Friends: The Complete Series (1994-2004)

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by bookcase

Overreact much? I don't think he even put down Friends; he just said he liked one more than the other.

First of all, comparing Friends and Seinfeld is apples and oranges since they both have two totally different styles of comedy. I watch both, but have never thought about comparing the two.

[Battra92]

Originally Posted by cembros

If thats the case why get the Blu rays, they were presented in SD.

IIRC weren't they on videotape too? Film you can always extract more data from but tape (and today's digital recordings) are locked at their current quality.

[BluRyan]

Originally Posted by MrHT

I don't like the extended version. And besides, they edited out the fade outs for the commercials. I want these episodes to be presented EXACTLY as they did when they first aired. Nothing more, nothing less. So, in my book, it would be a step up.

I was under the assumption that the extended versions were the broadcast versions, and the shortened versions were the ones used in syndication, so if you wanted them as they were originally presented then yes, the extended ones are. Unless, I'm wrong. I don't know that's just how I understood it. Maybe they should put both versions on the set and you get to choose which version you want via seamless branching. You know, for the anally retentive, purist folk.

But yeah, anyone who wanted the episodes as they were first broadcast would have to put up with a 4:3 SD image with station logos and commercials.

Anyway, is there actually a 37-minute version of 'The Pilot' out there, if there is they should definitely include it, and like I said give you the option to watch it extended or the original version!

[MrHT]

No, the extended versions have additional footage not seen before and the episodes are edited to remove the parts that fade out during commercials.

[cembros]

Originally Posted by Battra92

IIRC weren't they on videotape too? Film you can always extract more data from but tape (and today's digital recordings) are locked at their current quality.

Friends was shot on film.

[BluRyan]

Originally Posted by MrHT

No, the extended versions have additional footage not seen before and the episodes are edited to remove the parts that fade out during commercials.

Ah okay, I see. Then, I guess they should have both versions via seamless branching. Although, those fading parts are a bit of a pet peeve of mine, especially when it fades out on a character saying a line and then picks up after a black screen with the same character repeating that same line in the same scene, I mean I know they're needed when there's 4 minutes of commercials between them but on the DVDs/Blu-rays? Not really necessary IMHO.

But that's just a matter of opinion, I wouldn't want to ruin the artistic integrity of the director's original decisions and I think they should all be preserved in a way that is respectful to the original broadcast version, however compiles the most complete and comprehensive version of each episode for all of us fans to enjoy. After all, these HD transfers will be the way people will watch them for years to come, and I just think the extended episodes (even if only a few seconds per episode) is more of Friends, and that's what everybody wants, don't they? More of Friends. If they released versions of every episode with an additional five minutes each, fans would rejoice, even if the scenes didn't add anything, Friends is a sublime way for people to escape from the monotony of everyday life, 22 (or more) minutes of escapism. And...

I've kind of gone off point, anyway, believe it of not, none of that was copied and pasted...

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by MrHT

I'm at a Friends thread, so obviously I'm a Friends fan. When someone declares a show like "Seinfeld" as superior and states it as a fact, then I get offended. Not sure why someone would come to a Friends thread and put down the show. Makes no sense.

He never "put down" the show. He just said that he thinks Seinfeld was better. And saying he "thinks" it's better, is obviously stating that as his opinion, not as a fact.

[BluRyan]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

He never "put down" the show. He just said that he thinks Seinfeld was better. And saying he "thinks" it's better, is obviously stating that as his opinion, not as a fact.

Exactly! Why people would interpret someone's opinion as thrashing Friends is beyond me! I mean I like Seinfeld but I like Friends more, and if I were on a Seinfeld discussion I might mention that I prefer Friends. Then of course I would probably be subject to much abuse. People on here are so touchy!

[MrHT]

Again, I say. Apples and oranges. Two totally different shows with totally different style of comedies. Not sure why someone would compare the two. Like I said, I watch both shows and so do my friends, but none of us ever thought of comparing the shows.

I'm not touchy. All I ask is for people to not say things that are so silly. It's really not hard. I don't know why people can't do things right!!

[AlbinoPriest]

He said he thinks so. I mean, even if he didn't it's still his opinion. Everyone has his opinion. If he thinks there's ground for comparison (which I agree there is) it's still his opinion, and you saying that there's not a possibility for that at all makes you the only intolerant person here. But that's my opinion.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by MrHT

Again, I say. Apples and oranges. Two totally different shows with totally different style of comedies. Not sure why someone would compare the two. Like I said, I watch both shows and so do my friends, but none of us ever thought of comparing the shows.

Not trying to argue with you, but the whole apples to oranges saying gets thrown around too much, if you ask me. It just seems like anytime someone tries to compare two things or says they like one thing more than another, someone just says "apples and oranges". Sure, Seinfeld and Friends are different shows, but they're also similar in many ways. They both focus on a group of adult friends who hang out all the time and deals with their sex lives quite a bit. It's like saying you can't compare Star Wars and Star Trek.

Originally Posted by MrHT

I'm not touchy. All I ask is for people to not say things that are so silly. It's really not hard. I don't know why people can't do things right!!

I really don't see what is so "silly" about someone simply saying that they like one show better than another.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

Not trying to argue with you, but the whole apples to oranges saying gets thrown around too much, if you ask me. It just seems like anytime someone tries to compare two things or says they like one thing more than another, someone just says "apples and oranges". Sure, Seinfeld and Friends are different shows, but they're also similar in many ways. They both focus on a group of adult friends who hang out all the time and deals with their sex lives quite a bit. It's like saying you can't compare Star Wars and Star Trek.

But you can't do that either...

Star Wars is a Space Opera about a family legacy against the backdrop of a great war, and Star Trek is an idealized fantasy of the future of humanity used to tell cautionary tales and allegory to current/recent events.

Sure, anyone can compare anything - and hey, they both have "Star" in the title, and they both have spaceships, right? But, they are completely different beasts.

Seinfeld and Friends are similar in that respect - though they do have more in common than Star Wars and Star Trek, they still are fairly different. What's funny is that Seinfeld hasn't held up nearly as well as Friends in terms of feeling dated, and Friends ended it's run much more lauded than Seinfeld did. It's funny how history will look at them differently - Seinfeld was more of a phenomena based on antics and felt shocking/fresh at the time, whereas Friends (especially post-Monica and Chandler) has aged exceptionally well and the character development is much more significant from the first to last episodes (which you can't really say about Seinfeld).

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

But you can't do that either...

Star Wars is a Space Opera about a family legacy against the backdrop of a great war, and Star Trek is an idealized fantasy of the future of humanity used to tell cautionary tales and allegory to current/recent events.

Sure, anyone can compare anything - and hey, they both have "Star" in the title, and they both have spaceships, right? But, they are completely different beasts.

Seinfeld and Friends are similar in that respect - though they do have more in common than Star Wars and Star Trek, they still are fairly different. What's funny is that Seinfeld hasn't held up nearly as well as Friends in terms of feeling dated, and Friends ended it's run much more lauded than Seinfeld did. It's funny how history will look at them differently - Seinfeld was more of a phenomena based on antics and felt shocking/fresh at the time, whereas Friends (especially post-Monica and Chandler) has aged exceptionally well and the character development is much more significant from the first to last episodes (which you can't really say about Seinfeld).

I knew I'd get that response. It's just the whole "apples vs. oranges" thing is like saying you should never compare anything. Either way, I hope both shows end up on Blu-ray at some point.

[mayorofsmpleton]

HD would look good. Friends was popular for being a very bright an colorful sitcom after many years of mostly dull looking interiors, etc. As stated it was shot on film so it would look much better than SD.

Seinfeld would also greatly benefit (HD broadcasts look incredible) but that's a SONY owned series so it's not as though FRIENDS is receiving some special treatment by getting a release first. Both could and would benefit from HD releases and both are likely to get them at some point.

Dunno if I'd buy FRIEND on HD but I'm glad it's getting a release. It opens the doors for other sitcoms shot on film to get similar treatment assuming it sells well (which i think it will).

[Ugly Pig]

Originally Posted by MrHT

Again, I say. Apples and oranges. Two totally different shows with totally different style of comedies. Not sure why someone would compare the two.

No one here has - the poster you responded to simply said he liked Seinfeld better than Friends. That's not a comparison. And that doesn't mean that he doesn't like Friends as well! He didn't trash Friends or claim his opinion was fact, as you accuse him of.

Originally Posted by MrHT

I'm not touchy.

Yes. Yes, you are. To a ridiculous degree.

[MrHT]

OK, I'm sorry then. The thing is, I encounter so many people that say "Friends sucks!! Watch Seinfeld instead!" I must have encountered like 100 of these people in the past few years and it annoys me to no end. Not sure why people would trash this kind of show let alone compare it with Seinfeld. But ok, if El_Jay wasn't trashing it, then my mistake!! I guess I jumped to conclusions.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by MrHT

OK, I'm sorry then. The thing is, I encounter so many people that say "Friends sucks!!

I know what you mean. Years ago (when I used to actually read amazon.com reviews), there were a bunch of people that wrote bad reviews saying the show sucked and the acting was terrible; only an idiot could like the show. Honestly, I bet most of those people watched the first 2 or 3 episodes and just judged the entire series based on those. Basically, most people that like to give bad reviews don't know how to express their opinions, so they just try to think of the meanest things they can say.

[cinemaphile]

there's a deep discount on the DVD set on amazon today. That's a good sign of a possible announcement coming soon.

Often studios partner with retailers on deep discounting of sets or previous editions of titles prior to announcing new ones - clear out stock and squeeze some more dollars out before customers find out about the new one and decide to just wait.

[bookcase]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

there's a deep discount on the DVD set on amazon today. That's a good sign of a possible announcement coming soon.

Often studios partner with retailers on deep discounting of sets or previous editions of titles prior to announcing new ones - clear out stock and squeeze some more dollars out before customers find out about the new one and decide to just wait.

I'd like to think this is true, but it's not the first time this has been deeply discounted or a deal of the day -- in fact, I bought the set much cheaper than it is today.

[BluRyan]

I bet they did this with the first set before they released the Red Box. There's a pattern forming here. I also imagine they would be releasing this set not only on Blu-ray, but also on DVD, advertising it as remastered in widescreen so WB can squeeze every last penny they can out of us! But the blu-ray I will buy, no questions asked! This is the first worthwhile re-release they have brought out!