LOOKING- Page 45

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/26/15 at 4:20pm

Gender and/or Sexual(ity) Minority

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/26/15 at 4:30pm

That's all people know now, PJ. Once you know this week's acronyms, you don't need to know anything else but you can still call present as an expert.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/26/15 at 10:53pm

We do like to eat our young, don't we? (Pun intended.)

I think we might just as easily see an obviously precocious musical theater fan as an opportunity to share the knowledge and theatrical experiences that have meaning for us.

Or to put it in personal terms, how many teenager care even a little about Pal Joey's and my experiences at FOLLIES in 1971? Let's don't discourage the one who does.

(Namo, if I seemed to single you out as "point person", I apologize. I just happened to be responding to your post.)

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/26/15 at 11:08pm

Hard as this will probably be for you to imagine, you had absolutely nothing to do with my post.

"Let's don't discourage the one who does."

Oh, so you long for fresh audiences for your reminiscences? Is that the natural order of things? Or are you feeling flattered that a people pleaser is pushing all your right buttons?

[Kad]

Posted: 3/26/15 at 11:18pm

I enjoy much of what you contribute to this board, Namo, but in this instance you're contributing nothing but bile.

If Fantod wanted to be a people pleaser, he'd be expressing different opinions around here.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/26/15 at 11:35pm

"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. "

Fantod--that kinda goes against what you previously said, though... I kinda hate to pick on you--I was a teen posting on musical groups and I know people can use that as a reason to dismiss one's opinions. (I remember being told when I was a teenager that it was nice that I liked Sondheim's shows--but I simply could not "get" them at my age. It's true that I appreciate many of them in different ways now, but I don't think I failed to understand or connect with them as a teen--why would it be alien for a lonely 13 year old to identify with aspects of Bobby, for example?)

But... It seems like you say one thing, and then either don't seem to know what you said, or else say the opposite. That said, I do feel like you do mean what you write, when you write it... If that makes sense.

Back to LOOKING. My FB has been very sharply divided (no shock,) by others who are sad the show is gone, and those who basically seem happy it's gone. I'm not sure why it makes people *happy* it's gone (I suppose if a show I really felt was worthless like The Khardashians was canceled I would be happy, but it wouldn't warrant me telling anyone that I was,) but what annoys me is the people who have said things like "Thank god! Now we will get a new gay show that hopefully won't suck." Do people really think this is how TV companies work? That now that Looking is gone, they all are madly scrambling to create a new gay show?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/26/15 at 11:48pm

Wait, that's the Kate Jackson Making Love argument again!

[HorseTears]

Posted: 3/26/15 at 11:58pm

Eric, although it wasn't my cup of tea, that's the same reason I hoped that Cucumber/Banana/Aubergine would be successful.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 12:16am

"Wait, that's the Kate Jackson Making Love argument again!"

Not quite. I guess I've not been clear--I don't think people should watch a show just cuz it's gay, if they don't like it. Even if it's one I like :P My point was I don't think it'll make a difference either way to the future of gay shows--I don't think canceling Looking will mean that other gay shows are more likely to take its place as others have said--or that other gay shows won't come around (though I don't see that happening anytime soon.) It feels like the movie and tv industry is pretty uninterested in trying to find any gay trends or appeals when choosing movies (otherwise--and I admit this probably would have been for the worst--Brokeback Mountain would have led to at least one other high profile gay tragic romance.)

Basically it won't, I think, make any impact as to the future of or less gay fictional programming whatsoever. Which basically means it probably will be a few years before another gay show appears.

Updated On: 3/27/15 at 12:16 AM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 12:18am

"Cucumber/Banana/Aubergine"

*Must track down gay French series Aubergine RIGHT NOW.

As for "gay shows" Please Like Me--which is pretty brilliant, I think--is back this Summer. of course it's Australian but it is being co-funded by Pivot in the US. And Russell T Davies' 80s series The Boys is set for next Jan in the US (I love Russell T Davies as a storyteller, though I'm not sure how his tone will fit a series set at the height of The Plague, but I am excited to know.) But nothing gay wise (or lesbian wise, for that matter,) has been shopped around this year to US network or cable tv.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 12:24am

It's kinda too bad that Netflix has been such a success, nearly right out of the gate--as it seems to mean that less "niche" shows will be tried (although Amazon's Transparent will probably help in this respect.) Although their Sci-Fi series from The Wachowskis, Sense8 is meant to revolve largely around issues of gender and sexuality...

[Fantod]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 12:42am

Eric, looking back I realize what might be confusing about what I said. My original comment about how no show about gay characters handled characters properly and was good still stands, but I tend to find that shows about gay characters tend to either attempt to handle characters properly (and fail) or attempt to be good (and fail). Looking tried to be respectful of gay characters and the expense of entertainment value, but still failed. Does that make sense? Sorry, sometimes I have to get defensive when everything I ever say is scrutinized.

And about "getting" a show, eric, I think that is kind of ridiculous. Shows shouldn't be written for a fractionalized audience, and the really good ones should require no experience necessary to love it. Most of the people who fell in love with Company during its original production were teenagers. Did they need to "get" the show to like it? Of course not. They liked it because they thought it was an incredible show. I may disagree with them about the quality of the show, but not liking something is not the same as not getting it. Updated On: 3/27/15 at 12:42 AM

[Luscious]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 12:45am

Rest assured you won't be seeing another series centering around the lives of gay characters for a very long time. Maybe ever. Perhaps that will be LOOKING's legacy. With gay culture becoming more and more homogenized and assimilated into the mainstream, maybe there's no longer a need (or an audience) for this type of show. Maybe being gay in today's world just isn't an interesting enough subject in and of itself to warrant a show about it.

Updated On: 3/27/15 at 12:45 AM

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 12:51am

"Namo, but in this instance you're contributing nothing but bile."

Amazing. Thank you. Talking about a show he DOESN'T watch but says asinine, racist, brain dead shows like "2 Broke Girls" are good. Oh, and bullies teenagers for having enlightened, smart opinions. Christ, get a life.

Anyway, I enjoyed this show, but I don't think it was exciting enough for people and I feel like they didn't what to do with the love triangle in the second season. Ritchie was lovely, emotionally available, and would have loved Patrick. Kevin was an asshole from the start. Dom didn't really have many storylines, and the best relationship was between him and Doris.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 1:09am

I didn't say Two Broke Girls was good, I said it entertained me. Something Looking seems to have done for a precious few, hereafter known as #TooFewToRenew.

"having enlightened, smart opinions"

No. I'm just saying "Stop posing. Stop being a phony. Be genuinely enthusiastic about the things you really know about. Learn and grow. Don't post as if you know everything already. And don't pretend to be a granny clucking your tongue about what the barbarians wear to the opera nowadays. As opposed to when? Back in the day circa 2009?" That's all. And I only post a response when I simply can't take it anymore. Naturally, this is interpreted as everything ever said is scrutinized. Because "Telephone Hour."

"Maybe being gay in today's world just isn't an interesting enough subject in and of itself to warrant a show about it."

Or… they could tell a story. You know, WRITE A GOOD STORY. Don't just assemble characters and a location and slowly flip through a series of moods.

Updated On: 3/27/15 at 01:09 AM

[HorseTears]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 1:21am

Before everyone jumps down each other's throats. *I* am the one who flagged Fanty's post, not Namo or PJ. Though I do think the kid - ridiculous as any teen (myself included) can get - gets bashed on here a bit much.

That being said, his post was a bit silly, but I didn't flag it for any of the reasons which have occupied the last couple of pages of the thread. In Fanty's original post, which he has since edited, so I must paraphrase, he said something akin to:

I hope the next LGBT themed show has:
(a). Better writing and acting
(b). Doesn't shove offensive gay stereotypes/archetypes down our throats

Again. Paraphrased, because the OP has been edited. I could give a toss about whether or not everyone else enjoyed the writing/acting/direction on the show as I did. (Though a multi-year pre-occupation with a show that you don't care for does seem odd to me. Ahem.) It was the whole "shoving it down our throats" language that made me do my Liz Lemon eyeroll. It felt rather Anita Bryant'ish. And, yes, Fanty, I know that wasn't your intent.

Oh, also, since when are we using "unoffensive" in place of "inoffensive"? I thought the former was pretty much out of usage in modern English or am I completely wrong? Seen it repeated multiple times in this thread.






Updated On: 3/27/15 at 01:21 AM

[Fantod]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 1:27am

I am nothing if not genuinely enthusiastic about theatre. And I am much more interested in learning new things about theatre than telling people things I already know, but I still fail to see why the spread of information that I think is interesting and relevant is so horrible. And I actually don't really like the idea of dressing up to go to the theatre. I find that it makes me too stiff and unresponsive to a show when you have to worry about being formally dressed. I am mainly here on these boards to learn and grow, which is why I'm so fascinated by first hand accounts of people who got to see the likes of Judy or Ethel on stage. I don't like the things that I like to pretend that I am so mature and whatnot, I just love the things that I love because I think they are wonderful. If listening to Marie Christine made me happier than listening to Hello, Dolly! I would say as much. But the simple fact of the matter is that I don't. I can't change that. I think that you think that I am just making things up to make myself seem more mature, but I really am just expressing my honest to God opinions.

And for the love of God, my LaChiusa over Mozart comment was SARCASTIC.

And yes, Horsetears, I realized that my wording sounded terrible, so I edited it. See? I make mistakes and am perfectly capable of admitting that I make them often. I think you might be right about inoffensive being the proper word, but Webster considers both of them to be actual words.

And I have a tendency to start watching a show and then only realize after about ten episodes whether or not I actually like it.
Updated On: 3/27/15 at 01:27 AM

[HorseTears]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 1:36am

We're cool, Fanty, we're cool. And the parenthetical statement was not directed at you.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 3:52am

Company was only supported by young gay men? I'm so confused.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 10:52am

1. Obviously the problem is mine and mine alone. But it gives me insight into why so many of the posters of my era now basically post on one thread here, if at all.

2. Thank you HT for pointing out that my presence is this latest go-round was in response to your asking if I or PJ had this. This is what happens here (people let others "handle" things) and that's how one person comes to be perceived as the only person having an issue with another poster. It becomes A Thing.

3. I never went back to Looking after the board games, you know classic board games, episode because once again, an attempt to tell a gay story SUCKED SO HARD. It's a drag being a decades-long gay activist interested in good story telling and to see what some people are willing to accept. (I was the resident Will & Grace despiser here, because once again gay "friends" were depicted for years as people who ripped each other to shreds.) Having said that, I laughed my way through every single episode of the now-cancelled "McCarthys" this season and laughed through both episodes of "One Big Happy." I don't know why. I just do. But of course I am going to read and perhaps contribute to The Death of the Gay Blah Hope segment of the thread, because I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting more that this gunk. Many of us here could have come up with a better look at contemporary gay life.

4. The problem is just me, I am the one with the problem.

Updated On: 3/27/15 at 10:52 AM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 12:12pm

'I am nothing if not genuinely enthusiastic about theatre. And I am much more interested in learning new things about theatre than telling people things I already know'

I don't really have any skin in this particular game and I'm decent at overlooking stuff that rankles, but I do want to just add that it doesn't always come off that way, Fantod. At least to me...but it doesn't bother me all that much so I just remain chill about it all.

I'll never forget when I got into it with someone over MY FAIR LADY. I was all, 'How can this person be asserting such strange but strong opinions about this show???' Turns out they were 14. I had to step back.

[Fantod]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 12:24pm

I suppose it may seem that way as I am often dragged into petty arguments on this site and I've never be good about ignoring people. I know a decent amount about theatre from the books I've read, I listen primarily to cast albums, and I see as much as I possibly can, so I never really found a problem with myself spreading any information about theatre I may have, but clearly many people take issue with that. You should know that my favorite posts on this site are the ones of people recounting the shows that they got to see a long time ago, because it's the closest I'll ever get to seeing the original productions of my favorite shows. I also am constantly reading play scripts and theatre biographies (right now I'm finishing John Lahr's Tennessee Williams biography) and sometimes I just like to share the knowledge I have.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 12:29pm

Dear boy (GOD...who do I think I am? Olivier???), it's more the 'how' not the 'what'. But it doesn't really bother me...truly. Just sometimes when I read a post, I get all Boys in the Band and thing, 'Get HER, this piss elegant kooze!'

And then I remember what I was like when I was a teenager (UNBEARABLE...can you just imagine willowy little Robbie accompanying himself on the piano while warbling Losing My Mind during a concert at his Catholic high school? I'd have gay bashed myself!), so I just smile wistfully and move on.

But I also had lovely people say to me, 'Darling...sometimes you should just breath and absorb instead of offer.' I didn't always take the advice, but I filed it away for future use.

Updated On: 3/27/15 at 12:29 PM

[darreyl102]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 1:32pm

I will not miss the show- I kept watching hoping that it would pick up, but it just never did. It was a good show to watch while doing homework,because you don't have to pay close attention to follow because nothing interesting ever really happens.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 2:14pm

Don't blame the bad writing on the viewers who stop watching. Blame the bad writing on the writers.