|
|
watch 'Friends' anymore.
I'm here to tell you why. It has to do with boredom.
By Elizabeth White
I am the reason "Friends" is losing to "Survivor."
Well not really me, per se. But the fact that I don’t watch "Friends" anymore-- which has nothing to do with "Survivor 2"-- is one of the reasons that "Friends" is struggling this season.
I’m "Friends’" target demo. I’m a 22 year old, well-educated female who has watched the show since it first came on the air. And for years, NBC on Thursday night was truly must-see TV for me and my friends.
If I didn’t watch "Friends," I taped it. And if my tape failed, I knew of at least five backup tapes I could call on.
But not anymore. I don’t watch it. I don’t tape it. And none of my friends do either.
Long gone are the days when watching "Friends" was so important to all the girls on my basketball team that we made it a team event, taping the episodes that conflicted with our games, then watching them together.
The "Rachel" haircut has become indistinguishable in my memory from the Mrs. Brady do on "The Brady Bunch."
What has changed is that "Friends" is boring now. It’s predictable, it’s formulaic, and I no longer care what happens.
There’s simply nothing propelling "Friends" forward. Around the time the show first appeared, "Seinfeld" was doing an ironic "it’s a show about nothing" schtick. Then "Friends" came on, and the critics joked, "It’s about twenty-somethings sitting around in a coffeehouse, doing nothing."
And for the first two or three seasons, "Friends" used the Ross-and-Rachel, will-they/won’t-they question to provide all the momentum for the show, which was still essentially about people doing nothing.
Once that relationship had played out, "Friends" move on to milk the Chandler-Monica question.
But now that’s over as well, and the friends aren’t interesting enough to make it on their own.
The characters, which were never fully developed to begin with, have degenerated into one-dimensional caricatures. The show never fails to emphasize that Joey is stupid, Phoebe flaky, Chandler snide, Ross whiny, Monica whiny, and Rachel whiny.
Which brings me to the next reason "Friends" isn’t doing well: too much whining. Of all the characteristics to overuse, the most annoying one isn’t a good choice. If I want to watch whining, I’ll watch "Survivor" or "Temptation Island."
Notice that neither one of those options is a sitcom.
The problem with losing viewers like me isn’t just a problem for NBC and "Friends," it’s a problem for all the sitcoms on the Big Three networks.
"Frasier," "Just Shoot Me" and "Dharma and Greg" suffer from the same disease. Urban setting, wacky supporting players, one interesting relationship, and canned laughter. Lots of it.
And after 10 years, it should be no wonder that the formula has gotten old.
Ironically enough, the only sitcom on today that hasn’t gotten tired is also the longest-running one, "The Simpsons." My friends and I make time to see it whenever, wherever, and however many times a day it comes on.
Granted, the show has wacky supporting characters. But "The Simpsons" isn’t urban, it’s not about twenty-somethings, it doesn’t have any romantic tension, there’s no laugh track, and most importantly, I can never tell what’s going to happen next.
So when you see that "Survivor 2" beat "Friends," don’t think it’s because my generation loves unscripted programming. That formula, too, will get old.
We just want new scripts.
-
Elizabeth White is a staff writer for Media Life.
Send to a
Friend| Printer-Friendly Version
Cover Page | Contact
Us
© 2001 Media Life
