no biggie.


 What really torpedoes the joke is that BCS isn't over yet.

Anyway, back to Friends. Sorry, it wasn't my intent to hijack the thread; it was literally a one-liner.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Watched last night. Really enjoyed it. Thought it was really well done, with lots of various methods of reminiscing: replaying the Quiz, table reads of iconic scenes, talking amongst themselves, outtakes, being interviewed by a host, seeing brief appearances by beloved guest stars, etc. It all worked really well.

Also, I thought the intrusion of some of the guests would be much worse, but didn't find any of them off-putting at all. For example, I can't believe anyone has complained about Justin Bieber. He literally didn't say a word. Just came out and did the fashion show and walked off. If you're going to complain about Bieber, you should also complain about Cara Delevigne and Cindy Crawford who did the exact same thing, yet I haven't heard any complaints about them.

Speaking of the fashion show bit, how could they not include the most iconic costume piece of the whole series: The turkey on the head? That was far more memorable than any of the options they chose (except maybe the leather pants).



scooterboy said:


> After watching it, I told my wife that either Matthew Perry was off the wagon or he had dental issues. Hope the emergency dental story is true.


His teeth did look especially white, so maybe he really had just come from the dentist. And it would also explain why he was the last one to arrive at the set.

Too bad they didn't figure out a way to incorporate Perry's ultra-white teeth into reminiscing the scene where Ross gets his teeth whitened and then is in a room with a black light.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Oh, how could I forget about the turkey? There were two 'turkey on the head' bits but the one that still cracks me up is the one with Monica - including the fex on top and the giant sunglasses, then she did that kind of shimmy dance for Chandler.

I also wanted to see some 'Fat Monica' bits. Whenever she would dance it was just great.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

sharkster said:


> I also wanted to see some 'Fat Monica' bits. Whenever she would dance it was just great.


I think "fat Monica" hasn't aged well, especially with the younger "don't bodyshame me" crowd. I'm not at all surprised they left those out.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

sharkster said:


> Oh, how could I forget about the turkey? There were *two 'turkey on the head' bits* but the one that still cracks me up is the one with Monica - including the fex on top and the giant sunglasses, then she did that kind of shimmy dance for Chandler.


Three 
[WATCH] Courteney Cox Re-creates Famous 'Friends' Dance With Turkey On Her Head - Deadline

__
http://instagr.am/p/CIE3H_-DDJ1/


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Oops, I just saw that I wrote 'fex' when I meant 'fez'. D'oh!


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

“Fez are cool”


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

After reading some of the reviews, I though this was going to be horrible and was getting the feeling that the cast would have mailed it in, but I was pleasantly surprised and really enjoyed it and laughed out loud several times. The cast seemed to enjoy it, especially Lisa Kudrow and Matt LeBlanc. And I like how they broke up the show so it was a mix of interviews, bits, table reads, etc.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Also, I thought the intrusion of some of the guests would be much worse, but didn't find any of them off-putting at all. For example, I can't believe anyone has complained about Justin Bieber. He literally didn't say a word. Just came out and did the fashion show and walked off. If you're going to complain about Bieber, you should also complain about Cara Delevigne and Cindy Crawford who did the exact same thing, yet I haven't heard any complaints about them.


Not true - I complained about the entire fashion show, which includes them!


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

No way on earth were they going to incorporate fat Monica.

'Fat Monica' is the ghost that continues to haunt 'Friends' 25 years later

25 Years Later, Friends' Fat Monica Still Hurts My Feelings

Actually, "Friends" Is Terrible


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bah. I am very fat and find fat Monica funny.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I'm not, but I certainly didn't mean to be disrespectful to anybody who may be offended by it. I thought she did the part of that piece of Monica's life very well without really making it offensive. But then, it's not for me to say.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> Bah. I am very fat and find fat Monica funny.


Same here. As does my wife. She's always struggled with her weight, but she sees Fat Monica dancing and always laughs and says "I love it", or something similar. Why? Because she sees a self-confident overweight person enjoying herself. Of course it's played for laughs. It's a sitcom. Everything is played for laughs. Births, weddings, funerals, breakups ... It's all fair game for a laugh.

I read the first two articles, and skimmed the third. To me, all three come off as the ramblings of someone trying to prove their relevance by railing against something popular. Not impressed.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Oh for cripes sake. "A sitcom I watched as a child featured a fat character and 25 years later I'm still traumatized!" Shaddup.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

hapster85 said:


> Same here. As does my wife. She's always struggled with her weight, but she sees Fat Monica dancing and always laughs and says "I love it", or something similar. Why? Because she sees a self-confident overweight person enjoying herself. Of course it's played for laughs. It's a sitcom. Everything is played for laughs. *Births, weddings, funerals, breakups ... It's all fair game for a laugh.*
> 
> I read the first two articles, and skimmed the third. To me, all three come off as the ramblings of someone trying to prove their relevance by railing against something popular. Not impressed.


Except today it isn't. Someone on the interwebs is always gonna complain that it's offensive. You can't make jokes any longer that makes fun of people's appearance, ethnicity, height, weight, nothing. We've lost our sense of humor about ourselves. My dad always used to say, that if you can't laugh at yourself, you have big problems and you're probably insecure. Don Rickles, would have been booed off the stage, All the old time comedians would have never been able to work today.

Anyway, Monica never seemed upset in her HS days as an overweight kid. She had a prom date! We don't know the reason why she got super skinny. That's never been revealed. Maybe it was for health reasons?


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Except today it isn't. Someone on the interwebs is always gonna complain that it's offensive. You can't make jokes any longer that makes fun of people's appearance, ethnicity, height, weight, nothing. We've lost our sense of humor about ourselves. My dad always used to say, that if you can't laugh at yourself, you have big problems and you're probably insecure. Don Rickles, would have been booed off the stage, All the old time comedians would have never been able to work today.
> 
> Anyway, Monica never seemed upset in her HS days as an overweight kid. She had a prom date! We don't know the reason why she got super skinny. That's never been revealed. Maybe it was for health reasons?


Chandler during a Thanksgiving visit made fun of her to Ross and she overheard, the next year she was super skinny and all dolled up

So she lost weight to get back at what would become her future husband


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

gchance said:


> No way on earth were they going to incorporate fat Monica.
> 
> 'Fat Monica' is the ghost that continues to haunt 'Friends' 25 years later
> 
> ...


Scaachi Koul sounds like a miserable person. She even acknowledges that most of her tweets are complaints.

Roger Daltrey: "'It's terrifying, the miserable world they're going to create for themselves."


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Anyway, Monica never seemed upset in her HS days as an overweight kid. She had a prom date! We don't know the reason why she got super skinny. That's never been revealed. Maybe it was for health reasons?


It's not about whether the character seemed happy. It's the fact that they're putting a fat suit on someone in order to get laughs about them being fat.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

They occasionally did real work with it. In the alternate-timeline episodes "The One That Could Have Been", adult Monica is still heavy, and dating a doctor. He never has any time for her and is always working. In an attempt to get him to stay over so they can finally have sex, she cooks him an erotic meal of finger foods. Just as they are settling in, he gets paged and leaves. "Save some for me," he says. "I can't promise anything," she replies as she tucks into the food. Though it's a funny line, it's not a joke making fun of the gluttonous fatty; it's a poignant exemplar of why she is heavy. It's a deceptively complex moment where the ends justified the means. Unfortunately, the show immediately undercut it. The end credits of the episode featured Courtney Cox dancing in the fat suit.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Steveknj said:


> Except today it isn't. Someone on the interwebs is always gonna complain that it's offensive. You can't make jokes any longer that makes fun of people's appearance, ethnicity, height, weight, nothing. We've lost our sense of humor about ourselves. My dad always used to say, that if you can't laugh at yourself, you have big problems and you're probably insecure. Don Rickles, would have been booed off the stage, All the old time comedians would have never been able to work today.
> 
> Anyway, Monica never seemed upset in her HS days as an overweight kid. She had a prom date! We don't know the reason why she got super skinny. That's never been revealed. Maybe it was for health reasons?


I was referring more to Friends itself, not comedy in general, but you're right. Society has become so hypersensitive about so many things, some justifiably so, others not so much. I roll my eyes in frustration so often nowadays, I have a perpetual headache. Lol


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I never viewed showing Monica as overweight as “Fat Shaming”. This was a depiction of a character as they were when they were younger. Are we to believe that pretty thin 20 somethings were all pretty and thin as teenagers? Or are we to believe that if someone is overweight as a child/teen that they can never lose weight?

What is harder to believe is that a waitress (later fashion buyer) and a sometimes chef can afford that large of an apartment in NYC


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> I never viewed showing Monica as overweight as "Fat Shaming". This was a depiction of a character as they were when they were younger. Are we to believe that pretty thin 20 somethings were all pretty and thin as teenagers? Or are we to believe that if someone is overweight as a child/teen that they can never lose weight?
> 
> What is harder to believe is that a waitress (later fashion buyer) and a sometimes chef can afford that large of an apartment in NYC


I guess that's my issue with this particular thing (and I'm sure someone will rake me over the coals). If someone is heavy, and they lose weight for whatever reason they chose, should they be taken to task for it? That seems to be kind of normal. People shouldn't be shamed for being heavy, I agree, and there are sometimes underlying reasons why someone is that way. But they also shouldn't be shamed for wanting to lose that weight, because being overweight in many (most?) cases is not very healthy.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> I never viewed showing Monica as overweight as "Fat Shaming". This was a depiction of a character as they were when they were younger. Are we to believe that pretty thin 20 somethings were all pretty and thin as teenagers? Or are we to believe that if someone is overweight as a child/teen that they can never lose weight?
> 
> What is harder to believe is that a waitress (later fashion buyer) and a sometimes chef can afford that large of an apartment in NYC


They did address the size of the apartment. It was a rent controlled apartment that Monica's grandmother had and they are pretending she still lives there. I believe there was an episode about it.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Must have missed that one


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

TonyD79 said:


> They did address the size of the apartment. It was a rent controlled apartment that Monica's grandmother had and they are pretending she still lives there. I believe there was an episode about it.


I'm offended that they would depict someone lying and cheating to keep an apartment by pretending their grandmother didn't die


----------



## ciscokid (Jan 14, 2003)

I never really watched "Friends" religiously, but after watching the reunion, I started watching EVERY episode from season 1-number 1. It MAy take me a while!


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

ciscokid said:


> I never really watched "Friends" religiously, but after watching the reunion, I started watching EVERY episode from season 1-number 1. It MAy take me a while!


I did watch Friends religiously back during it's first run... But haven't really watched it since... About 2 months ago, I started with S01E01 and am currently starting season 2... And yes, it will take a while... I am watching it very casually when I need to fill-in a 20 minute time slot between (or after) binging other shows...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MikeekiM said:


> I did watch Friends religiously back during it's first run... But haven't really watched it since... About 2 months ago, I started with S01E01 and am currently starting season 2... And yes, it will take a while... I am watching it very casually when I need to fill-in a 20 minute time slot between (or after) binging other shows...


There are certain shows that I feel work well in reruns (at least in my opinion), to where they are either funny enough to enjoy a second, third or fourth time, or they feel fresh to me (even though they might be quite dated) and other shows that I like the first time around, but just don't feel like I want to watch again. Friends is one of those shows I can watch over and over again. Seinfeld, The Big Bang Theory, Dick Van ****, Scrubs, are others that I can watch multiple times. As much as I loved The Goldbergs, or The Middle during their first run, for me, the reruns don't work as well for me.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> There are certain shows that I feel work well in reruns (at least in my opinion), to where they are either funny enough to enjoy a second, third or fourth time, or they feel fresh to me (even though they might be quite dated) and other shows that I like the first time around, but just don't feel like I want to watch again. Friends is one of those shows I can watch over and over again. Seinfeld, The Big Bang Theory, Dick Van ****, Scrubs, are others that I can watch multiple times. As much as I loved The Goldbergs, or The Middle during their first run, for me, the reruns don't work as well for me.


Yeah... I agree... Right now, I actually have four shows that I am just chipping away at as "filler" rewatch repeats that I watch in between my first run binge watching... Friends, The Office (US), Big Bang Theory, and The West Wing... I choose "the next episode" of one of these shows pretty randomly (that is, I am not trying to get through a rewatch of one particular show)...

I'd love to add some others...but at some point it becomes too diluted... I could easily add Seinfeld, MASH, Frasier, Cheers, etc...

Actually, I was actually rewatching Cheers from S01E01...but I forget where I left off... that should be in my mix above! I'll have to peruse the episodes to figure out where I left off...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MikeekiM said:


> Yeah... I agree... Right now, I actually have four shows that I am just chipping away at as "filler" rewatch repeats that I watch in between my first run binge watching... Friends, The Office (US), Big Bang Theory, and The West Wing... I choose "the next episode" of one of these shows pretty randomly (that is, I am not trying to get through a rewatch of one particular show)...
> 
> I'd love to add some others...but at some point it becomes too diluted... I could easily add Seinfeld, MASH, Frasier, Cheers, etc...
> 
> Actually, I was actually rewatching Cheers from S01E01...but I forget where I left off... that should be in my mix above! I'll have to peruse the episodes to figure out where I left off...


For me, I'm very old school. For some reason, the "convenience" of streaming shows I've already seen doesn't do it for me. So when there's nothing on, and I'm flipping through linear channels and I come across and old episode of Friends, or Seinfeld, or TBBT, I'll often stop and watch. Maybe it's more of a "random" thing for me. And I still often put on an episode of Seinfeld or TBBT or Cheers which are syndicated on various local stations at 11PM before I go to sleep. It's a habit I've had since I was a kid. Seeking them out on a streaming service doesn't have the same feel as "Oh look 'The Contest' is on tonight on Ch. 11..gotta watch that one". I guess it's like planning all day to go out for ice cream vs. passing the ice cream place on your way home from the mall and spontaneously stopping for some. It just FEELS better doing it that way.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

MikeekiM said:


> Yeah... I agree... Right now, I actually have four shows that I am just chipping away at as "filler" rewatch repeats that I watch in between my first run binge watching... Friends, The Office (US), Big Bang Theory, and The West Wing... I choose "the next episode" of one of these shows pretty randomly (that is, I am not trying to get through a rewatch of one particular show)...
> 
> I'd love to add some others...but at some point it becomes too diluted... I could easily add Seinfeld, MASH, Frasier, Cheers, etc...
> 
> Actually, I was actually rewatching Cheers from S01E01...but I forget where I left off... that should be in my mix above! I'll have to peruse the episodes to figure out where I left off...


I have an app on my iPhone to track binge rerun watching. It's called TV Club. First used it when I binged old Modern Family out of order.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> For me, I'm very old school. For some reason, the "convenience" of streaming shows I've already seen doesn't do it for me. So when there's nothing on, and I'm flipping through linear channels and I come across and old episode of Friends, or Seinfeld, or TBBT, I'll often stop and watch. Maybe it's more of a "random" thing for me. And I still often put on an episode of Seinfeld or TBBT or Cheers which are syndicated on various local stations at 11PM before I go to sleep. It's a habit I've had since I was a kid. Seeking them out on a streaming service doesn't have the same feel as "Oh look 'The Contest' is on tonight on Ch. 11..gotta watch that one". I guess it's like planning all day to go out for ice cream vs. passing the ice cream place on your way home from the mall and spontaneously stopping for some. It just FEELS better doing it that way.


Yeah... I used to be like that too... And in many ways, I still remain that way...

But I hate that this model results in me always consuming partial episodes by chance, and I never really get to fully appreciate and re-experience the episode... It's almost like picking up a book and randomly reading a partial chapter...

Using your ice cream analogy, it's kind of like walking by an ice cream shop and seeing a half eaten cup of your favorite flavor that someone left behind...and finishing up their leftovers... LOL...

But I completely understand your MO and use case... I do this all the time as well... I can't tell you how many times I have finished "The Shawshank Redemption"...far more experiences finishing the movie that starting it, I can tell you that with a lot of confidence!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MikeekiM said:


> Yeah... I used to be like that too... And in many ways, I still remain that way...
> 
> But I hate that this model results in me always consuming partial episodes by chance, and I never really get to fully appreciate and re-experience the episode... It's almost like picking up a book and randomly reading a partial chapter...
> 
> ...


Exactly, and if decide I have to watch something from the beginning, then I'll go plan out a time when and figure out how. For reruns of shows I've seen, I don't care if I see it from the beggining, especially for classics that I've seen numerous times. Same for the random movie I might come across. I've seen Raiders of the Lost Ark more times than I can count, but if it's on somewhere, and I'm just passing time, I might stop and watch from where ever they are in the movie. Heck I own some seasons of some of these shows on DVD, so I can watch any time I want.

One thing though about watching on DVD or probably streaming. Syndication often cuts out scenes to get more ads in. It's fun watching the old uncut versions. There are scenes in M*A*S*H that I've seen on DVD that I don't even remember seeing before, and that's fun.


----------



## ciscokid (Jan 14, 2003)

MikeekiM said:


> Yeah... I agree... Right now, I actually have four shows that I am just chipping away at as "filler" rewatch repeats that I watch in between my first run binge watching... Friends, The Office (US), Big Bang Theory, and The West Wing... I choose "the next episode" of one of these shows pretty randomly (that is, I am not trying to get through a rewatch of one particular show)...
> 
> I'd love to add some others...but at some point it becomes too diluted... I could easily add Seinfeld, MASH, Frasier, Cheers, etc...
> 
> Actually, I was actually rewatching Cheers from S01E01...but I forget where I left off... that should be in my mix above! I'll have to peruse the episodes to figure out where I left off...


You need to use trakt.tv to track your shows


----------



## HarleyRandom (Sep 17, 2015)

I've never had the desire to watch these people but I just saw a photo of them. I recognized Oscar Madison from the latest TV version of "The Odd Couple" (I also watched a couple more of his failed sitcoms) and Adam Burns from "Man with a Plan". 

The girls have always had great hair and I've liked Jennifer Aniston in a lot of movies. Before there was Phoebe, though, Lisa Kudrow was Cynthia Stevenson's best friend in a show starring Bob Newhart where Cynthia was a very memorable and likable character and Lisa was ... NOT. I wanted nothing to do with her.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

HarleyRandom said:


> I've never had the desire to watch these people but I just saw a photo of them. I recognized Oscar Madison from the latest TV version of "The Odd Couple" (I also watched a couple more of his failed sitcoms) and Adam Burns from "Man with a Plan".
> 
> The girls have always had great hair and I've liked Jennifer Aniston in a lot of movies. Before there was Phoebe, though, Lisa Kudrow was Cynthia Stevenson's best friend in a show starring Bob Newhart where Cynthia was a very memorable and likable character and Lisa was ... NOT. I wanted nothing to do with her.


You have an interesting view on the world. To see Chandler and Joey as Oscar Madison and Adam Burns (I watched that show and didn't register the name).


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> You have an interesting view on the world. To see Chandler and Joey as Oscar Madison and Adam Burns (I watched that show and didn't register the name).


He probably remembers William Shatner as the guy from the Priceline commercials.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I was never a big fan of this show, I probably have seen 30%-40% of the episodes, skewing towards the early seasons. I didn't even know Chandler and Monica had kids, so that was a surprise. I was a little surprised, but not, that CC and JA looked great for their age and so fit, and MP and MLB had definitely put on some pounds since the series ended. 

I was funny to hear about how much DS hated that monkey.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Hank said:


> I was never a big fan of this show, I probably have seen 30%-40% of the episodes, skewing towards the early seasons. I didn't even know Chandler and Monica had kids, so that was a surprise. I was a little surprised, but not, that all that CC and JA looked great for their age and so fit, and MP and MLB had definitely put on some pounds since the series ended.
> 
> I was funny to hear about how much DS hated that monkey.


Unless you count a handful of episodes with the pregnant birth mother, Monica and Chandler didn't have kids until the final episode. Even so, it would be an easy thing to miss it you didn't watch regularly.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> You have an interesting view on the world. To see Chandler and Joey as Oscar Madison and Adam Burns (I watched that show and didn't register the name).


I think what's odder is that he remembers the actors from other parts, rather than the parts that made each one of them. I guess there are all actors we instantly don't like, but I tend not to dismiss them immediately in something else. For example, I'm not a fan of Allison Janney, but have seen her in a few things I liked and thought she was pretty good. Another is Jason Mantzoukas who's character I absolutely hated in The League, but loved his character in Brooklyn 99. So discounting Lisa Kudrow just for a silly bit character she had in a show pre-Friends makes no sense to me.


----------



## HarleyRandom (Sep 17, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> You have an interesting view on the world. To see Chandler and Joey as Oscar Madison and Adam Burns (I watched that show and didn't register the name).


But Matt LeBlanc looks like Adam now. I don't even see Joey.

I finally got around to watching the finale of that show. I hated to because it's the last one ever. I know people said it was a formula show but I liked the formula.

I do remember comparing it to a show that starred Kevin James and I wondered how Kevin got a woman with an ideal body and Adam had an attractive girl with a great personality who looked like most women.


----------



## H2ZX (May 19, 2021)

gchance said:


> No way on earth were they going to incorporate fat Monica.


 Now they have fat Joey.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

For those that haven't seen it, there was some additional Friends reunion footage shown on The Late Late Show a couple nights ago.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> For those that haven't seen it, there was some additional Friends reunion footage shown on The Late Late Show a couple nights ago.


That was awesome! Thank You. I would not have known about this piece because I don't watch his show (not for any specific reason - I just have enough daily shows).

How fun would it be to walk around those sets (for us fans, anyway)! I would have such a blast.

Silly me (who HATES to cry) - I teared up a bit when they all sang the song in the vehicle.  Don't know why. This was just such a great cast of actors and such a great cast of characters.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Wow, this could explain why James Michael Tyler wasn't at the reunion in person. 

James Michael Tyler, Gunther on 'Friends,' Has Stage 4 Prostate Cancer

"The cancer was caught during a routine physical and unfortunately was already at stage 4 by the time of his PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) test. The actor can no longer walk and is confined to a wheelchair."


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

That is really sad.

But it made me sign up for a Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) test tomorrow.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

OT: Why aren't all men over 50 tested for PSA annually? I've been getting a PSA for the last several years (in addition to the more 'direct' exam  annually)


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

In my case I don't have a doctor. If I feel off I go to the minute-clinic places and get taken care of. In this case I saw I could get a PSA at a Quest center without going through a doctor, so I signed up.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Donbadabon said:


> That is really sad.
> 
> But it made me sign up for a Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) test tomorrow.


He probably achieved his "next goal" (saving someone's life) just by going public with his message.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Aww, I'm so sorry to hear that.


----------

