It's almost like she didn't even have a kid.
2006-11-02 12:02:33 · 5 answers · asked by J 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television
i think they wanted to continue their focus on the "friends" aspect rather than allow the show to turn into a "parent" show - family shows are different than friend shows.
2006-11-02 12:04:46 · answer #1 · answered by Hot Lips 4077 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Babies are hard to deal with on set. They don't take cues like older children and adults, they do whatever they want whenever they want. What annoys me is that the T.V. station I have goes from a couple days after Rachel gives birth to the last 10 episodes of Friends so Emma is like 2. It annoys me soooo much.
2006-11-02 20:09:11 · answer #2 · answered by Forcewon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were trying to downplay the fact that she and Ross had a baby together. After they wrote the pregnancy in and she had the baby the writers decided to downplay it. I don't even know why they wrote Emma in to begin with. I don't even think that she was in the series finale. She was mentioned but Rachel's mom had her.
2006-11-02 20:38:29 · answer #3 · answered by Marenight 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you know how the show goes, the baby is just another creation and someone else to pay $$ too. If I was a friend I would not want to share my earnings with a child. It's all fo show
2006-11-02 20:04:57 · answer #4 · answered by Mo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
personally every episode that centered around the baby wasn't really as funny as the rest and i think they probably saw ratings and said "yeah...nothing funny about the baby" and decided to kinda cut it out
2006-11-02 23:34:29 · answer #5 · answered by kristen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋