Lemmy sure is a tough crowd.

Friends.

In Seinfeld the characters are supposed to be miserable and you aren't supposed to identify with them. People don't go around trying to put on a Seinfeld persona (at least in my neck of the woods. If your area is different please don't make me more depressed than I am).

The number of people I've met purposely styling themselves after Joey or Phoebe is depressing and it's more accepted because they're "normal every day likable people".

Gag me with a spoon

eh, they are different vehicles. friends sucks cuz its trite, common bullshit. seinfeld was actually interesting because for once the cast was supposed to be unlikable... they were all terrible people destined to be tortured by their own narcissism.

As one that remembers watching NBC "Must See TV" Thursday nights in the 90's, back then, Friends was more approachable as a twenty-something that identified somewhat with the idea that it's ok to be quirky, laughable, and fun.

Now, I prefer Seinfeld. Say what you will about the cast, the show's darker take wears better on the post 9/11 world.

It's easy to pick on one or the other now, but having lived the era, and the era of TV that led to it, both shows made more sense back then.

I enjoyed both when they were still airing, but I can completely understand why people watching them today for the first time wouldn't. It's one of those, "you had to be there" kinda things. Just like I probably wouldn't enjoy watching The Beverly Hillbillies or I Love Lucy if I tried watching them today.

Friends is worse.

Friends feels extremely bland and the characters just react to the misfortune events and the episodes are low stakes drama. Friends cant make the characters pieces of shit because the audience is suppose to like them. Seinfield seems like the characters are intentionally bad people and cause their problems and the show is intentional about the conflict being pointless drama. They are fine with people hating the characters.

I'm going to give a non-answer here, but spend some words pointing out that there is an entire TV Trope explicitly named after the phenomenon contributing to much of the current-day Seinfeld hate, namely that it feels trite and predictable only when viewed through the lens of modernity. Seinfeld is unfunny as we decry that it's all been done before, forgetting that it's only been done before because Seinfeld did it first and lots of others imitated in the wake of its popularity. In its era it was actually truly groundbreaking, in a way that Friends definitely was not.

Seinfeld (along with Married... With Children) was the original raunchy sitcom that broke the genre free from bland family friendly predictability and opened up the possibility of one being entertainment aimed squarely and indeed only at adults. The core cast of Seinfeld are all terrible people, in retrospect probably because Jerry Seinfeld himself was writing from what he knew, where nobody learns the important lesson at the end of the episode on purpose. Sex, relationships, and even failed relationships were openly discussed. There is no central family unit, and every family we are shown in any detail (mainly Jerry's and especially George's) are highly dysfunctional. Before it, the concept of an episode having A and B plotlines that intersect and eventually entangle with each other hadn't been done, even though this is such a staple that it's outright expected of any show today. It had a deliberately misanthropic sense of humor that was the perfect fit for the cynical point in history in which it occupied.

In a way Friends is aspirational, an idealized imagining of a hypothetical urban lifestyle that the viewer may hope to achieve even if they don't personally identify with it. Seinfeld, conversely, is an outright freakshow. You are on the outside looking in at these vain and deceitful people much like a jar full of scorpions someone's just shaken so they'll fight. And you're glad to be on the outside of it, because you really don't want to be them. But there is a certain bile attraction to it nevertheless, a sort of twisted catharsis in that despite how horrible and selfish as the core cast may be they are also somehow able to live without remorse, speak without filters, and act out without consequences in ways that we only wish we could get away with. (The fact that they spout so many zingers and precipitate so many quotable moments probably also helps.)

Friends is worse for people who prefer Seinfeld, while Seinfeld is worse for people who prefer Friends.

Mystery solved. No need to thank me, everyone, it's all in a day's work.

Friends.

While Seinfeld is certainly overrated and hasn't aged well, at least it had its memorable moments that still get talked about today (Mostly Kramer Hijinx, to be fair...)

• Kramer vs Kenny Rogers Roasters
• Kramer and the Rickshaw
• Soup Nazi
• 'They're real...and they're spectacilar"
• Mulva
• George saves the whale.

Just of the top of my head.

Friends, while popular, is ultimately forgettable generic sitcom crap. I struggle to think of any actual memorable moments other than "Pivot"

Seinfeld has worse jokes, while Friends has worse characters. But Seinfeld has by far the worst personnel involved in the production.

I'd say Friends is worse. But it's a thin margin.
Neither are good by any means. But my sister loves Friends, and she has terrible taste in television, so I'll accept her judgement.

Friends. Seinfeld is actually funny, friends is just good looking people.

But friends is more popular. I used to work for a streaming service and friends was constantly running. I think its a emotional support thing. People like to have it on in the background because they feel good from it.

But it really isnt funny. Its more like cozy. Like a soap opera but better than that.

I think seinfeld is worse. I tried to like it.

• Friends is pretty easy to understand, seinfeld feels like it's somehow appealing to a smaller audience.
• Friends has a bigger cast and bigger sets - Seinfeld uses a tiny, though realistic, apartment, and the diner they go to feels more closed in. I don't watch sitcoms for the realism so i think friends wins here because it's better thought out.
• Seinfeld struggles to control his smile and laughing, and it makes it seem like he's a comedian constantly aware that he's just playing a character or acting out skits he wrote. I think Friends has the benefit of the actors not, usually, writing their stuff. Also in Friends they eventually developed brilliant talent at riffing/ad-libbing, something which Matt Perry demonstrated from the get go and helped carry the show with.

According to me friends, according to my wife Seinfeld.
I feel it depends when in your life you discover it and how good your English is at that time. Friends is very beginner friendly and straight forward.

Two Broke Girls: “Hold my beer…”

The one with laugh tracks.

Oh.

Seinfeld. One of the cringiest and unfunniest shows I've ever watched.

Friends was a gratingly unfunny ode to shallowness and self-centeredness. The same would apply to Seinfeld, only less grating.

I thought both were okay. Not great but not awful. Both aged rather poorly though. But that's not unusual for sitcoms. Most of them do.

Trigger warning: criticism of popular media

Friends is an extremely boring and formulaic show, it just has handsome people in it and sometimes the ladies don't wear bras. I much prefer Seinfeld, which was in a way revolutionary for sitcoms, and it can still be enjoyed today (the laugh track is unfortunate though). It definitely inspired It's Always Sunny, another great show, whilst Friends inspired How I Met Your Mother... and you can draw your own conclusions from that. 😅

Seinfeld is great.

Well, ol' Jerry's a zionist, so ...

I watched Seinfeld and Frasier when I was in university and I absolutely loved both of those shows, despite how the leading actors have turned out to be.

Sometimes it's okay to live with a bit of cognitive dissonance.

Edit: Friends on the other hand was trite and full of stolen jokes, and mostly liberal nonsense.

Friends is horrible, watch Happy Endings if you want the same premise with funny jokes.

Seinfeld was also not good but did introduce a lot of tv tropes, so Larry David and Curb are where the funny is made there without the laugh track.

I enjoyed Friends for a while, never enjoyed Seinfeld. But other people said the opposite. Most of us wouldn't rewatch either one.

So, what are you asking? I'm unclear on that.

havent watched the shows but i heard their openings a lot. friends has that iconic opening song that reminds me of the good days.
seinfeld has that funk and feels like a proper laugh track kinda vibe.

ima say friends is worse cause of the fandom.

I like both, but Seinfeld is a funnier show 100% because of Jason Alexander.

I am the age of the target audience for both of these programs when they came out. I found Seinfeld completely unwatchable contemporaneously. It has perhaps the worst laugh track in the history of TV programming. Same obviously fake laughing for stupid stuff that is not even worth a snicker as for the rare thing that was actually funny. I didn't care for it at all and never understood why it was so popular.

Friends annoyed me for different reasons, mostly because the characters lived so far beyond their means that it was immersion breaking.

They both suck, but Seinfeld sucks more.

Friends is pretty good. I haven't seen Seinfeld in a while and don't know how it holds up, but I remember liking it when I watched it.

Friends is a lot better if you fast forward any time Ross and Rachel are on screen together. The rest of the show is pretty funny and each episode is like 10min long.

both

Neither, laugh-track shows are irritating.
It's like if I'm not laughing the blame is on me, instead of the joke not being funny.

The one with a laugh track.

friends.

Seinfeld knew what they were, a show about nothing.

friends masqueraded as something it was not, a comedy.

Hmm, friends is hard to watch it's so bad. Seinfeld is slightly better, but it stars an Israeli pedophile.

I'd say Frasier