EricMontreal22

I think this was a problem with importing the character from the UK version. Look, I certainly have friends in my life who I feel loyalty to and even love towards, and have known forever, but have some of Brian's issues (emphasis on some.) I just had a hard time that going into your thirties they still would frankly call him out on his crap so rarely. I didn't feel quite that way towards Stuart in the UK version, where I got that. Some of that may have been that the actual dialogue writing was more nuanced. A lot of it probably was due to the fact that we just saw those characters for--what a year of their life? Not 5 or 6, so it was easier to buy. I also think Gale played Brian much more one dimensionally (but again that may be the writing, and I do think he improved as an actor) even if many people who prefer the US version go on about how Brian is, in a model type way, better looking he comes off as more vacant and less charismatic to me. As Diva says, he just seems so bored with everything for so much of the show. Even sex (which Stuart never was bored by--well not mostly.) I mean seriously, for as handsome as I do find Gale, how boring did sex with Brian seem to be most of the time? I would say that could have been the point, except with Cowen and Lipman or whatever the headwriters' names are (those Sisters guys ) they wanted to have it both ways.

Aog? LOL I dunno, I thought, as mad as much of that Patrick/Richie stuff made me, it felt realistic. He really is "slow" as he says and I think doesn't realize what he's doing until after the fact--things like trying to make Richie's job sound more exciting to his boss, etc. I could sorta see myself, I hate to say, doing that... when i was 19 years old. Not at 30, but like I said, slow. Ha, I was thrilled, I hate to admit, at how miserable poor Auggie looked when it was obvious CJ and Frank were having the more intimate sex in their threesome. Misery loves company. Augustin seems deeply unhappy with everything in his life, really (and is he just stealing this $220 an hour from Frank to hang out with CJ? When that comes out it won't be good...)

I admit I had a hard time believing that Brian's friends would stick by him for as long as they did...

I said as much in the Looking thread but I agree completely. Love the UK series. I admit maybe I'm a bit too hard on the remake--I did watch it all as it aired, but I don't think I could be convinced to sit through it again...

The AVClub critic claims that the screener copies sent out are in general too dark (he did a comparison of one shot) but I assume you're not watching those I found the lighting fine on my set... http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/looking-for-the-future-107072

I pretty much agree with everything the AV Club said in their review. http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/looking-for-the-future-107072%C2"'> Great stuff (not surprising that Haigh wrote and directed since it did play a lot like Weekend, except we already know these characters somewhat well by now which in some ways made it work better for me.) And a rimming scene on tv! I actually found it interesting how they brought up the whole "bottom shame" thing--I don't remember the QAF remake doing that

I FINALLY caught up (I was forcing myself to finish an essay before watching, as a sort of reward, though that didn't stop me from wasting hours on forums and even commenting on here already) so am back reading the comments I skipped over. I don't have much to add, but... I think the Augustine/Frank thing was foreshadowed by the fact that when they DID open their relationship up to a threeway (for the first time, I think) happened to be the day they were moving in together. Aug clearly does have feelings for Frank, but he's not willing to let go of his other life yet. Add in the callboy, and I think he feels like he's missing out, or yet to experience some mythical amazing experimental life (if that makes ANY sense) and is still searching for that. It's a bit more complex than the same old grass is always greener thing. Haigh's first film, before the excellent Waiting, was Greek Pete which I thought was interesting but not really that great. It was a half docu half fiction piece following a London male prostitute (basically the "actors" were all real people playing themselves but the scenes were staged albeit based on real scenes.) I know Haigh is exec producer and the head director but not officially a writer, but I can't help but think he instigated this storyline.

You have excellent taste!

This Sunday's episode climbed up to nearly 500K viewers in its first showing alone, as well as having not as big a drop-off from Girls as previously, which is good news. Maybe a second season will happen (Enlightened had two seasons, and never got half that many viewers and I can see Looking catching on more with DVDs since its short season and episode length would encourage binge viewing.)

Exactly. But maybe Looking does share something else with Girls -- some people just can't get into a show with "unlikeable" characters (I've already seen people calling August the Jessa of Looking...) I admit, I never get this argument when it comes to shows, movies, books, plays, whatever. I tend to actually like works best where many complain that the characters are too unlikeable... Annoying, or unmotivated is something else, but I don't watch shows because the characters are likeable.

We had one... somewhere. I assume you mean Jessa? Man they've made her hard to root for this year. Some have said that it's a reaction to critics complaining Hannah was so unlikeable last year, so they made her look even less so with Jessa (and Adam's sister...) I need to catch up with Girls (and Looking) this week.

Ha I suppose it depends on who you read--I did a quick look and it seems divided. I really liked last season, but I do remember at the time a number of people getting down on it being too heavy, so you probably have a point. But a number of critics have called this season, especially the early episodes, too "sitcom-y"

Absolutely agreed on both points. At first Girls was some sort of "indie" version of Sex and the City (because everything is compared to SatC) and now everything is compared to Girls. I think they share some superficial similarities, sorta (Looking and Girls I mean) at least more than any other show I can think of currently on tv -- in terms of look and style, but even there, not really all that much. Girls apparently isn't having a great year either (though I'm still enjoying it even if I *somewhat* agree with people saying it's a bit more sitcomish this year.)

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.