Jump to content

Queer As Folk Reboot Bravo Bound


John

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I just wish we had more gay series. There are a TON on the web, serving almost every niche, but you have to search to find them, and they of course lack the budgets of network series, and it shows. I’ve consistently seen a lot of praise for “The Outs” on Vimeo.

 

I feel like the audience often wants gay series that are basically porn without penetration, with better actors and more plot between the action scenes. It makes for a very limited view of how gay men move and function in the world.

Edited by Costello
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 month later...
  • 5 months later...
  • 1 year later...
  • Members

I'm honestly impressed with Peacock. They have a lot of content and their original shows (including the ones from overseas they acquired) read like an elevated NBC experience, as it should. They have a good diversity of content and the upcoming stuff is hopefully going to bring them more attention. I know they have this, The Best Man tv series and three Housewives series coming. I hope it all works out for them because this could be a new successful hub for diverse content. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Likely due to name recognition which will separate it from a sea of content that viewers have to wade through that isn't recognizable to the main demographics. A lot of times people call the series a reboot, when it has little of the same trappings that the original series had.

 

I feel like what made QAF so successful is that it was less a show about gay men, than it was a same sex soap opera that women enjoyed watching a lot. It was also somewhat topical and heavily political in the later seasons, that sort of caused the series to have a bit of an identity crisis from season 3 onward. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing how Mike, Ben, Hunter, Justin and Brian ended up. But honestly all of the characters were sort of played out by the end of the series. I think this show needs to define what it's scope is in order to be successful. If it's just going to be a bunch of love triangles, sex scenes, and hook-up culture it's not going to survive. That's more or less what QAF was in it's first two seasons. I think what made it progress was the more political, culture, social-economic discussions they started having around season 3, and what they ended the series on. I don't really trust the reboot to do that, and engender meaningful conversations of what that now looks like in the gay community in 2021. 

 

I guess my question with this is -- what would make this different from Looking, which also had a similar premise but ended up ending after two seasons and a film? 

Edited by Skin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They’ve committed to making this series “diverse,” which at least gets my attention. The writer who is doing the reboot, Stephen Dunn, also worked on Apple TV’s immigration series “Little America,” which I haven’t seen but has been well received. Dunn is white, but episode he wrote and directed dealt with a gay male refugee from Syria, which suggests he won’t shy away from current-day politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, the most meaningful stories from QAF was the violence that the LGBTQ+ community experiences (Justin's bashing), living with AIDS/HIV (Ben), intolerant families (most of the cast experienced this), testicular cancer (Brian), and then the same-sex marriage and human rights stories (all of season 5). There were other stories that also happened within the show which I think we thoughtful and provoking during it's time. I think QAF doesn't get a lot of credit for advancing a lot of those (unpopular) topics during the Bush years (2000-2007).  It would be interesting to see a series that tackled these topics that are these equivalent's to the community in 2021.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

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

    • Jenn was a huge part of the success of Days back in the day, and that contribution shouldn't be dismissed.  With that said, I do think her and Jack's time on the show should remain as occasional visits/drop ins. When Missy returns to play Jenn, Jenn is back to being Jenn.   Jenn in her glory days was head strong, fiesty, and was a live wire.... and her scenes with Jack on Friday was classic Jenn with Jack being the voice of reason.   It was the foundation of their relationship back in the day.    
    • Claire was always tightly wound, I think what Long was going to do is to throw the three into this impossible situation with no bad guys, Mo, knowing how to take care of kids from growing up but unable to conceive and Claire, who didnt know how to take care of kids and was totally focused on her career, gets knocked up.  Ryder took Claire off the deep end as a convenient way to make story for characters he wasnt interested in (though Pratt blames McTavish) with little effort. It was later explained to be a brain tumor (though why was she a bitch again when she returned?) \ Claire did sleep with Rick, she was his first!
    • I'm sorry, truly I am, but this literally made me LOL. Tempting fate, much?

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Oh, I have very little doubt that Missy feels some way personally and privately.  Donna was just saying she actively spoke out against Days in public in reference to the gay storylines, which she did not. I don't have super strong feeling about Jen one way or another.  She was always a side character to me.  I still think Missy is Jen regardless of her stupid beliefs.
    • I hated the swap-over; Clayton Norcross, to me, was far superior in the role of Thorne than Jeff Trachta ever was. And the recast left me disliking Thorne when he was the superior son to me. As for Teri Ann Linn, I feel like she got the raw deal. Kristen was very clear as a forefronting character, especially in her rivalry with Stephanie, and it feels like she was dropped off for Felicia, and they never returned it. Not to mention the subpar recast with Tracy Melchior in 2001. Someone like Brenda Epperson (ex-Ashley, Y&R) would've been more suited for that role.
    • I just remember when Leo was marrying Craig (?), Greg Rikaart stated a line and made direct eye-contact with Melissa Reeves, and when the camera cut to her, she looked away. 

      Please register in order to view this content

       Rikaart had a mission that day, and he succeeded.
    • I need to go and find less.
    • Scroll to page 2 and there it is.    
    • Very cool!  Thanks for sharing! Haha love it - thanks for sharing!
    • There probably isn't-
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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