To wonder how Friends has survived 'cancel culture?'

[ChocolateSantaisthebestkind]

Over the course of Christmas/lockdown evenings, we have been watching these again on Netflix and DH and I were both saying we don't know how it has survived unedited some bits are down right uncomfortable to watch now.

1. Treatment of LGBT people

2. Making fun of disability -Ginger's leg episode

3. Phoebe's Childhood

4. Ridicule of foreigners

5. Joey/Ross/ Chandler treatment of women

6. Tag --> Sexual Harrassment at work

7. Gunther Stalker

8. Lack of racial diversity ('fixed' but tokenistically by introduction of Charlie)

9. Ageism

10. Body shaming

I know lots of us loved it back in the day and some episodes are still funny, but it just amazes me that there hasn't been more backlash.

AIBU to be

But there are so many films/tv series that do not express the feelings of today's culture.
Would you advocate 'Gone With The Wind?'
'Carry On...' films?
Surely most people are able to contextualise films.
There are so many brilliant films, brilliantly acted that were made in a different era. Watching them doesn't mean that you agree with them... it actually encourages dialogue that is relevant to today's standards.

@sadcatdiary but thats how people would of spoke then and actually in grease , Sandy is the one in charge really and so many teenagers change to be like someone they like or pretend to be into sport when there not etc , then you look back when your older and laugh

Do t forget that there was a man, in the thirties, in Germany, who wanted all books to be burned and all films to be reflective of his ideas.

@1Morewineplease exactly that

Could Friends fans BE any more defensive?

I want al reasons why Friends is still amazing on my desk, BY 9 o’clock.....

I will never stop defending Friends hope they do that reunion.

It’s like how Family Guy (the creator is Jewish) makes fun of all stereotypes - different religions, races, sexual orientation etc

Seth MacFarlane is Jewish?! That's news to me, and almost certainly to him as well

Get a grip love

@GingerAndTheBiscuits

I think it probably has amongst late teens and twenty-somethings.

I’m part of that generation and it actually embarrasses me how they take offence to things like this 😂 well me and my mates just laugh at them

@cosmicpotato

Many people don't subscribe to or care about wokeness. Not everything is seen through a London, middle class lens.

Less of the London you 😂

"Could you be" anymore unreasonable!

It is classic comedy and is so good that at least 3 generations of my family absolutely love it. Just take it for what it is.

Cancel culture on TV isn't a thing except in Daily Mail world.

If people watch it, it will get shown.

I suspect this thread will appear in the Daily Mail with headlines saying "Mumsnet mums think Friends should be cancelled" along with outrage from the usual people.

It’s survived because it’s brilliant and timeless

Can’t believe that no one has mentioned yet how they made a joke about Joey being sexually abused as a child.

It's funny, simple as that. Funny wins every time.

It first aired in 1994, of course teenagers are going to be confused. Doesn't mean the rest of us can't still enjoy it.

1. treatment of LGBT people is not what we would expect now. However, the show shows same sex relationships, which was something new at the time. The jokes are directed at Chandler’s uncomfortableness around his dad and Ross’ uncomfortableness around his ex-wife being gay. The same way that Basil Fawlty is the butt of the joke in Faulty Towers, not the various groups he is interacting with.

2). Again the joke is about Chandler’s uncomfortableness about the disability. Joey doesn’t throw the wooden leg into the fire because he had a problem with the leg. The gag is actually building up that he has thrown the annoying little dog Pepper on the fire. Chandler pushes past his uncomfortableness and then Ginger discovers his nubin. She reacts the exact same way that Chandler reacts to her leg, except she isn’t prepared to work past her uncomfortableness.

3. Phoebe’s mother committed suicide when she was a teenager and therefore she ended up living on the streets. Of course her past is going to contain some less savoury elements. However, that isn’t of its time. There will be will people, some on the streets, some not, who are being exploited now. Should we only show one typecast of person - middle class, educated with two healthy biological parents? That way we’ll never have characters with anything troubling in their background that could be upsetting?

4. Paolo is displayed that way because it fits the Ross/Rachel storyline for her to date losers then end up with the —emotionally abusive— hero. The fact that he’s Italian is what makes him sexy to Rachel and the other women. This is what also irritates the men about him. Rachel also has a fling with Barry again.

5. I agree with other PPs that in this area, the men became caricatures of themselves. However, this is of its time. This is a sitcom set in the early 90’s, when lad culture was rife and 3 of the main characters are males in their mid twenties. What you aren’t pointing out is the times the women call them out for their behaviour or how they grow towards the end of the series (not Ross, he’s just a cock).

6. relationships between line manager and subordinate is played out in many shows. Especially in the late 90s early 00s.

7. Gunther is not a stalker. He’s not following her down the street or posing a threat to her safety. He works in the place that they frequently visit. If your unrequited crush comes into your place of work and you don’t do anything but acknowledge your crush in your head, should you then be labelled a stalker?

8. lack of racial diversity is again a product of the 90s. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Charlie is a token black person. She’s in quite a few episodes with a story that focuses on her as a person. I’ve actually just checked on IMDB, she is in 9 episodes, which is the same number that Richard is in. The only other partners of the main friends which have exceeded 9 episodes were Emily and Mike, both of whom married one of the main cast.

9. the jokes are not directed at Mr Heckles because of his age but because of his personality. Again, there are a number of older people who are given very good story lines - Phoebe’s grandmother being the main one that springs to mind.

10. the main body shaming that occurs is Monica being fat. If you think there are shows being made now that aren’t fat shaming and when they do fat shame are putting a warning on there, you’re sadly mistaken.

I don’t like the Rachel/Ross relationship and each time I watch Friends, that relationship gets worse. I pretend she didn’t get off the plane. However, for a number of years I’ve realised that Ross and Rachel are the red herring about the show. The story is actually the story of Monica and Chandler.

I hate the idea that we have to label everything to say it was made in a different time. Really? Jennifer Aniston’s hair isn’t enough of a giveaway that this isn’t a recent release? If you don’t find it funny anymore, don’t watch it.

Wow, I don't find it offensive at all but you're right, things do date! Rewatched SATC recently and was shocked at some of that...

I've read people complain about it, but mostly about it's representation of LGBT people and the lack of racial diversity.

I think they have a point about the lack of racial diversity, and Charlie did seem very tokenistic. Ross did have an Asian girlfriend for a while I think? I can't remember her name.. Julie? But overall they did not accurately represent New York. That's a fair point but what can be done about it now?

I disagree with the anti-LGBT criticism of the show as it was one of the only shows I remember showing a lesbian couple, and Chandler's dad was trans. They did make jokes and gay was used as an insult but people did do that so it was realistic. More importantly I think was that they actually represented lgb people and the characters themselves were not a joke. Susan and Carol were good characters, and Chandler had a nice episode with his dad when he invited him to the wedding.

I disagree with your point on disability as the whole episode was laughing at Chandler, not the disability. I am disabled if that matters.

The worst thing to me is the sexism, including the constant porn and Ross's relationship with Rachel, but again - it's done now. It's great we have moved on in some ways and we can talk about things, but we have a lot of modern day problems that get overlooked while people are so quick to jump on the past imo.

@Skysblue

Oh ffs a lot of your examples show you are watching a satirical comedy show as if was dead serious. Eg with Ginger’s leg they aren’t making fun of disability (really don’t know how you managed to watch the episode and not understand that) they are making fun of Chandler’s inability to cope with it.

The only area where you have a point is the Lbg stuff and you know what that is how things were at the time. The biggest put down at school was “That’s so gay.” They aren’t saying that is how things should be but they aren’t rewriting reality either by showing it how was. And again they don’t mock gay characters they mock the ofher characters’ reactions to them.

I suggest you stick to nonfiction on your tv, fiction seems a little complex for you.

This.

I see this again and again, and I can't figure out if the people who do not understand this are younger, or what? Many many comedy shows have these kinds of set-ups where a the joke is built around the fact that something is non-PC, or some character is a numb-nuts/bigot/fool, and as the viewer you are in on the joke.

Sometimes they are explicitly meant to be anti-racist or anti-sexist and yet they are being assessed as if the are a show about how to behave!

I wonder how many of these people today would watch something like The Jeffersons?

All that being said, I think one of the reasons people like Friends is that it's not burdened with that hyper-sensitivity, and it's also not as cynical or dark as a lot of humour is at the moment. I've always preferred darker humour but man, a lot of what is popular at the moment seems much worse even than laughing at someone with some kind of leg issue - that seems kind of innocent by comparison.

The Ross/Rachel relationship is emotionally abusive. He gaslights her about sleeping with another woman. Doesn’t get an annulment and lies to her about it. He tries to stop her dating when pregnant because she’s a vessel for his child.

The treatment of Emily is terrible. Ross said another woman’s name at the altar. Then went on their honeymoon with that woman. Then somehow Emily comes out of that as the ‘crazy, controlling’ one - because she doesn’t forgive him and let it go straightaway.

But these, and most of the other things you mentioned, were not meant to show people behaving well. The humour was entirely based on the assumption that you, the viewer, would recognise that.

A show where they are all very respectful and sensible and do the right thing is not going to make a good sit-com.

Seth MacFarlane isn't Jewish and many people find Family Guy offensive and unfunny.

TBH I have seen plenty of criticism of Friends and younger people seem to find it quite dated--they notice a lot of the issues mentioned in the OP. It was never a favourite of mine, but I think a lot of the affection for it is fuelled. by nostalgia from people who saw it when it first aired. My teens don't like it.

*Re Phoebe's childhood, there are a lot of references to sexual exploitation, violence and neglect.

Tag and Rachel before they start a relationship, she keeps mentioning how 'hot' he is etc.

Heckles = ageism

Treeger and UNG body shaming*

Is there? What as in paedophiles etc?

Oh dear god, how could anyone ever voice the opinion that someone was good looking without it being harassment

Example of ageism towards Mr heckles? Or is it just because he was old and they didn't get along with him that annoys you?

Don't recall body shaming of treeger. As for ugly naked guy, you never see him but I think I would find it disgusting if I could see my neighbour walking around naked all the time.

Also tag was only 4 or 5 years younger than Rachel. He was an adult, and no one would bat an eye if it were the other was around.

@cosmicpotato

Many people don't subscribe to or care about wokeness. Not everything is seen through a London, middle class lens.

so much this

friends is great mindless tv, nothing more

I can only think what a sad life many have when all they do is go looking to pick apart old shows/books/music to fit with todays ideals

Oh for gods sake..where’s everyone’s sense of humour

I don't think some people understand what a sense of humour is!

Don't forget that there was a man, in the thirties, in Germany, who wanted all books to be burned and all films to be reflective of his ideas.

Well said.

I think it just shows that cancel culture isn't a thing or at least doesn't have the reach and impact people think. In the case of Friends, the show was made, years later many people noticed that it is now dated and tasteless/offensive at times. And.... that's it. People noticed, discussed it, there was a buzz feed article, that's it. The tapes weren't burned and anyone watching banished from the country.

Because people love it, the same with creepy Love Actually. I don't think neither will be cancelled ever, but I wouldn't be surprised if Grease is removed from terrestrial telly

What's wrong with grease?