Friends or Seinfeld

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Easily Seinfeld. So many sitcoms tried to be Seinfeld during its peak. Hell, I remember when Friends first started it was initially dismissed as a Seinfeld knock-off.

Ironically a lot of people would argue that there were more attempts at Friends clones than Seinfeld clones in the early 2000’s

[Valentis]

Ironically a lot of people would argue that there were more attempts at Friends clones than Seinfeld clones in the early 2000’s

UK had a short lived sitcom called Coupling. It was supposed to be UK's version of Friends. The Big Bang Theory and How I met your mother were called clones of Friends.

[ed2962]

Meet the original Smelly Cat - Stinky / Theoder...

I'm pretty sure Stinky was supposed to be the Justice League's version of Bill the Cat from the comic strip Bloom County ( who of course was originally a parody of Garfield).

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

UK had a short lived sitcom called Coupling. It was supposed to be UK's version of Friends. The Big Bang Theory and How I met your mother were called clones of Friends.

Those are both the most obvious friends clones. The big difference between Friends and Seinfeld was that Seinfeld was a situational comedy that intentionally kept its characters the same and friends was a hangout comedy where the characters grew over the seasons. I would say Always Sunny is a Seinfeld clone only they get more depraved as the series goes on

[MyriVerse]

I kind of think Friends was just using the Cheers formula, just with different faces and locale. Seinfeld was almost totally new and experimental.

[j9ac9k]

"Cultural impact" as I see it is not about catchphrases, not about its impact on tv or whether or not it was original or changed how shows were written. To me, "Friends" impacted culture more than "Seinfeld" because "Seinfeld" was seen as a show about a specific NYC culture. "Friends" was embraced as being about them and what they were going through, what they were experiencing and aspiring to be - albeit in a much more sanitized, easily digestible way. It promoted the notion of friends as family in a way that no other show before it did and that you can spend your twenties being totally aimless and mostly irresponsible as long as you had your friends to support you emotionally. I believe that was the impact on culture and it was big. Was it good? Probably not, to be honest since it's a fairy tale but I think it helped define a particular mindset for a bunch of people of that generation. (and perhaps now a new one)

[Dr. Ellingham]

I think the reason people give the (obviously) wrong answer - Friends - is due to their generation; people born from 1985-1995 (now ages 25-35) have less knowledge of Seinfeld because they would never have seen it growing up; it wasn't okay for kids to watch in that era. About 10 years ago NBC did a college tour with the DVDs of Seinfeld. I talked with one of the organizers about why they'd do that for a show still making massive returns in ratings. They told me that there was a whole generation that grew up unable to watch it, but they were in college now and would finally grasp it.

That generation grew up in the wake Seinfeld created - which Friends inherited. And it was (a bit) more family-friendly.

Anyway, to formally answer the thread question: The creators of Friends have said several times their pitch to NBC was Seinfeld, but with a Gen-X/ MTV generation cast, versus the baby boomers on Seinfeld. Which is what I thought of Friends as - a dumbed down version of Seinfeld, with simpler humor and a far prettier cast.

Basically - if NBC had hired a a marketing company to revamp Seinfeld with consumerism in mind, Friends would be what they spat out.

It's also a really funny show for the first 5-6 years, in the same way Big Bang Theory is a pretty funny show. Formulaic, easily-digestable show about the silly relationship trials of early 20-somethings

[Castle]

Friends.
And its not close. Friends was a worldwide phenomenon. I rarely here any mentions of Seinfeld outside USA. Seinfeld is an American thing. Friends belongs to the World. Friends was not only worldwide, it made New York more popular with Non-American TV tourists.

Friends characters are more relatable and had depth , despite all the laughs, anyone can see themselves as a Friend and could relate to a moment. Seinfeld got lost in its own genius.

Monica Geller is one of the most well written female characters on TV, Some don’t know how big a deal it is for a female on a comedy show instead of drama.

Rachael and Chandler went through so many character developments, Totally different people by the end of the show. The Seinfeld characters never developed. It’s explains their finale sucking. Jerry, Elaine, George and Cosmo were mostly douchebags and they all stayed that way until the end.

[Conn Seanery]

The Seinfeld finale sucked because they went out on a clip show, not because of lack of character development. Them being consistent douchebags from start to finish was the whole point of the show.

[Riv86672]

I’ve actually come to appreciate the Seinfeld finale more over the last several years. It was a pretty brilliant piece of work. It even ended w. the same conversation that began the first ep.
“The second button is the key button. It literally makes or breaks the shirt. Look at it — it's too high, it's in no-man's-land."
Also, the finale wasn’t a clip show, it just brought back characters from throughout the series to testify at the trial.

[Sacred Knight]

The Seinfeld finale sucked because they went out on a clip show, not because of lack of character development. Them being consistent douchebags from start to finish was the whole point of the show.

Yup. Not to mention the fact it even had a proper finale in the first place. Jerry laments the fact they even did it in the standard series finale mold. It would have been way more in tune with the show for the final episode to have just been a regular episode, without trying to tie things up in any substantial way. It had nothing to do with character development one way or the other. Because the lack of it in this case was the show's very appeal. They were who they were, self-centered, selfish people who learned nothing from their shenanigans.

[Castle]

I’ve actually come to appreciate the Seinfeld finale more over the last several years. It was a pretty brilliant piece of work. It even ended w. the same conversation that began the first ep. l.

It's terrible because they got no development.

Friends is also more influential for the fact that it had 3 females leads and 3 male leads and they all got paid the same. it is a seminal moment for women on TV.

[Sacred Knight]

No, it was the most popular thing around specifically because they got no development. That was the point, the appeal, and people loved it. That's the whole point of the concept of "The Show About Nothing". Nothing substantial happened in their lives, beyond quirky misadventures. They didn't affect the characters at all, things just happened with silly results. But they never learned anything, they never had any emotional growth, they never changed. That was its foundation, and at least for this particular show, people bought into it bigtime. Its okay that you don't and don't like the show on those grounds, but its not an objective negative to the show's very crafting. It is in fact the objective pinpoint of why it was so generally beloved.

[Riv86672]

It would have been way more in tune with the show for the final episode to have just been a regular episode, without trying to tie things up in any substantial way.

That’s how Everybody Loves Raymond (the George Harrison of late nineties/early ought shows) ended. I always thought that was just about perfect, really. It def. would have worked for Seinfeld.

[kingaliencracker]

Interesting thread.

Speaking as someone who lived through that era, in the United States anyway there's no question that Seinfeld had more of an impact on pop culture during its peak run than Friends had during its peak run. There were whole radio and talk show segments devoted to what happened on the previous episode of Seinfeld. It was a very innovative, very different kind of show. And while Seinfeld certainly started off slow, once it got going audiences hadn't seen anything like it. Friends was a more traditional sitcom but it was boosted heavily by the amazing cast chemistry. The other thing Friends had/has going for it is that it has a much broader appeal that has allowed it to endure stronger and with a newer/younger audience than I think Seinfeld has. Younger people in their late teens/early 20's who were maybe a couple of years old when Friends ended have discovered it and allowed it to remain immensely popular. I don't think the same can be said for Seinfeld. Friends, despite some missteps, had a more consistent run than Seinfeld, which had a rocky start and a rocky ending.

But just because of its originality and uniqueness, I'm going to vote Seinfeld. For me, Seinfeld at its peak is akin to The Simpsons at its peak, whereas Friends at its peak is akin to Family Guy at its peak. That's not a perfect analogy by any means but I'm going with it.