Second, and tangentially, I thought Friends was much better than Seinfeld, and even if you disagree with me about that, I can still explain why *I* liked it better. Let me get the digression out of the way before I get to the main point, because a part of this tangent helps explain why I feel the story had an ending. One thing I do when I get interested enough in a television show to watch more than a few episodes is to ask myself, "what is this show really about?" For example, Ally McBeal was not, at its core, "a show about lawyers" -- that was just the setting. Ally was a show about loneliness. Look at the recurring themes, look at what the characters were most driven by or most afraid of, and look at which elements were behind the most moving moments. Similarly, Seinfeld wasn't really "a show about nothing"; it was a show about a bunch of self-centered ... well, jerks. There's humour in that, but it's not my favourite kind of humour.
I liked both sitcoms, for different reasons. (I was also an Ally McBeal fan too) The Seinfeld characters had their own way of bonding with each other. They were just more cynical and sarcastic. Some people are like that. "Friends" was kinder and gentler. Interesting that they are both set in New York.
I agree totally with what you said about the ending. I still watch the reruns even when I've seen them many times already. I still cry when I see the one where Chandler proposes to Monica in the room filled with candles. But they found a good point at which to wrap things up.
Some TV critics have written that the sitcom is dying out as a format (or art form?). We might look back on the Seinfeld/Friends days as the end of that era.
*nod* While I do not think Seinfeld was "the best show on television", neither do I think it sucked. It was actually a pretty good example of something I personally don't much care for; good enough that I enjoy many episodes ... almost despite my feelings about what I'm seeing. (It's not the sarcasm that bothers me -- it's the "What did I do to deserve this? All I did was be a selfish jerk, that doesn't mean bad things should happen to me" tone I perceived in it. And that's both personal perception and personal taste speaking, not a claim of objectivity.) I just can't bring myself to make a habit of watching Seinfeld reruns, but I get sucked into an episode of Friends I've already seen all too easily.
" I still cry when I see the one where Chandler proposes to Monica in the room filled with candles."
*nod* A few other spots for me, as well. Y'know, for moments like that to work, in addition to the "history" aspect, it really does help that the actors on Friends were comic actors[*], as opposed to comedians-who-act. It's not that comedians can't make a good show, but they make different kinds of shows than comic-actors do. (The Drew Carey Show, for example, while it has both types in the cast, has the "comedian-based" feel to it most of the time rather than the "actor-based" feel.)
[*] At least some of them are good dramatic actors as well, which is easy to forget unless you've just seen them in a serious movie within the past few days. I remember the first time I saw Aniston in a serious movie (I guess it would technically be a "romantic comedy" but it was more of a "romantic drama with a happy ending" because it didn't try for laughs), I spent the first third of it waiting for the wackiness to start because I thought that was what she did. Instead she blew me away with how she carried off a sensitive role, hitting every emotional note perfectly and really selling the character.
"Some TV critics have written that the sitcom is dying out as a format (or art form?). We might look back on the Seinfeld/Friends days as the end of that era."
An interesting notion. Could it be that the classic sitcom form is mined out, that it's becoming harder and harder to find ground within that format that wasn't covered by Lucille Ball or Dick van Dyke decades ago? I've seen assertions that each genre has a finite lifespan; a phase in which it is novel, a period of exploration, a golden age, a "glean the rest of the good ideas" spell, and finally a decline into cliche ... and that when the new works in the genre turn to self-parody, that is its epitaph and it is time to create new forms. (Do we have any sitcoms that are inherently parodies of the sitcom genre itself? How would that work?)
I figure there are two ways for the sitcom to die: for the ideas in the format to be used up, or for the tastes of audiences or networks to shift (some say that so-called reality shows spell the death of the sitcom on purely economic grounds). And either the sitcom as a whole can die out, or the most familiar subset of sitcoms can fade to be replaced by new subgenres of sitcom. IF that is what's happening, then Seinfeld/Friends might mark the transition, with Seinfeld being one of the last significant "classic" sitcoms and Friends being the harbinger of the new, or an intermediate form between the old and the new.
Or maybe what I'm thinking of as "new sitcom" is just the last brilliant flash of the fading of sitcoms in general, and the new genre to move to is the "dramedy"?
And at this point I am clearly out of my depth as a television critic / art historian, so I should probably just shut up and listen for a while.
(no subject)
I liked both sitcoms, for different reasons. (I was also an Ally McBeal fan too) The Seinfeld characters had their own way of bonding with each other. They were just more cynical and sarcastic. Some people are like that. "Friends" was kinder and gentler. Interesting that they are both set in New York.
I agree totally with what you said about the ending. I still watch the reruns even when I've seen them many times already. I still cry when I see the one where Chandler proposes to Monica in the room filled with candles. But they found a good point at which to wrap things up.
Some TV critics have written that the sitcom is dying out as a format (or art form?). We might look back on the Seinfeld/Friends days as the end of that era.
(no subject)
" I still cry when I see the one where Chandler proposes to Monica in the room filled with candles."
*nod* A few other spots for me, as well. Y'know, for moments like that to work, in addition to the "history" aspect, it really does help that the actors on Friends were comic actors[*], as opposed to comedians-who-act. It's not that comedians can't make a good show, but they make different kinds of shows than comic-actors do. (The Drew Carey Show, for example, while it has both types in the cast, has the "comedian-based" feel to it most of the time rather than the "actor-based" feel.)
[*] At least some of them are good dramatic actors as well, which is easy to forget unless you've just seen them in a serious movie within the past few days. I remember the first time I saw Aniston in a serious movie (I guess it would technically be a "romantic comedy" but it was more of a "romantic drama with a happy ending" because it didn't try for laughs), I spent the first third of it waiting for the wackiness to start because I thought that was what she did. Instead she blew me away with how she carried off a sensitive role, hitting every emotional note perfectly and really selling the character.
(no subject)
An interesting notion. Could it be that the classic sitcom form is mined out, that it's becoming harder and harder to find ground within that format that wasn't covered by Lucille Ball or Dick van Dyke decades ago? I've seen assertions that each genre has a finite lifespan; a phase in which it is novel, a period of exploration, a golden age, a "glean the rest of the good ideas" spell, and finally a decline into cliche ... and that when the new works in the genre turn to self-parody, that is its epitaph and it is time to create new forms. (Do we have any sitcoms that are inherently parodies of the sitcom genre itself? How would that work?)
I figure there are two ways for the sitcom to die: for the ideas in the format to be used up, or for the tastes of audiences or networks to shift (some say that so-called reality shows spell the death of the sitcom on purely economic grounds). And either the sitcom as a whole can die out, or the most familiar subset of sitcoms can fade to be replaced by new subgenres of sitcom. IF that is what's happening, then Seinfeld/Friends might mark the transition, with Seinfeld being one of the last significant "classic" sitcoms and Friends being the harbinger of the new, or an intermediate form between the old and the new.
Or maybe what I'm thinking of as "new sitcom" is just the last brilliant flash of the fading of sitcoms in general, and the new genre to move to is the "dramedy"?
And at this point I am clearly out of my depth as a television critic / art historian, so I should probably just shut up and listen for a while.