LOOKING — Page 44

I actually felt the ending was the most artful the show has ever been. I think they could have ended it there. This doesnt seem like a show that neatly ties things up in a bow. I'm not jonesing for a film. What more is there to say, honestly?

I don't expect a gay series to portray everyone or even be PC, but I'd like it to be compelling. I liked Queer As Folk not because it had any basis in reality, but because their were archetypes and heightened drama. I like a little suds in my soaps. I don't get mad that Brian in QAF isn't like me in the same way that women in middle America aren't pissed that Alexis Carrington is a total bitch and doesn't represent women well.

---

And the problem with my comment was....

I don't. I have hardly any understanding at all, other than my own personal life, and yet I still found the characters to be archetypes and the issues to be handled clumsily. I am sure I would think it was worse if I actually had lived for 40, 50, or 60 years, but the fact that I think they didn't do their best when I am young is signifying that they are probably not handing things correctly.

I am kinda curious, I hate to say, to read Fantod's list of gay archetypes...

Bettyboy, I definitely agree with you re Alexis Carrington. Of course the argument is that there still are so few gay characters on TV that they should be more diverse, bla bla...

I was never a big fan of the US QAF, as everyone knows, but I loved the original from Russell Davies. I'd be curious to read your reaction if you watch his just concluded spiritual sequel Cucumber, which certainly has a lot more drama (and I loved, but it polarized people in a different way.) Even if it's in the heavily censored form Logo will air in APril.

"Sorry, what? What did I say that was so terrible?

Nothing. But given the contentious diversity of the gay community, the likelihood of a gay show that nobody finds offensive is pretty much nil.

If such an unoffensive show could be achieved, however, it would probably be boring.

So I think you created a paradox in your post--which is hardly a reason for the rest of us to insult you.

That's a good point, GavestonPS. I found Looking to be in the "less offensive but not very good" category.

I am sure I would think it was worse if I actually had lived for 40, 50, or 60 years

Butcha AH, Blanche, ya AH in that chay-uh!

---

^Just LOL'd all over my coffee

---

I'm a bit confused as to what in Fantod's post is objectionable, as well.

---

I just assumed he was aiming for "stereotypes" but "archetypes" is actually an interesting idea and it would be great if he elaborated on those, if that's what he meant. Buuuuuuuut, I have a feeling he has no idea what he was writing.

Annnnnnnnd, I have no desire to be the point person for expressing irritation at poseurs if others are irritated too.

---

Mmmmmmm.

---

I might have meant archetypes instead of stereotypes, but I'm not 100% sure on the difference between the two of them. And because everyone seems to care so much, I actually liked the way Looking handled characters, but I just thought it was terribly boring. And I live near San Francisco and have many friends in the GSM community, so I am already aware of a lot more diversity of GSM people than are presented on TV shows, but as just about everybody loves to mention, I am young so no doubt I have more to learn about such a community, but the fact that I find most TV shows an unrealistic portrait of GSM people from just the people that I know, TV clearly has a long way to go in accurately representing such a community. Happy? No, that would be impossible. I'm sure you will pick apart my statement word by word to find things wrong with it or just say that I am young so automatically I am an idiot, or that I am old so I am automatically an idiot. Or you will just insult me because it's apparently fun.

And Paljoey, I'm not sure how you could forget that! Not when so many "charming" posters constantly remind me and everyone else!

Updated On: 3/26/15 at 04:06 PM