Powered by i.TV
December 20, 2014

No, no, no to Friends feature says Warners

by Allison Waldman, posted Jul 6th 2008 2:01PM
Friends in a tubThanks to the success of the Sex and the City movie -- and talk of more to come -- the rumor mill has been bubbling with other TV shows making the leap to the big screen. In the case of Arrested Development, it sure sounds like the truth.

However, the Friends feature is a rumor that has no legs. Warners owns the property and on July 4th, even though all U.S. offices were closed for the holiday, denied the rumors via the London office.

Jayne Trotman, Warner's director of publicity, said of the Friends movie, "(There's) no truth in the story."

Just to be sure, Matthew Perry's press rep also denied the rumor. She told the BBC that nothing is happening and the rumor is just that, a shred of news with no value attached to it.

So, where are the affirmatives that have made the media think there was a chance for a Friends big screen production? MailOnline.com started it. The web site posted on July 2nd that all the Friends, Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Lisa Kudrow, David Schwimmer and Matthew, were willing to reprise their roles for a picture to be filmed within the next 18 months.

In what can only be called a fanciful -- unsupported by named sources -- story, the writer went on to say that Jennifer and Courteney had been talking about what they wanted the feature to be about and how to get it done. Whether they ever really talked about a movie or not remains uncertain.

What is certain is this: if Warners says it's not happening, it's not happening. Not any time soon, anyway.

But even if Warners was hot to make the film, would a Friends feature really be such a great thing? I don't think so. As it was, the series probably should have ended in 2000, when Monica and Chandler proposed to each other.

I know it may seem like heresy to some, but for me, that was the last, great Friends season. A feature film might be a real let down, when you think about it.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

12 Comments

Filter by:
TVGenius

It would end up being the first movie where the cast was paid $100M, and do about half that at the box office..

July 07 2008 at 11:48 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
jake

All of you complain -- oh, i'm glad that aren't making it or it should have ended sooner than it did -- but a lot of you, millions of you in fact stuck around all the way to the end -- making the finale one of the most watched finales ever -- so I'm sick of all you friends haters. If it's a great script and they can make it work, why not? I think Sex and the city was better than anyone could have possible imagined and actually Sarah Jessica Parker deserves serious oscar consideration.

July 07 2008 at 1:20 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to jake's comment
Beth

I watched and loved Friends all the way through, but I just don't think a movie for theaters is the best answer.

I agree that SATC was amazing and that it was better than I could have expected, I still didn't like some of the dramatic things that happened. I'm afraid that if there is a Friend's movie, we'll go through the whole Ross/Rachel breakup again, only to get back together at the end. There has to be drama for it to be interesting, and I'd like to leave them all in the happy place that they're in at the end of season 10.

My biggest issue is this. Have you ever seen a movie in a theater that included a laugh track? SATC was already filmed in a cinematic style, so there was no change in format. I'm afraid that Friends would lose it's flavor if the studio audience or laugh track was taken out.

I am all for a reunion, but I think something on TV is a better choice.

July 07 2008 at 11:41 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Beth

IMO this would only work as a TV movie. But I don't think enough time has gone by. I'm not saying they should wait 10 years from now, but at least give it another 3.

Also, if it's on TV, it wouldn't be so weird if the laugh track stayed. You can't put a laugh track in movie theaters and be taken seriously.

I think the rumors were mainly sparked due to the success of the SATC movie. I'm not sure who started it, but somebody saw $$ and that's it.

I'm banking for a 1 - 2 hour long Thanksgiving or Christmas special in a few years.

July 06 2008 at 5:36 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
nattyff

i would see the movie, even if they just drink coffe for an hour and a half...

July 06 2008 at 5:33 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Darren

A thanksgiving themed Movie at Monica and Chandlers would be AWESOME. I hope they smarten up and get this movie made soon! I would go to it and buy it!

July 06 2008 at 5:08 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Edd

Haha im in the daily mail head offices now, i'll go check where it came from!
In other news, bees? BEADS?

July 06 2008 at 5:01 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Andrew

I would've enjoyed a Friends movie being that it's my favorite show of all time, but in a way I'm glad that it's not going to happen because I think the way they ended the show was just perfect. (As long as you don't count the abortion that was Joey.)

July 06 2008 at 4:49 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
mj green

I, for one, am glad. The series was cute at first, but slowly went south. By the end, I had stopped watching. I kind of liked the idea of Joey and Rach, but Ross? He became so whiny! And truth be told, after Monica and Chandler got married, it was tripe.

July 06 2008 at 4:20 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to mj green's comment
Gudlyf

"By the end, I had stopped watching."

I think everyone stopped watching by the end. ;-)

July 06 2008 at 4:59 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Jimmy

A Sex and the City movie is one thing, but what kind of movie could you make from Friends. The only plot that might fly is a Thanksgiving themed movie. Those episodes were always great; my favorite is the one Brad Pitt appeared in.

But then, at its lowest point Friends was drawing 20 million viewers; if even half those viewers bought a ticket were talking about a lot of money. Of course, considering each actor was making $20 million per season (or more) I doubt they would do a film cheaply.

July 06 2008 at 3:30 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Jimmy's comment
Oreo

One season would be 480ish minutes when a movie would only be 90 minutes.

July 06 2008 at 4:58 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners