EricMontreal22

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.

It is, but it holds up for me. For me RTD's show was more about character, Moffat is more about cool/epic moments (Hey! Wouldn't it be cool if the Doctor rode up the side of a building! Yeah let's put that in, etc.) Of course the irony is Moffat wrote probably my fave individual episodes. And yes it's old--I tried to find a round table discussion with various Who writers about the strengths and weaknesses of both men done after the anniversary ep but for the life of me I can't find the link. I think calling Moffat a misogynistis wrong, but there's little doubt that every female character he creates exists as a sort of puzzle for the Doctor to solve. It's getting old for me.

Well you can't always show great taste.

Really? I actually find them scarier...

Really? I actually find them scarier...

River Song is an example of what I hate about Moffatt's writing (the long story arcs and his female characters, anyway.) I liked her when she made one or two appearances during Davies' run (in episodes written by Moffat, I believe) but... The River Song problem http://io9.com/5938410/does-steven-moffat-have-a-master-plan-for-doctor-who

OK now I'm confused--the US cinema screenings were Monday? here we got it live on Sat early afternoon. Hrmm. As for Colin -- I wish he would have done two years. I loved Tennant, much of the time, but near the end he often was slightly unbearable to me with all of his catchphrases and goofy moments.

I caught it in Canada and the showing was sold out for a month in advance (a friend of a friend couldn't go so I snagged his ticket.)

I loved Colin as the doctor. There, I said it. Anyway, this article completely exaggerates things - as blog posts tend to do, but I have to say I agree with many of the points about how Moffat writes women. https://theidiotboxx.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/what-is-wrong-with-doctor-who/

My twin sister had a brief period there where she really got into OLTL (after i had been watching it a few years.) It was the only soap she took to, and though she had largely stopped watching by the time they replaced Christian, she was horrified by the fact that her big crush had been replaced by a typical soap male model stud who (at the time) could barely deliver lines. It was a good compromise--I'm not a huge fan but I could accept it, using elements of the 80s opening, but updated (sorry Peobo fans, that beloved song with nonsensical lyrics simply can not work on a show post 1980s )

I totally agree there. But it doesn't sound like they even tried to contact her for a statement (maybe legally she's not allowed?) That's why it doesn't sound like legit journalism but more something from a gossip rag. Yes, I adore All About Eve. But if I was a reporter, I wouldn't try to see a story that could somewhat be shoehorned into the film's scenario and run with it. *shrug*. I see it as a *slight* dig at soap stars just because they underplay her career by referring her simply as a a minor soap star so that the story sounds even more like Eve -- if that makes sense. If they had said "Francesca James who has a history working on screen and off screen on soaps" that wouldn't give the story the spin they want. I mean they are pretty awful accusations, but in cases like this there are always multiple sides. Harris is well known to have had a tumultuous time with her family and children, going back before (from what this article says) Francesca moved in. I know in the 80s she had her son barred from some awards show (the Tonys?) (I admit though, I love the idea of picturing James playing Mrs Danvers )

I doubt it will be--the talent has already shown to have a different view of the world than Girls. I found Noah's Ark disappointing, but not because the leads are (at least the early episodes I saw) all black. Ideally I'd love a more mixed show, in either case (and in the case of Ark, one with better acting and writing although it's not at the level of something wretched like Dante's Cover -- maybe I need to give it more episodes.) Re race... I agree the race card is a difficult issue. There's no doubt that a tv show, even cable, is more comfortable casting white (and usually straight) leads. I mostly enjoy Girls, but what bugged about when people mentioned how white it was, was Lena's reaction to the question where she seemed to not even understand the critique. If she had just tried to understand the comment, and pointed out that this reflected her experience (growing up as a wealthy New York Jew, ) and then not turned it into a weird joke by immediately casting a black boyfriend for season 2 only tohave him quickly leave because he doesn't like her characters take on race, then I woulda been more ok with it. One of the (many) ways the remake of Queer as Folk bugged me was they set out to make it more inclusive of the gay (and lesbian) community and failed (and notably had very little in the way of non-whites either) whereas Davies with his original series flat out said he was writing about these certain characters he recognized and knew of, and that was that. On a less serious note, re beards, as mentioned obviously this reflects the creators (Groff's character started off at a no end internet job in the late 90s in SF just like the writer, etc.)

The Girls thing seems like more the marketers (for one thing, it's a generation older.) The main director, Haigh (who, as I mentioned, directed the great UK indie gay film Weekend) said this: "Haigh: Whenever before a show goes on air, people want to define it. The easiest way for the media to define it is to say it’s a gay “Sex and the City, or a gay “Girls.” But I think the show is different from both of those shows. Different people, different ages. It’s out of our control, and I’m not embarrassed to be compared to those two shows. They’re both great shows. But I think ours is distinct in its tone and feeling. Our characters are in their 30s, coming up on mid 40. It’s a different age group than Girls for one thing. Haigh: I think also because “Queer as Folk” came out in America, and ran for like five seasons, ages ago now. I think a lot of execs probably thought “We’ve done the gay show now. That’s been done. We don’t need to do something else.” Our show is very different from that show. It tells different stories from a different time and, not to negate Queer as Folk - I obsessively loved the British original myself so could never bring myself to watch the remake - but this show does not focus around issues particularly, even though they'll naturally come up."