Things that just don't make any sense!

[BURLINGTONTIGER2]

What is Labour Day, and why should one not wear white? My apologies if this has been covered elsewhere but I couldn't be bothered trawling through eleventy-thousand other threads. Thanks.

[CatNamedRudy]

What is Labour Day, and why should one not wear white? My apologies if this has been covered elsewhere but I couldn't be bothered trawling through eleventy-thousand other threads. Thanks.

Labor Day is a US holiday honoring the work force. It's also the unofficial "end" of the summer and it's considered a fashion faux pas to wear white after Labor Day.

[BURLINGTONTIGER2]

What is Labour Day, and why should one not wear white? My apologies if this has been covered elsewhere but I couldn't be bothered trawling through eleventy-thousand other threads. Thanks.

Labor Day is a US holiday honoring the work force. It's also the unofficial "end" of the summer and it's considered a fashion faux pas to wear white after Labor Day.

Great idea, we should do that over here. Sadly, only the workforce itself values labour, not the employers. Thanks.

Midnight and time for bed. G'night all.

[BrendanIreland]

What about Niles dropping the wedding ring and it bounces off screen yet suddenly ;ends up in the pate

[cassius]

This made me pause for thought:

' Contains moderate language, sex references and gory detail '.

No, not Coronation Street, Frasier Season Ten DVD cover!

cassius

[JemimaPuddleduck]

How I look at it is that Frasier, for all its wonderful cleverness and wit, was actually primarily plot-driven rather than character-driven. The writers were witty and briilliant, but motivated mostly by conceptions of good scenes and great lines.Character was always secondary,or even thirdary. Hence all the glaring inconsistencies, and the sense you get that actualy consistency worries us (and the actors) a lot more than it did them, you know? A lot of the character and situational continuity, such as it was, was provided by the wonderful actors, rather than the scripting (for example DHP's persistence with the nose-bleed/lying thing, which never gets another mention in the actual script after its first (plot-based) introduction). Basically the Frasier writers' strengths (brtilliant dialogue) was the Friends writers' weakness, and vice versa. Friends knew all about character-based development, and left Frasier floundering in that dept if no other. In fact i think it's sad to see the Frasier writers kinda recognising it and struggling to copy Friends in some embarrassing ways - but that's another topic.

BTW, I say all this as a serious Frasier fan who has all the eps on DVD and watches them like a ritual!

[Mr Blue Sky]

How I look at it is that Frasier, for all its wonderful cleverness and wit, was actually primarily plot-driven rather than character-driven. The writers were witty and briilliant, but motivated mostly by conceptions of good scenes and great lines.Character was always secondary,or even thirdary. Hence all the glaring inconsistencies, and the sense you get that actualy consistency worries us (and the actors) a lot more than it did them, you know? A lot of the character and situational continuity, such as it was, was provided by the wonderful actors, rather than the scripting (for example DHP's persistence with the nose-bleed/lying thing, which never gets another mention in the actual script after its first (plot-based) introduction). Basically the Frasier writers' strengths (brtilliant dialogue) was the Friends writers' weakness, and vice versa. Friends knew all about character-based development, and left Frasier floundering in that dept if no other. In fact i think it's sad to see the Frasier writers kinda recognising it and struggling to copy Friends in some embarrassing ways - but that's another topic.

BTW, I say all this as a serious Frasier fan who has all the eps on DVD and watches them like a ritual!

Interesting stuff. I certainly think all the best Frasier episodes were plot-driven (the Joe Keenan farces always rank high for me) for which the characters provided a solid foundation. Having said that I think Frasier did 'dramedy' better than any other show. I wasn't a big fan of the Dan O'Shannon helmed seasons but I think S10's Rooms With a View is a great example of an almost laugh-free drama based episode of Frasier that worked. Friends is a different show in many ways. There is a heavy emphasis on one-liners and 'recall' gags (how many jokes were made about the fact that Ross had been married and divorced a number of times, for example) and the style of the show is much more soap-orientated (X falls in love with Y who simultaneously loves Z). That's not a criticism by the way, I've recently been watching Friends again after my last full re-watch of Frasier and I think it holds up pretty well.

One thing we can definitely agree on is how much the actors on Frasier brought to the show (DHP's little touch with the nose-bleed as you say, although there are plenty of examples after S3's Kisses Sweeter Than Wine of Niles lying but not having a nose-bleed )

[CatNamedRudy]

I've never quite been able to understand why people tend to compare Friends and Frasier. As you said BS, they are two very different shows. Minus the ensemble cast and the fact that they are both multi camera sitcoms, there isn't much to "compare." It's like comparing Dexter and Weeds! They're both on Showtime and deal with criminals.

[Mr Blue Sky]

I've never quite been able to understand why people tend to compare Friends and Frasier. As you said BS, they are two very different shows. Minus the ensemble cast and the fact that they are both multi camera sitcoms, there isn't much to "compare." It's like comparing Dexter and Weeds! They're both on Showtime and deal with criminals.

You're right. I think it's fun to look back at the strengths/weaknesses of both shows but it's tough to compare them directly with each other. They were both aiming at different demographics too.

[cassius]

I see no connection between the two.. Friends for the kids, and Frasier for the adults!!

< personal opinion >

cassius

[JemimaPuddleduck]

Well, comparison is interesting to me is why I do it, there's no deeper reason . They were different of course, but that's the point. And their strengths were so very opposed. People who love Frasier so often diss Friends as being lightweight, which it was, of course. But Friends always did emotions and angst and relationships in a much more organic and realistic way than Frasier, prob because the writers of Friends were more interested in that aspect. It was a more 'feminine' show to use the term loosely. And I think the Frasier writers were aware that this was one department in which Friends always beat them and sometimes they tried rather embarrassingly to ape their style. Like the ghastly group publicity poses where the cast are all in evening wear - just like similar shots from Friends. But in Friends the poses worked in harmony with the dynamic of the relationships in the show - four young single friends who all hang out together. Whereas in Frasier you just look and think, 'why the hell is Frasier, his brother, his elderly dad, producer and care-assistant all sitting on that couch in evening dress?' It looks forced and out of character and obviously as if someone has looked at Friends and thought 'hmm, they do that cool, youthful emotional vibe so well, we should try that too, get the tuxedos' , without comprehending that their strenghts were just different.

The same for the Daphne/Niles thing, which they totally messed up, rushing it, making it both boring and unbelievable, and then changing both Niles and Daphne so much they weren't even funny any more most of the time. I think they had no clue about romantic relationships especially, because they sometimes did well with the Frasier/Niles/Martin interaction as someone said. Love stories they were rubbish at. I have a guess that's why there's so much Daphne/Niles fanfic written, because fans are trying to put in what the writers couldn't.

[Moon-Crane]

Like the ghastly group publicity poses where the cast are all in evening wear - just like similar shots from Friends. But in Friends the poses worked in harmony with the dynamic of the relationships in the show - four young single friends who all hang out together. Whereas in Frasier you just look and think, 'why the hell is Frasier, his brother, his elderly dad, producer and care-assistant all sitting on that couch in evening dress?' It looks forced and out of character and obviously as if someone has looked at Friends and thought 'hmm, they do that cool, youthful emotional vibe so well, we should try that too, get the tuxedos' , without comprehending that their strenghts were just different.

Wouldn't really agree with that. They were just publicity shots for the show; all shows have them. Forced and out of character doesn't really come into it for these things, imo. I'd say that most of the images work nicely on most of the dvd packaging. I'm pretty sure they started doing their publicity shots long before seeing what the Friends guys were getting up to anyway.

[CatNamedRudy]

I'm not picking on you Jemima. It's just a comparison I've never understood yet a lot of people seem to compare the two.

I've also never understood the Friends bashing that some Frasier fans seem to feel they need to do. Like they feel like people can't be fans of both shows. I personally loved both shows and when they were on the air they were both "must see TV" for me.

[Karin]

I've never watched Friends, so I can't say anything to that end. But I absolutely agree with this (especially the changing the characters part):

The same for the Daphne/Niles thing, which they totally messed up, rushing it, making it both boring and unbelievable, and then changing both Niles and Daphne so much they weren't even funny any more most of the time. I think they had no clue about romantic relationships especially, because they sometimes did well with the Frasier/Niles/Martin interaction as someone said. Love stories they were rubbish at. I have a guess that's why there's so much Daphne/Niles fanfic written, because fans are trying to put in what the writers couldn't.

[Mr Blue Sky]

The same for the Daphne/Niles thing, which they totally messed up, rushing it, making it both boring and unbelievable, and then changing both Niles and Daphne so much they weren't even funny any more most of the time. I think they had no clue about romantic relationships especially, because they sometimes did well with the Frasier/Niles/Martin interaction as someone said. Love stories they were rubbish at. I have a guess that's why there's so much Daphne/Niles fanfic written, because fans are trying to put in what the writers couldn't.

You've got to be kidding. It took seven seasons and 150+ episodes to get them together. Even the Donny/Daphne/Mel/Niles arc took over a season and a half to play out on its own.

I don't know where you're coming from with that one, I must admit.

[Purusha]

In "The Two Hundredth Episode," Frasier is upset because Daphne accidentally destroys a cassette that contained one of his taped radio shows. He keeps "all" the tapes in a large cabinet in his bedroom, and he's very proud of himself when he places the cassette with the "2,000th" show on it into the cabinet.

The problem is that when he places the cassette in the cabinet, there are not 2,000 cassettes there -- there are only 840! Inexplicably, 1,160 cassettes are missing from his collection! (This doesn't take into account the one that Daphne destroyed).

Yes, I did count the cassettes:

The entire cabinet has the capacity to hold a total of 864 cassettes, and there are 24 empty slots after he places the latest cassette. (If you count them, as I did, make sure you don't miss the bottom-right-hand slot, which is also empty!)

There are only 840 cassettes in the cabinet, and the show also makes it clear that each cassette contains exactly one show.

Why isn't Frasier upset about the other 1,160 missing shows?