MovieChat Forums > CarolTheDabbler > Replies
CarolTheDabbler's Replies
<blockquote>... it would be fun to see how many EQ actors also appeared on MSW....</blockquote>
Here you go:
<url>https://www.imdb.com/search/name/?roles=tt0072496,tt0086765</url>
These IMDB "collaboration" searches include crew members as well as cast, and of course there are a bunch of each in this case, for a total of 127 people (including David Wayne!).
Not generally enough to convict, no -- more of a clue than actual evidence. But hopefully enough to point the cops in the right direction to find good solid evidence.
Y'know, that's plausible. I hear that there's a new Beatles song coming out soon, based on studio work done some years back by the then-three, with Lennon's voice added by AI.
I'm wondering how much our choices are influenced (in a number of ways) by when we were born? For example, do people who first saw I Love Lucy on its network run tend to have a different opinion from those who encountered it later, in syndication? And what's the effect of the person's age when they first saw it?
I take it that is your own personal definitive list. It has some overlap with mine (which I won't bother posting because it keeps morphing).
Just curious -- which "The Office" are you referring to, the original British show or the American version of it?
That puzzled me for a while too (and I'm totally with Phoebe), but now I'm thinking he's a cop, right, and he seems to work the evening shift, so he gets to bed kinda late and likes to sleep in -- but then this darned bird wakes him up early every morning. I suppose that could get to a person. Kinda like the time the guy across the street started a garage band. (Of course I just asked if he'd be so kind as to close the garage door -- but you can't reason with birds.)
On a few other threads, yes. But this thread is for your favorite Chandler moments, not your least-favorite other threads.
There was nothing of that sort on this thread till you brought it up.
<blockquote>She said: "It's a network sitcom like, say, Friends, except instead of being about a group of friends, it's about a group of teachers.
"Instead of New York, it's in Philadelphia, and instead of not having black people, it does!"
---
Do you find her criticism valid?</blockquote>
Well, to be fair, I don't see any criticism there. It's criticism of <i>Friends</i> only if someone thinks that teachers are better than friends, or Philadelphia is better than New York, or black people are better than non-blacks. I think they're merely different.
To me, <i>Seinfeld</i> is mean-spirited and therefore not funny (except for his monologues). Whereas, despite being older than the "friends" and not being a yuppie, I found <i>Friends</i> to be a genuinely funny show. Just depends on one's sense of humor and general taste, I guess.
Hear, hear!
And thank you for your open mind.
There was an audience of several hundred people in the studio during filming, so presumably most of the reactions are genuine, and different people laugh at different things. (although the crew might have "sweetened" the laughter a little at times). My own personal preference is for a show filmed without any audience (so I can react naturally), but I'll take an unaltered audience reaction over a blatant laugh track any day.
That's also not really a classic Indiana Jones type of hat -- the brim is way too narrow. You may have something with your first two points, though. I've never seen Bugsy (nor Bugsy Malone, which I just discovered is an unrelated comedy with an all-child cast), but Gould did wear that general sort of hat in it.
<blockquote>See this photo: <url>https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.virtual-history.com%2Fmovie%2Fphoto%2Fpr55%2Flarge%2Felliott_gould.jpg&tbnid=o3zW6mNyqC-_yM&vet=12ahUKEwiE68nLo6iBAxUvyMkDHcgeAeMQMygBegQIARBU..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.virtual-history.com%2Fmovie%2Fperson%2F365%2Felliott-gould&docid=-lSx7PrrVdPlgM&w=1000&h=667&q=bugsy%20%22elliott%20gould%22&hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwiE68nLo6iBAxUvyMkDHcgeAeMQMygBegQIARBU</url> </blockquote>
... however that doesn't explain why the brim is squashed in the Friends scene.
Maybe that scene was some sort of inside joke (which could explain why it was in the DVD episode but not the aired version)? Hopefully someone who was there has explained it somewhere online, but if so I have yet to find it.
Right, and everybody liked him at first, because he was witty, but then he turned his wit on them, claiming that the big coffee cups at Central Perk "might as well have nipples on them."
That depends on who you ask. I don't know about other countries, but the US officially categorizes Jews as white. Apparently their self-identification has been mostly white as well, but that may be shifting somewhat nowadays, possibly due to intermarriage with people from other categories.
And we won't even mention the remakes of old movies.
Joey (the character) is an Italian-American, so he might have a darkish complexion and/or a tan. Matt LeBlanc (the actor) is half Italian and half French-Canadian, so his on-screen complexion may be due to genes and/or a tan and/or makeup.
"White" is a pretty general term anyhow. I think the people who are complaining about the Friends being "all white" mean that none of them are obviously black.
I don't know what your personal background is, but just about everybody belongs to some group that is sometimes teased or ridiculed by outsiders, and I'm willing to bet that when somebody takes a dig at one of your personal affiliations, you're irked. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about, just old-fashioned good manners.
I'm perfectly fine with the Friends all being basically similar, because most people do tend to hang out with people that they have something in common with, whether that's ethnicity, religion, or whatever. What *would* bother me would be them being one white, one black, one Latin-American, one Asian, one native American, and a Maori.
<blockquote>But one of the saving factors was Ross i thought, he kind of turned into a David Brent and things like him trying it on with his cousin was some of the best moments.</blockquote>
Good heavens, I would never have thought of that analogy. Come to think of it, he starts out sweet and sensible, a bit like Tim Canterbury (for anyone who's confused, we're referring to The [original British] Office here) but then he snaps and turns into a somewhat Brentish character. When Hubby and I get to that point in the series, I'll see if thinking of him in that way helps me cope!
Not meaning to derail the actual discussion here, but what has happened to the term "reboot" over the past decade or so? The word comes from computer terminology, meaning basically "start over again." That's what the Star Trek reboot movies (with Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, et al.) were trying to do. What people seem to be talking about here (and regarding Will & Grace, Mad About You, etc.) is more of a sequel (in movie jargon) or maybe a multi-episode reunion. But now that I've gotten that off my chest --
I think a continuation could be a lot of fun, but its best venue would be a cable or streaming channel, where it's OK to appeal to a niche audience, because heaven help us if they tried to appeal to everyone. If it didn't appeal very strongly to its original audience (including those who have met and loved it in syndication), it wouldn't be Friends.
Seeing as how it would be difficult to get all of the original cast in the same room at once, the suggestion of their now-adult kids as the continuity cast makes some sense, but I don't recall ever seeing one of those shows work very well, presumably because the actual drawing card is the original cast. So maybe find out which ones could make themselves available when and write the scripts around who's available that week, with different mixes in different episodes. And for those who can't often be on set, well hey this is the electronic age, so they could be in some "Zoom" scenes. The kids could also be in some episodes, as would be only natural, but please don't make them the primary cast.