Jump to content

Faulkner

Members
  • Posts

    20,887
  • Joined

Posts posted by Faulkner

  1. It’s sad to see the different drilldowns go, but I’m sure you’d post them if you could. The W18-49/25-54 demos are what networks are looking at anyway, and TV industry coverage has pivoted to focusing on the important ad demos over the past 20 years or so. I think a lot of people feel peeved when they fall into a category of viewership that “doesn’t matter.” I certainly in one of those categories as a man. 😂 

     

    It would be nice to have the YOY or WOW increases/decreases, but again I understand the work that goes into those. Will these reports be archived so that enterprising readers can crunch the data themselves if they so choose?

  2. 20 minutes ago, Cat said:

     

    OMG, can you imagine? Dorinda, Kandi, Kenya, CANDIACE, Ashley, Karen, Teresa, Dolores would check that attitude PDQ.

     

    Gina Liano of RHOMelbourne would also leave Erika a gibbering wreck. She can both outsmart and outswear anybody.

     

    Now this is the RH All-Stars I want to see!

    I would LIVE for that. And, yes, I haven’t watched much Melbourne, but I’ve seen enough of Gina to know she’d obliterate her.

     

    Even Bethenny, who doesn’t seem the type to throw hands, intimidated Erika when she appeared on BH years ago. She wouldn’t stand for any of that sh!t.

     

    Dorit, I think, can hold her own against Erika, and Garcelle is someone I’d love to see Erika try, but my problem with BH recently is that the bullies have won. Even though the Green-Eyed Bandits and Candiace ultimately ran Monique off the show, I always felt Monique (or anyone else in the cast) could handle business and put up a hell of a good fight. 

  3. 1 minute ago, alwaysAMC said:

    That BH trailer was good - this really is the downfall of Erika Jayne.  The way she spoke to Sutton was very telling.  We've seen her do that to Eileen, but this was even scarier.  She has a serious mean streak.

    I wish someone would call Erika’s bluff and really step to her when she gets aggressive like that. The ladies on BH are too prim and proper.

  4. I get that the BAFTAs have a bias toward Brits, but oh snap.

     

     

     

    Worth noting that BAFTA didn’t nominate Carey Mulligan (!), Viola Davis, or Andra Day for Best Actress, so grain of salt when it comes to the Oscars:

     

     

    The greatest of locks:

     

     

    Chloe Zhao won Best Director in addition:

     

     

  5. Yuh-Jung Youn just won the Supporting Actress BAFTA, which is a boost for her Oscar prospects. Would be only the second actress of Asian descent (to my knowledge) to win an Oscar after Miyoshi Umeki for Sayonara in 1958.

  6. It’s hard. These shows just weren’t built with us in mind. I feel like there was a small window to tell really strong LGBTQ stories in the early-to-mid ‘90s when society had advanced enough to be somewhat inclusive and soaps had become more grounded after their ‘80s flights of fancy yet still had quality and budget.    

    These remaining soaps are a lost cause. They are essentially zombies coasting on a mostly conservative audience born before the Kennedy administration. They can barely tell watchable stories about *anything.*
     

    Most primetime portrayals don’t even really do it for me. Ryan Murphy has been an absolute scourge. The best screen depictions of gay men for me have always been movies like “My Beautiful Laundrette” and “Happy Together” and the rare TV series like the British version of “Queer As Folk.” (Hope the new one set in New Orleans can approach that quality.)

  7. 20 minutes ago, FrenchBug82 said:


    Well on the other hand, if the logic is the community is very broad and diverse so you can't represent it in its diversity, the notion that all that is needed is that there would be *some* representation takes precedence hence the logic here.

    We also have, frustrated as we may be, to understand the tough spot they are in. If they have budget for thirty contract players and the number of pairings LGBTQ character can have is necessarily limited, LGBT character have a lower return-on-investment in terms of story for a producer.

    So expecting every strand of LGBT being represented is setting the bar unrealistically high.

    I suppose the premise of “LGBTQ” as this hodgepodge community is what I’m questioning. That one letter of the acronym is interchangeable with the other. I understand it from a political coalition standpoint—strength in numbers—and there’s certainly been overlap in term of cultural spaces, but for the most part, the only thing these letters have in common is that they transgress commonly accepted ideas of gender roles and identities. EDIT: I know they aren’t discrete, mutually exclusive groups. Trans people can be gay, lesbian, bi, etc. as well.
     

    But in general I agree. Soaps are broadcast TV vehicles and have to be as broadly appealing and narratively nimble as possible. It’s why streaming services (or smaller cable networks) that can nurture niche-oriented content are so groundbreaking. A gay-male soap on Netflix or Hulu wouldn’t have to cater to a mass audience and could take more risks.

  8. 8 hours ago, Chris B said:

    I think this might be my least favorite season ever. It is too long, the cast doesn't have chemistry, the judging choices (keeping Kandy) are contrived. I cannot wait for this to be over! I can't believe we still have I think two weeks. I'm beyond ready for the next All Stars. 

    I totally agree. The season is forced and overproduced. TBH I feel like RPDR has been trending this way for several seasons, although COVID may have exacerbated this particular season’s issues. Usually the charisma (and uniqueness, etc.) of the queens would save the show, but it’s just not there this year. Even folks I enjoy like Symone would be middling queens in any other season.

  9. 11 minutes ago, All My Shadows said:

    Would such a study really be reliable/accurate, though? Isn't it a thing that any studies on how many LGBTQ people there are (followed by any qualifier) can automatically be assumed to be lowballing numbers due to how many LGBTQ people are still in the closet? I'm interested in seeing what the numbers would be, then wondering what the numbers really are.

    I wonder if that’s part of the problem: how do you cater to a “hidden” audience that can’t (or won’t) be measured?

     

    12 minutes ago, All My Shadows said:

    I agree with your second paragraph. That's always been the thing with minority representation, period, IMO. You will never be able to represent everyone who fits into a community if that community is the one main thing those people all have in common. The Cosby Show didn't represent all black Americans, and Queer as Folk didn't represent all gay men. Sh!t, it's been a very, very long time (if ever) since daytime attempted to represent straight, white Americans outside of basic archetypes.

    I also wonder, re: LGBTQIA, if soaps simply pick one letter of that acronym and then say, ok, we’ve got it covered? AMC may have said we have Bianca as a lesbian, why do we need a gay male character? (I know they briefly brought on transgender Zarf, who was tied to Bianca.) Or conversely, why would ATWT need a contract lesbian character when they had Luke and Noah? Which seems crazy but often happens when you see a broad, diverse community as one thing.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy