Jump to content

How To Get Away With Murder: Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 351
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Exactly...this isn't HBO. This isn't Showtime or MTV or VH1....the stuff that they've been saying the last couple of episodes has been so raunchy and just over the top. Trust me I can be as into sexy scenes as the next but it seems very out of place.

And yes the first episode of Scandal with Jake on the beach on Olivia also triggered alarms in my head and made me give a side eye....it's just all a lot for regular old ABC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't see how it's more graphic than Annalise's boyfriend thrusting into her or EP's character thrusting her boobs into the camera simulating a pornographic film while the guy rides her from behind. Let's be real here, this isn't Queer As Folk, Shameless, Weeds or True Blood level sex scenes. It's a bit racier than the typical but not alarmingly steamy, at all in my opinion.

I don't think it's supposed to be tasteful. I think it's clearly been stated that Connor is a sex addict, and he has dirty, messy, fun sex whenever the chance is given -- even if it's a detriment to his other relationships. I think this is realistic and should be shown. It's clearly apart of his character narrative, and I find him to be one of the more interesting characters. The hand wringing over this is so odd to me. Did Samantha from Sex In The City get this much flack for being sexually adventurous? Because I don't see why it's such a big deal for Connor. Overall the sex thing isn't overtly gratuitous to me because it serves a purpose that extends both plot and character development. I don't like the character because he likes sex, but because he gets [!@#$%^&*] done.

Edited by Skin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

With the competition from so many networks, ABC has obviously decided to push the envelope to stay competitive. With the Walking Dead blowing away network shows, the must feel the need to "loosen" the tight reins networks have been following since "Nipplegate" and the FCC's slap down.

Connor is a college student getting laid whenever he can. Considering his age, good looks, and "appetite" for mind numbing sex, it is what it is. I'm surprised the others in his peer group aren't getting laid as often!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I kind of want to commit a crime just so Connor will sleep with me…Even if he does send my ass to jail afterwards. :lol:

I LIVE for Elizabeth Perkins and I wish she was on my TV more regularly. She's so, so, SO good.

I've been saying since day one how bad Viola's party city wig is. I'm so glad she finally took it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think the show has ever said he's a "sex addict" and if that's a sex addict I think 99% of America would be sex addicts....

It's the way they portray it and the length. I mean that scene at the office with the guy who threw himself out the window went on for a quite a bit longer than necessary. It's like I get the point...they're gonna have hot sex. You can fade to black now Shonda.

And it is weird how they focus solely on Conner for the most part with these types of scenes. I think that's why it feels a little strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Well, in this case, he's the only character for whom these types of scenes make any kind of sense. None of the other characters seem to have active sex lives. And for Connor, sex is transactional and it drives story, since he uses sex to gain crucial information that pushes along each episode's case.

I hate to seem like I'm defending this show, but for me, the sex scenes are the only part of HTGAWM I genuinely enjoy. The actor is hot. Eventually it'll get old, and in that event, I'll stop watching.

Edited by Faulkner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's been heavily implied in this past episode that Connor feels the need to have sex often -- to the point where his pseudo boyfriend said he might have a problem, this line could have been made in jest, but the seeds are there. Another piece of evidence that may show correlation is when Connor jeopardizes a stable and building relationship with the man in question for a hook up, that could give him the upper hand with his job. I think this is enough to at least plant seeds of him being a sex addict, or at least having a high sex drive which is a part of his character. This is part of the character of Connor, to what degree, who knows -- we have only seen 3 or 4 episodes thus far. But I would say his sex scenes do drive both character and plot value at this point in time. If it becomes rote and that's all he is, and he isn't able to build from that than I would agree that it's gratuitous. But as it stands now they are developing his character and making an effort to flesh him out week after week, so I would say it's intentional. I don't see it as being a big deal and I do think there is more to the character than just sex for the sake of sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I guess since I just saw "Addicted" I'm a little careful with how I apply that specific term (sex addict) and he just doesn't strike me as someone who has that type of illness. I may be absolutely wrong and I freely admit that. You do have a point about what the pre-Stage 1 boyfriend said in the last episode.

However there just hasn't been enough time or episodes for me to just definitely think or say he's got a major problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I can't with y'all prudish asses! Fitz can f-ck Olivia up the ass & Jake can shove his hand into her vagina but Connor sex scenes are too much, too graphic, too focused on? Yes, God forbid a network show does the same kind of sex scenes it does for straight characters with its gay characters!

Bye! laugh.png

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/shonda-rhimes-shuts-down-anti-gay-tweeter_n_6014902.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000047&ir=Black+Voices

Edited by YRBB
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

    • Yes, I think that is the most likely situation.  TPTB were unhappy with the offer(s) they got from the tourism board in Finland, and decided the trip was going to be too expensive for P&G/NBC to finance alone.   I would also speculate a similar situation occurred a few years later with the planned location shoot in Egypt, which was also cancelled after the storyline had already started, and changed to Arizona.  
    • What else? #May4th

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • In my usual account on my most used video hosting site with the video title  DAYS 1-8-15 Will & Paul Sex This is an edit I began when I was first teaching myself to edit & at that time I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do. I pulled it up & finished it this morning. 
    • Or Megan is shot as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts...while Julie confesses she's the biological mother of Special Guest Star Barry Bostwick's little boy.
    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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