EricMontreal22

I'm surprised you haven't just given up on the show by now.

Skrein was probably too pretty, but I liked him in the role. Not too keen on the new actor, at least from Nashville, but we'll see...

Who?

I think just the first one--that's something HBO has started doing with new shows (which is smart, I think.) I enjoy Girls still but, maybe they took the criticisms of last season to heart -- it's actually a bit too sitcom-y for me this season. I have no issue with people not liking it -- it's just this constant comparison thing that bugs me. It's not enough like Girls. Or I've seen people list all the ways it's EXACTLY like SatC (because it's about single friends in a certain city and they even have a threesome in one scene! Umm ok....) One thing I have really appreciated is the camerawork/directing of the episodes (maybe no surprise since Haigh from Weekend directed the first three, though it looks like he's only directing two of the remaining ones--which is still a large amount of episodes for one series.) Often with these somewhat "mumblecore"/indie style shows I find the directing just sloppy (Girls suffers from this--and I say that as a fan.) But, while it looks fairly spontaneous, you can tell with Looking its meticulously planned. The AV Club reviewer has perhaps emphasized this strength too much in his reviews, but I think he makes some good points about subtle techniques that really work (some may be due to scripting and editing too, like in the pilot when you're introduced to each of the three leads at sequential times in their morning -- ie one is just waking up in bed, next shot another is getting ready to leave the house, next shot the third is heading to work.) Here's a bit from the episode three review about the different techniques: "What’s really impressive is how each episode, all of which have been directed by Haigh, has a defining shot type. The first episode is about the two-shot, that hard-fought representation of two guys actually coming together. The second is about the long shot, those immersive sequences where the audience soaks up the moment. “Looking At Your Browser History” is about the rack focus. Even when two guys do share a shot, only one is clearly visible at a time. With the focus veering between Patrick and Kevin in one scene and Agustín and the escort the next (Dom and Lynn get good old-fashioned one-shots, but the effect is similar), you can’t help but feel the ping pong, the flirty back and forth of two strangers getting to know one each other. Patrick speaks, Kevin reacts, Kevin speaks, Patrick reacts. Everything else fades into the background." http://www.avclub.com/review/looking-at-your-browser-history-107070

There'sa lot of them in episode three that aired last week, if you've not watched. I think it's decent. I like Tovey and for whatever reason I find him more hot on this show than in Being Human. Is the full thing on youtube? I saw a clip on Hulu but couldn't access it but heard that Groff was asked, yet again, if it was a gay Girls.

I do somewhat agree with that. I got some of the right feeling from, when, say Patrick phoned Augustin after the bad sex experience, but when it's the three of them together, and not just two, it feels less real to me and more "scripty"

Just one more reply to sun's comment "It does seem out of touch with the times though. The music, the bathhouse, even the bars/clubs seem out of place." I think that's just the thing. With whose time or reality? I assume, and this is not a bad thing at all, that you mean your own experiences in the gay "scene" (if there even is a gay scene...) And that's fine, but it seems completely in touch with mine (something the US QAF, even when I enjoyed it, never did except maybe in the initial coming out scenes but I'm pretty thankful to have a show for once that makes zero mention of anyone having to come back to anyone--family, friends or strangers.) I think that's one reason some are taking issue with the show, but (and I'm not pointing this at you) it misses the point that it's not meant to be about some universal gay experience.

Diva, I have no doubt about that. The show had basically found its formula (more than basically) by then, and honestly while hey I liked some of Sisters a lot but Ron Cowen and Daniel Lipman are hardly groundbreakers (as groundbreaking as their 80s gay/AIDS TV movie A Touch of Frost was for its time.) Sunspear, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. The bars/clubs are exactly what I experienced in San Francisco the several times I've been there (it has to be said that SF has a much older seeming gay scene than I initially expected -- more so than, say, Montreal.) I'm 33, so about the age of the cast or somewhere in between, and none of the things showed seem remotely out of touch with the times to me. It certainly doesn't have any real big "oh wow" moments, though I think the direction is often subtly genius, more so than other "mumblecore/indie" style TV series out there. Just the way things are shot -- like the scene at the club in episode two and what is focused on, etc, are done with much more thought than say most of the direction in Girls (a show I do mostly enjoy.)

Agreed. When I was more into going clubs the night my friends liked to go to to the most, anyway, were 80s nights (and I'm about the age of all of these characters.) I or my friends have all done apparently retro things like gone to a bath house (...) cruised a park just to see what it was like (admittedly I'd find that too scary myself ) etc. Interesting what you say about Fraser and QAF. Maybe sometime I'll catch him off guard and ask him -- when he does talk about it now he says the actual writing room experience and hanging out on set was some of the happiest time in his career (granted at least some of this was due to getting a *steady* paycheque for doing something he loves.)

Ha a distant shower shot, right? Or did I miss more -- still I guess that's something Did QAF ever have full frontal nudity?

Exactly. It's an 8 episode 30 minute series -- for a drama (or however its classified) that's not really a lot of time. I suppose if people already find that boring than they should just move on, but... I do find some of the more critical reactions on blogs funny, though. One person will complain that the show simply is not gay enough, another person complains that, for example, they show a bathouse, cruising in the park and dancing to 80s music like Erasure so the show is somehow out of touch with the times (whatever that means,) etc

I feel absolutely the same--the third episode especially. I guess it's really just an issue again of there being so few "gay" shows, so a number of people who probably would never have seen Weekend either, are disappointed that they don't immediately relate with it, or do find it boring (which seems to be the main criticism.) I don't, *shrug* I just hope HBO decides to at least give it a second season. BTW you mentioned Lorimer the short film that inspired it--I've been trying to track that down. Did you see it online? I had no idea Randy Harrison was so vocal about his role on QAF in the end, but I can't say I blame him==most of the time I wanted to punch Justin in the mouth. Of course part of the issue was simply that the show had to keep Justin in Brian's orbit, probably partly due to uninspired writing but also due to the fanbase. I remember Davies said one reason he couldn't see QAF going on long was that he just didn't think that the equivalent character, at his age and experience, would stay in the same social world as the others for long (there were plans for a sitcom spin off involving Vince's mother and her group but for whatever reason it never happened, though I believe scripts were written.) Of course that was a problem with the North American QAF in general--they felt like they had to, and were, representating every type of gay and lesbian character, and I think ultimately that meant they didn't do a great job with any of them. Davies got in some flack for not having the lesbian characters very prominent but as he pointed out, that wasn't who he was telling his story about. In that instance I think Looking is similar, and I appreciate that, though I suppose I can appreciate that that means if an audience member doesn't want to spend 30 minutes with those characters than they're not gonna like the show.

The story that really turned me off I think was mid series (season 3?) where Ted became a sex obsessed meth head. I dunno why, but it just rubbed me the wrong way (sure, it could be argued it's an important story to tell, and one that certainly happens, but it felt particularly nasty to me to show Brian daily do drugs and hook up but make it all work, and then poor unattractive Ted does the same thing and falls into some gay porno Hell with all his friends writing him off.) Brad Fraser, a Canadian gay playwright who I really admire, and have some sort of "facebook" friendship with (Mia Kirshner and Thomas Gibson were in a movie of his most well known play, Love and Human Remains) was one of the main writers for the final seasons of the show, and while his plays are always over the top and sexually graphic I was disappointed that he didn't seem to bring much of what I liked about his work to QAF (I have to be careful what I say on FB about the show, lol.) By the final year it did just sorta putter along -- I still watched every week but only because it was a social thing with some of my friends, I barely was even paying attention.

As to the low ratings, while I think they will climb for episode two due to all the social media attention (but of course, after that, depending on what people think, fall again) they did do better than recent 30 minute HBO series that didn't have Game of Thrones on at the same night. And to put it in perspective, when ratings (even on cable) were larger, I found this about QAF. "Showtime’s “Queer as Folk” proved there was an audience for later gay-themed entertainment like “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” “The L Word” and the recently launched cable network Logo. But in its final season, “Folk” has lost most of that audience. Ratings for the once-hip show have fallen by more than half since its 2000 debut, and it’s in the midst of its worst year ever. Through July 10, the most recent data available, new “Folk” episodes are averaging a 0.30 household rating, according to Nielsen numbers provided by Magna Global USA. That’s down 12 percent from last year’s 0.34 average. It’s off 57 percent from the show’s third-season average of 0.7, and down 66 percent from 2000-2001’s premiere season average of 0.87. Most shows fade somewhat by their fifth season, but why the steep dropoff for “Folk,” which has remained in the same Sunday 10 p.m. timeslot and enjoyed lots of press coverage for its sex-soaked storylines? Actually, it may be because of those storylines. A year after gay marriage was a critical, and very divisive, issue in the 2004 election, a show like “Folk” was bound to slip. While “Queer Eye” and “Will &Grace” play gay for laughs, “Folk” stays serious and issue-oriented, with the gay marriage debate showing up in this year’s storylines. And that may be too much for formerly casual viewers to take. “Look at where the gay community was five years ago and what's happened since the election,” “Folk” writer-producer Daniel Lipman told the Associated Press during last week’s Showtime Television Critics Association presentation. With gays feeling increasing scrutiny over gay marriage and adoption, some homosexual viewers may have become exasperated with the promiscuity of several “Folk” characters, not wanting to watch a show that some say enforces stereotypes." http://www.medialifemagazine.com:8080/News2005/jul05/jul18/3_wed/news4wednesday.html (I love how they didn't mention that people maybe just got tired of how increasingly ridiculous QAF's stories got as being a reason... And the fact that five years, even if the show were great, is around when viewers really drop off for most cable shows.)

I'm glad I appreciate that many people--people whose opinions I respect--love the US/Canadian QAF. I've noticed most of them didn't see the original till after (there are comments on Amazon that complain about the original how ugly the actors are and the sex is toned down. I guess I prefer somewhat realistic looking men who can act, and the sex was actually more graphic but also more realistic--no MTV montages, so...) The second episode airs this week, its the third episode (and 6th I think of Girls?) that airs the sat before the Superbowl, though they will repeat it Sunday. I think that makes sense--I hate when they take a break (and for an 8 episode series that's pretty deadly--interesting the UK original QAF was, I think, 8 30 minute episodes as well.)

I love the nurse/doctor lady--I love the actress regardless,buther conversation felt real to me (not a typical fag hag even though she had dated him--obviously not still hung up on him ala QAF). To be honest, your opinion makes sense--we just disagree. I thought the bus scene felt realistic to my experiences--I didn't want a QAF moment. (But, as everyone on here knows, as much as I loved the UK QAF--it blew me away when it first aired and I was still in high school--the US one, which I kinda watched anyway because my friends all did, greatly annoyed me.) The critics whohave loved it (and it does have a very high metacritic score) have said that it doesn't really find itself till episode 3. For an 8 episode, 30 minute show that may be too slow--they really should have atleast premiered the first two together I think.

No!! I've just been overwhelmed with school/work this term--are they in the AMC thread? I'd rather watch those than Haves and Have Nots

Wow, I've been out of touch with this forum (aside from the GH thread) for most of Jan, and had no idea the show was back... Debating whether I should download or not. I think I may have to wait for a boozy weekend.

HBO vs Showtime is weird when it comes to sex. Showtime has more overall nudity--however, they rarely show full frontal and never have (that I know of) shown full frontal male, both of which HBO does (well not enough of the male...) QAF was actually pretty tame nudity wise (the early episodes had a lot less than the UK series.) I think they could have more (and apparently they will, from what critics have said--certainly Weekend had a ton.) But I am a bit surprised given the potential audience they didn't force it on the pilot. At the same time it is kinda telling--and must be frustrating for anyone involved in launching a new "gay" show--that much of the gay press is split between it focuing way way way too much on sex, or not enough. It's practically down the middle. (I frankly still don't know why Showtime didn't buy into the audience they had with QAF by launching another gay drama...)

I agree with much of that (though I liked it a lot more than you did.) But it is very very different from QAF (the awesome UK and the largely awful US versions.) To be fair both had much more soapy pilots (again especially Season one of the US remake what with the team behind Sisters doing it.) No big potential overdose to cap this episode or someone [!@#$%^&*] an underaged kid, etc. As someone else said, it makes sense this was by the director of Weekend and that's the feel I got. It is slice of life--there's no initial hook (even Girls which does share a slightly similar "indie film" look and feelhad Hannah moving and her relationship with her parents as the hook.) I did love the pilot. I can't say if I'll love where it goes--and I do think it would have been smart of HBO to air the first two episodes back to back, but... (most of the positive reviews have said that the show finds its footing in the third episode--the critics got sent four, and there are only eight, so...) I did like what Nussbaum said about complaints that either the show was too slight and not edgy enough (one gay critic complained that they cut away before the blow job) or else that it's too focused on sex. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/01/20/140120crte_television_nussbaum

You didn't find much of the last half of Girls sad and somber?? I really enjoy Girls, but...

I've spoken about this on other forums and facebook a lot, but I really really liked it. I also liked Weekend, which I know many found boring (or hated the fact gays were doing drugs yet again,) and I tend to like somewhat slow shows. It has gotten very positive press but the negative reactions are hilarious to me. Esquire complains that there are no fun "queens" to keep straight men entertained and that it was unrealistic that there was a Dolly Parton mention but no quotes from gay favorites like Wizard of Oz and All About Eve (...), another critic complained that it was like everyone was stuck in the 70s because no younger current gays would have a stripper at their bachelor party (my friends--unfortunately did,) cruise in a park (no comment,) go--in a future episode--to a bathouse (I haven't, but a lot of friends my age or younger have at least once,) or, again I assume in a future episode, know who Erasure is (when I used to club my friends' favorite night was 80s night.) Then several others have said it's just like Sex and the City because it involved a threeway, people debating moving in together, and being single in a city and looking for a hook up and/or a relationship (nevermind that the tone and style of the episode was not remotely like Sex and the City, particularly their clumsy first season.) Maybe I just liked it because I've been on *two* awkward dates (I should learn) where I've said things I thought the guy would find funny about my past experiences and just put him off, while ordering another drink once he said he wasn't going to have another... SMH. Yeah I wouldn't worry too much. Girls didn't have good numbers (not that I think this is all that much like Girls) early on. Neither did True Blood. Game of Thrones didn't either. These are all very different shows, and HBO has had some flops, but I think all of the social media attention will get people to tune in to the repeats and later episodes -- whether they like it enough to keep watching is really up to debate, but...

Yes, well played by a double. I don't think they ever had a Ceara funeral or anything on Loving so I doubt she showed up[--I was a pretty faithful viewer by then. I did love that Kate and Louie came to Jeremy and Ceara's wedding, it makes sense since she stayed at Kate's a few months before on Lovi9ng and helped get them back together.

I actually didn't watch the last two episodes either--as much as I love to hate-watch the show, it just got SOOOOOO slow.

I think they blew the show's entire budget on that promo.