(Because I've watched both shows far too much...)
Unrequited Love
In Friends episode 1, Ross and Rachel encountered each other, and it was firmly established that Ross had a crush on Rachel.
In Frasier episode 3, Niles and Daphne encountered each other, and it was firmly established that Niles had a crush on Daphne.
Rachel didn't have a clue. Neither did Daphne.
Ross couldn't get up the nerve to mention his crush. Neither could Niles.
And then...
The woman found out that the man was interested.
In Friends, this happened in season 1, episode 24. In Frasier, it was in season 7, episode 10.
Then the woman started being interested in the man, and he was clueless.
...until he finally found out.
In Friends - season 2, episode 7.
In Frasier - season 7, episode 24.
That's a grand total of 31 Friends episodes. And 166 episodes of Frasier. For essentially the same plotline.
Friends, having taken care of that, promptly had Ross and Rachel
1) start a relationship
2) break up
3) get together again
4) break up again
5) stop a wedding halfway through when they realised they were still in love with each other (kind of)
6) go out with other people
7) get drunkenly married in Vegas
8) get divorced
...and so on.
Meanwhile, Niles and Daphne were getting married, and happily bickering about married-couple-ish stuff.
The thing is, the writers on Friends were so eager to get to the first payoff that they rushed through the whole thing. And then needed bigger and bigger payoffs.
Frasier did things at a much better speed.
Babies
Rachel had a baby. And so did Roz.
...and then Rachel's baby kind of disappeared.
She wasn't around, she wasn't really mentioned, and Rachel's life kept going on as per normal. And the writers, when questioned, basically said "Well, the show is about the 6 main characters. Not the 6 main characters and the baby."
Which annoys me. Because the baby is supposed to be part of Rachel's life.
Frasier, on the other hand...
Roz had a baby.
And then she was exhausted.
And she was stuck on decaf coffee because she was breastfeeding.
She had arranged for a babysitter.
She moved to a bigger apartment.
She mentioned going to kids' birthday parties.
And to playdates.
And reading children's stories.
And waking up in the middle of the night because her daughter kept crying.
And dressing her up in cute outfits for holidays.
And on, and on...
On Friends, the baby was basically a gimmick (yet another part of the "How can we make Ross and Rachel's story EVEN MORE EXCITING?" dilemma).
On Frasier, it was part of the ongoing story.
In conclusion? Frasier is way better. *nods*
Unrequited Love
In Friends episode 1, Ross and Rachel encountered each other, and it was firmly established that Ross had a crush on Rachel.
In Frasier episode 3, Niles and Daphne encountered each other, and it was firmly established that Niles had a crush on Daphne.
Rachel didn't have a clue. Neither did Daphne.
Ross couldn't get up the nerve to mention his crush. Neither could Niles.
And then...
The woman found out that the man was interested.
In Friends, this happened in season 1, episode 24. In Frasier, it was in season 7, episode 10.
Then the woman started being interested in the man, and he was clueless.
...until he finally found out.
In Friends - season 2, episode 7.
In Frasier - season 7, episode 24.
That's a grand total of 31 Friends episodes. And 166 episodes of Frasier. For essentially the same plotline.
Friends, having taken care of that, promptly had Ross and Rachel
1) start a relationship
2) break up
3) get together again
4) break up again
5) stop a wedding halfway through when they realised they were still in love with each other (kind of)
6) go out with other people
7) get drunkenly married in Vegas
8) get divorced
...and so on.
Meanwhile, Niles and Daphne were getting married, and happily bickering about married-couple-ish stuff.
The thing is, the writers on Friends were so eager to get to the first payoff that they rushed through the whole thing. And then needed bigger and bigger payoffs.
Frasier did things at a much better speed.
Babies
Rachel had a baby. And so did Roz.
...and then Rachel's baby kind of disappeared.
She wasn't around, she wasn't really mentioned, and Rachel's life kept going on as per normal. And the writers, when questioned, basically said "Well, the show is about the 6 main characters. Not the 6 main characters and the baby."
Which annoys me. Because the baby is supposed to be part of Rachel's life.
Frasier, on the other hand...
Roz had a baby.
And then she was exhausted.
And she was stuck on decaf coffee because she was breastfeeding.
She had arranged for a babysitter.
She moved to a bigger apartment.
She mentioned going to kids' birthday parties.
And to playdates.
And reading children's stories.
And waking up in the middle of the night because her daughter kept crying.
And dressing her up in cute outfits for holidays.
And on, and on...
On Friends, the baby was basically a gimmick (yet another part of the "How can we make Ross and Rachel's story EVEN MORE EXCITING?" dilemma).
On Frasier, it was part of the ongoing story.
In conclusion? Frasier is way better. *nods*
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 10:39 am (UTC)Oh, yeah, back to your post and not my random thoughts . . . yep, Fraiser got more out of the romance than Friends did, though I will forever recall the day after that failed wedding when he said "I Ross take thee Rachel" as the moment when my fate as a TV addict who would someday hope to make a career out of that addiction was sealed. I was in eighth grade, and that Friday I asked every one of my teachers "OMG! (though this was before OMG) DID YOU SEE FRIENDS LAST NIGHT?"
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 11:01 am (UTC)Frasier's style of humour I found far more to my liking then then the overly 'pretty people' feel of Friends.
And god, the whole Niles and Daphne affair was handled so, so well.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 11:26 am (UTC)It really was.
I was saying to my housemate earlier: in the season 7 finale, when he finally tells her he loves her, we've known he loves her for years, we've known for the entire scene that he was about to tell her - and yet, the audience still GASPS when he actually says the words. Because everyone's had baited breath for about three years straight by that point...
I have a sentimental attachment to Friends. It was my high school show. And as bad as it (undeniably) is, I still huggle it and sigh happily from time to time. :)
no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 06:05 am (UTC)Mind you Ross was lovely in Season 1. Then they made him weirder and weirder. Eh. Didn't care about him or Rachel by the end.
That and the appalling way they showed us that final season of Friends interrupted by however many repeats it was - that was the final straw really. It meant any attachment I had to the characters was beaten out of me.
A side comment
Date: 2010-07-11 12:31 pm (UTC)Re: A side comment
Date: 2010-07-11 08:09 pm (UTC)*kicks spelling*
Re: A side comment
Date: 2010-07-11 11:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 04:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 08:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 07:51 pm (UTC)Here, here!
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 09:27 pm (UTC)Because I've been watching Xena. But I kind of got off track.
And I've already finished all of Arrested Development - which everyone in the world should watch because it is SO HILARIOUS - but sometimes I get the urge to re-watch it.
And then I had the urge to watch The Simpson's, because that was such a fun show, so I watched some of that.
And yesterday I watched some Seinfeld, because that was good, too. And now I have a sudden urge to watch Friends, because I used to watch that sometimes, and That 70's Show, and Frasier because you mentioned it even though I've never seen it, and The Sarah Connor Chronicles because
If only I could just sit around and watch TV all day. *sigh*
no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 04:03 am (UTC)You are going to watch Farscape, aren't you? *looks stern*
no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 01:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 03:09 am (UTC)Keep watching!
It takes a while to get going, but there's a brilliant story arc...
no subject
Date: 2010-07-14 12:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 09:54 pm (UTC)