Friends didn't look like Silver Spoons
I have a love/hate feeling about Chuck Klosterman. I think a lot of his ideas are clever and interesting, but he just gets so many things wrong in his columns that it makes you tear your hair out a little bit (and I don't have that much to tear out anymore). And his tone is one of superiority when he's actually off quite a bit in what he says.
For example, his latest Esquire column is about how TV networks "feel" and "look." How ABC looks a certain way, how NBC looks a certain way, and you can tell what channel you're watching, even if you can't figure out why or how you know, you do (even if you're not watching a show that you know is on a certain network). It's something I actually noticed 20 years ago, and I'm a little freaked out that someone else brought it up.
So the idea is good, but this is where Klosterman goes off the rails a bit. He points out in the piece that a lot of TV shows look like a lot of other TV shows. I'm not even sure if this is even exactly true, but even if it is, he's dead wrong when he says that Friends resembled ... Silver Spoons??
This is so completely wrong that it almost hurts his argument a bit. Friends was shot on film and had that darker, film look about it (like M*A*S*H or NewsRadio or The Office). Silver Spoons was shot on videotape and had that "live" look that so many sitcoms have had (everything from All in the Family to Kate Allie to Three's Company). In the grand scheme of things it's really not a big deal and he makes some good points in the piece, but I just find it odd that he would include this example. I also wonder how it got by the editors. (I also question his statement that 30 Rock visually resembles Friends ... it doesn't).
I'm sure I'm not the first one to notice this. I would assume several friends have already mentioned it to him.