Jump to content

HBO's Looking


John

Recommended Posts

  • Members

The bold.

Adding on to this: Glad to see LOOKING has a thread here. I was a big fan of the movie WEEKEND...the main scene between the two leads about love, relationships, gay marriage, etc in the middle of the movie being one of my favorite scenes of all time, bringing me to tears every time I watch it because I get both of those points of views and how it resonated when the movie was the released and still does...so once I saw a trailer I was curious to see if I would love.

And I'm sorry but so much of that pilot rang true to me. Given the style that WEEKEND was done in, I was not surprised with the style. Boring to some, but I love that slice of life, you are there vibe and character driven-ness of it all. Also I am set to enter mid-30s this year, and find myself pondering. And seeing all of my close friends and exes settling down made what Pat and Murray's character (*cough*Farscape*cough*) was going through hit the bullseye with me.

The only thing that I felt was going to bug me and make me get into debates more than likely will be Augustin and his bf and what went down (not throwing any spoiler down just in case someone wants to see it). And that of course, is due to my personal views and experiences....but I am open to seeing where it goes. And Augustin is hottie for a hipster. lol.

Love the sarcastic roomie. Can't wait to see more of her.

And the ending...perfect. I cheered.

Totally over the comparisons to GIRLS and SATC, but do what you gotta do to get exposure...which is how LA works.

PS. HATTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEEEE the doctor. And do you know how often I have to deal with that type? ph34r.png

Edited by Taoboi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 498
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I don't really relate to any of the main trio to be honest....I absolutely loath Groff's character. I find him annoying and kinda pathetic really. The lack of diversity is clearly there but I'd be willing to overlook it if it were as fun and engaging as Girls.

That being said this is nothing like Girls. The show is way to sad and somber in some ways. It felt like it way way way too depressing at times....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wanted to see this but missed it. I am glad they are re running it today and the rest of the week. Will DVR it tonight.


The reviews arent good from those who saw it and of course it was up against football. I think they should have aired this on another night...not on Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It was NOTHING like Girls. It was not "funny" at all. Not bad, just not funny. I'll see what episode two is like, I thought episode one was just fine. But compared to that Sunday evening's Girls and True Detective, it was the weakest of the night's offerings. I won't judge though, because a pilot is a pilot. Slowness is par for the course.

I will say though, I had to catch myself when I asked myself, "So what makes this show special? How is it different from QAF?" The problem with such questioning is, it's totally unfair to compare a "gay show" to another "gay show" just because it's gay. That's like saying Good Times is superfluous because Sanford and Son was already a black sitcom. I'll give this show a chance because I tend to trust HBO's offerings on gp. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I agree. I've already seen suggestions from viewers saying that more sex and witty banter needs to be added to make the show more interesting to them. Maybe that does happen, but you have to be patient and give the show a chance.

Great comparison to how different all the black sitcoms have been developed throughout the past 40 something years. Nobody should want to expect "The Game" to be somewhat like "The Jeffersons" and that should be thought about in regarding new series being based on gay characters.

Edited by difficultdiva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's interesting, because I am finding that critics' reviews have been for it...given most of the critics have had the first 4 episodes dropped on them so they have a better picture than viewers.

And viewers appear to have a problem with it which boils down to either 1)it is too slow which I find debatable but what really gets me is 2)they want to nitpick things like that first scene saying no one does that anymore. I find that laughable because all one truly has to do is look around and see YES, IT DOES. In fact, on my way home last night by the park I can honestly say YES, IT DOES. I had a giggle and kept moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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...

Edited by EricMontreal22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • That’s great news!! Thanks so much!!  
    • It would have been interesting to see Sam Groom back in the role of Russ, when the character returned in 1989 (or even in a later return).  David Bailey was acceptable as Russ, but he didn't have much acting range.  And if Russ and Rachel ever reunited, I don't think Bailey would have been the best choice, because Rachel's husband sort of becomes AW's leading man. I don't think Bailey would have risen to that challenge. But Groom could have done that wonderfully.  I would have also been okay with a complete recast -- hopefully with an actor with a good deal of soap opera experience and someone happy with the role long-term.   And to answer a question: I do not believe Russ's return in 1989 was originally meant to be short-term.  With the reveal that Josie was his daughter, and with Olivia on the canvas, there was lots for Russ to do.  I think Lemay's plan was that Russ return permanently, but Donna Swajeski probably didn't think he was exciting enough and lost interest in Russ.  
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • However, let me say this and I don't think it applies in the case of MM and BC. Straight actors shouldn't accept a role if they are unwilling to play intimate scenes that are often required in daytime. Imagine a gay actor accepting a straight role and saying they won't do any intimate scenes or have very limited intimacy with an opposite sex co-star. It wouldn't happen though, because the stigma works one way.  I think the limited intimacy has more to do with trepidation of how soap viewers will take it. The average soap viewer is older and more conservative and soaps aren't exactly drawing in younger eyes, so storylines have tended to lean more safe in the 21st Century especially in terms of sex and sexuality with a few exceptions.    On that note, I have finally caught up this week. I am loving the Anita stuff that is brewing and I'm glad TT is finally getting some meaty story to work on and not just be a mouthpiece to move others' stories along or play narrator. NuTed is not sitting well with me. I am having a hard time understanding the casting change, because the new actor isn't exactly hitting it out of the park and he makes the other characters play and feel different with how he plays opposite them. I'm going to give it time, but there was something more endearing about Ted #1  inspite of some of his acting shortcomings.  I am obsessed with Wig. Our girl is really crazy and I'm not sure they're going to be able to keep her on for long without turning her into a caricature or making the show a big joke, but for now mammaaaa (*Eva's voice*) is providing the dramatics.  I've said this before, but I'm super impressed by how far the actress playing Naomi has come. I wonder what she's been doing, because she's gotten so comfortable and the acting has vastly improved.  I have a feeling that Bill is going to say something about Martin being zesty and Chelsea is going to be there to overhear. I thought it was interesting that she didn't feel comfortable telling her father and the convo between Dani and Chels hinted that maybe he might be a little more old school in thinking. 
    • I disagree. I think Jill going off the rails made perfect sense.  It was a multi season process starting in season 8, climaxing at the season 9 cliffhanger, and continuing into season 10.   It was after Jill's story ended was when Knots Landing really went off the rails because it happened just as Abby was leaving the show.. and the Lathams didn't really have anything interesting to follow both of these events.
    • Thank you for that. I came into the show at a confusing time for Cliff because he just floats from one story to the next and his job appears to change. I like him even though I know I probably shouldn't since he's such a creep at times. I might have to go back and watch some of the previous stories because I'm missing some important pieces of Deborah and Geraldine's backstories.    Thank you for the explanation. I'm not sure I have the patience for that so I think I'll give it a miss. I must have bought it with the idea that it was going to cover her time on the soaps. 
    • David Bailey was the only actor that I remember as Russ. I was too young to remember Sam Groom or Robert Hover. When David Bailey returned in 1989, I thought the powers that be should have recast the part. However, I went back to watch some episodes with Bailey. Actually, Bailey was good. The show missed a great opportunity to keep Bailey on longer than six months. Bailey always great chemistry with Vickie Wyndham, Irene Dailey and Connie Ford. And he was good in scenes with Carmen Duncan. Russ could have been involved with Iris again and possibly Rachel with the return of Carl Hutchins. Charles Keating's reappearance in 1989 with Carl being involved with the Red Swan story.  Beverly Penberthy's return in 1989 would have been a treat. Pat could have played the aunt for Josie to lean on, and good romantic pairing later for Spencer Harrison. Even though Paul Stevens had passed away in 1986. I would have brought back the character Brian Bancroft; this time being played by Donald May or John Gabriel. Was the intention for David Bailey to return for only short-term purposes.
    • First up: Finishing up January 1974. Then on to 1973! FROM THE VAULT: WEEKLY DAYTIME NIELSEN RATINGS: WEEKS OF 12/31/73-1/4/74 & 1/7/74-1/11/74:

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Of course it's just a rumor so it shouldn't be taken that seriously and when there really is an issue usually an actor will just turn the role down or leave (like the first Adam Newman on Y&R). If anything I think the producers might be keeping the kissing down to avoid issues with more conservative viewers. When it comes down to it Facebook pages are full of ignorant people who speculate about everything.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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