Sepinwall's book excerpt on The Sopranos: The Russian, and The End

Love you like a brother, DD, but I have to call bullshit on that generalization.

I watched it with regularity. It's not so much that it was terrible, but it was exceedingly average, which is why I could have it on and not turn the channel. (No cable at the time too)

It might be the most average show of all-time, especially among those that reached iconic status. My beef is that the characters were 2D (and I wanted to punch three out of five of them in the face because they were annoying), it was broadly written, it never felt vital in the same way Seinfeld or The Simpsons of that period did.

I think a lot of animus towards it is because it became a cultural institution despite these flaws, which was depressing and annoying all at once.

And if we're making sweeping generalizations, I'll jump in.

A lot of people -- especially those who are now in their mid-to-upper 30s, the demographic the show "spoke to" in the 90s -- reflexively defend it out of all proportion to its actual quality. Why? Because to rip the show is to rip one of the cultural touchstones of that generation's emergence in pop culture.

I'd say those who are willing to go to the mattresses for Friends are equal to or outnumber those who criticize it.

It's like Baby Boomers and some of their pet shows/bands. If you were to tell my dad's generation that late 80s-to-early 2000s SNL was better than the original cast, they'd laugh in your face, even though much of the original cast's contributions (not all) have become really dated since then.

As for Sepinwall, here's how good he is ...

I was part of the evil Dish Network brigade that didn't have AMC when Season 5 of Breaking Bad aired. As many know, I love Breaking Bad unabashedly and think its the best TV show of all-time.

Since I didn't have AMC, and don't have time in my life to go through the bullshit of downloading them on the down low, I read Sepinwall's reviews to keep up.

He's that good. (Plus he gets great access to the show's writers, producers, etc.)

 

This is kind of what I was getting at. As usual, somebody said it better.
When young people like stuff, they often think it's important. They ascribe it merit to that goes beyond entertainment.
As one gets older, often times it is difficult to look at it later and realize that it wasn't as good as you thought it was.

That doesn't mean you didn't enjoy it. That doesn't mean you might not still enjoy it.
I still enjoy Billy Joel's 'Glass Houses,' but I don't fool myself that it is the artistic achievement I thought it was when I was 10 or 11 years old.

So, it's not an issue of underestimating nostalgia. I'm accounting for nostalgia.
I'm simply recognizing it for what it is.

 

I'll cop to this in a lot of cases. For example, I am no longer of the opinion that "Siamese Dream" by the Smashing Pumpkins is this generation's "Sgt. Pepper's."

But I'm sticking by "Friends." I've watched it objectively, later. I admit to its (numerous) flaws. I still think it's much, much better than its reputation, and, ultimately, one of the cultural triumphs of the '90s.

Like I said, longer analysis forthcoming one of these days.

 

Amazing how often you are wrong given how often you stalk me.

 

Bubbler described Friends perfectly as saying it wasn't vital. It was pleasant but forgettable. For me, the great, definitive 90s sitcom was the Larry Sanders Show.

Brilliant comedy and a launching pad for great writing and acting talent.

 

Agreed. And it's amazing that Jeffrey Tambor was on what I consider to be the best comedies of both the 1990s and the 2000s.

Friends was like Frasier, a pretty funny show I watched semi-regularly about which I can't remember a single episode's plotline.

 

Friends was awful in the last 2-3 seasons, particularly with Joey and Ross regularly shouting their punch lines. They became caricatures of their characters (if that make sense). Frasier aged much better than the Central Perk gang.