LOOKING- Page 6
LOOKING
#125LOOKING
Posted: 1/22/14 at 7:14pm
Sorry but I found it so slow yet so over stuffed with story points at the same time. I didn't hate it and will try episode 2 but it just sat there for me. Never have 3sums, hand jobs, bad dates etc seemed so lifeless. As for all the 'relatable' thing well maybe it's because I'm not in the US but what this poster put makes me question the relatable.
,So, the lead character had a tryst in a public park with a stranger, a bad date, attended his ex's bachelor barty, and wound up with a guy he met on the subway...all on the same day, and this is boring? And one of the other characters had a three-way with his boyfriend on the same day they decided to live together. Again, boring? I know I lead a dull life, but what exactly would it take to rise above boring?'
Namo i love u but we get it already....you don't like Madonna
henrikegerman
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
#127LOOKING
Posted: 1/22/14 at 10:23pm
It's only one episode and I'll give it another change.
However, if this were the same script but about three women I'd think it was a Sex and the City rip off with far less interesting dialogue and far less interesting characters.
I can't bring myself to feel more interested in or intrigued by it just because the three women are three gay men.
RippedMan
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/14/05
#130LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 1:25am
Thank God
(Unless you mean the UK QAF which at the time was mind blowing to me, and still holds up pretty well.)
I *really* don't see the Sex and the City thing--completely different in tone and style (but it is about mostly single friends looking for hookups/relationships in a city, I guess.) And, while I never really was a big SatC fan, and disliked the last season, avoided the movies--but the early episodes (with those "real" interviews with people on the street, etc) were hardly indicative of the show it became anyway.
#131LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 1:52am
Just caught up on the pilot. I'd completely forgotten that Andrew Haigh was EP and I'm glad. I'm afraid I'm one of those people who didn't connect with Weekend. While there are many similarities in tone, I found Looking far more charming -- at least partly because of the shorter length.
Imagine if the Looking pilot only focused on one of the three main characters and if it was two hours long. That's what Weekend felt like to me by the time we passed the one hour mark.
henrikegerman
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
#133LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 8:27am
Why did it remind me of Sex and the City ?
a small group of people looking for romantic fulfillment. Check.
In a major American urban area. Check.
Comic and bittersweet tone. Check.
One somewhat older than the others. Check.
One significantly more sexually free than the others. Check.
One who is clearly looking for love. Check.
One who has already found it and is dealing with whether a relationship can stand modern challenges, Check. Trying to move in together, Check.
Bad dates. Check.
Trying to reconnect with an ex, Check.
Dealing with an ex getting married. Check.
A couple has a three way. Check.
How is it different?
There are three instead of four.
They are gay men instead of straight women.
They are not nearly as socio-economically successful and they aren't on a fast-trek to even greater affluence.
Roscoe
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
#134LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 8:59am
I'll add some more:
How is LOOKING different from SEX AND THE CITY?
It isn't burdened with an overcute narration that rams home every single narrative point.
The characters aren't, at this stage yet, a bunch of selfish opportunistic money-grubbing skanks.
The main character, Patrick, actually seems to have a job that I can understand him making a significant living from, as opposed to the lavish lifestyle that characterizes Carrie Bradshaw's life of wretched excess which was apparently funded solely by that newspaper column. (Did she ever repay Charlotte for the deposit on her apartment?)
No one has, as of yet, been seen shopping for obscenely over-priced shoes or accessories.
Don't get me wrong. I certainly enjoyed a good deal of the SEX AND THE CITY series -- at its best it was fast and funny and genuinely engaging, but by the end of the run it had devolved into a real cartoon of its already rather cartoony self, there was a degree of selfish self-righteous entitlement to it that turned my stomach.
We'll see about LOOKING. It may do the same thing. But based on the first episode that does't seem to be where it is headed.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
My blog: http://www.roscoewrites.blogspot.com/
#135LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 9:57am
So the show is too much similar as Sex and the City because it's about a small group of same-sex friends looking for love and dealing with relationships in a city?
Despite the fact that, tonally, it couldn't be more different?
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
FindingNamo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
#137LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 10:53am
SATC was a breezy, comic fairy tale from the get-go. I don't think anyone thought they were creating a realistic version of anything. Seasons 3 and 4 are utter perfection, and help me look at NYC through a rosy tint when the reality gets a little too much.
LOOKING is digging deep into realism. It's cinematography and deliberate pace are the exact opposite of SATC's candy-colored fleetness.
#138LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 10:57am
So now every show about same sex friends looking for love is going to be compared to SEX AND THE CITY? So that means a show like that should never, ever be done again? Did same sex friends and looking for love cease to be topics important enough to be explored?
#139LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 11:02am
I liked the pilot very much. It may have been overstuffed with setting up plots, but what premier isnt?
I actually hope they develop these characters, each of whom I see in many friends and acquantences, and stay away from being too explicit. I don't see the point. Who was confused as to what was about to happen when they cut away from the bj?
Every actor was charming in their own way. I loved Groff and totally related to him. I've been on that date. Maybe I didnt go to my exes bachelor party that same day, but I may have been picked up on the subway later.
"Carson has combined his passion for helping children with his love for one of Cincinnati's favorite past times - cornhole - to create a unique and exciting event perfect for a corporate outing, entertaining clients or family fun."
"In Oz, the verb is douchifizzation." PRS
"In Oz, the verb is douchifizzation." PRS
#140LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 11:11am
Why did it remind me of La Boheme?
A small group of people looking for romantic fulfillment. Check.
In a major urban area. Check.
Comic and bittersweet tone. Check.
One somewhat older than the others. Check.
One significantly more sexually free than the others. Check.
One who is clearly looking for love. Check.
One who has already found it and is dealing with whether a relationship can stand modern challenges, Check.
Trying to move in together, Check.
Bad dates. Check.
Trying to reconnect with an ex, Check.
Dealing with an ex becoming another man's mistress. Check.
A couple has a three way...well, uncheck.
How is it different?
There are six instead of four.
They are opera singers instead of actors.
They are not nearly as socio-economically successful and they aren't on a fast-trek to even greater affluence.
henrikegerman
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
#141LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 12:40pm
Carlos, my point is not that no show about friends - same sex or otherwise; straight, gay or a mix - looking for love and negotiating contemporary sexuality can't be done again. The L Word, for instance, was pretty damned good, I thought, because the characters were interesting.
My point is that this show reminded me of Sex and the City (obviously others disagree), which was fine, but, so far at least, I find the characters not nearly as interesting, the comedy not nearly as fresh and insightful (when Sex and the City's comedy was fresh and insightful, granted it couldn't sustain itself and has now descended into the abyss of its movie franchise), and the show not nearly as good.
But, hey, that's just me.
Finally, Pal Joey, that was very funny.
Updated On: 1/23/14 at 12:40 PM
#142LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 12:47pmCarlos, I always respect your opinion on here, so we'll have to just agree to disagree. I thought the fact that the tone and style of the show (to me) felt so vastly different from SATC makes the similarities you listed irrelevant (which seem pretty typical to any modern show dealing with relationships--I mean threesomes and issues about moving in together should try to be avoided because SATC already covered them? I know you weren't saying that exactly, but, you also sorta were :P )
#143LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 2:17pm
And...Andrew Sullivan weighs in.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/01/22/finding/
FindingNamo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
FindingNamo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
#149LOOKING
Posted: 1/23/14 at 2:40pm
Like...I read that and was all, 'You've seen very little, haven't you?'
I also think he might have a skewed view of how he presents himself to the world. He seems to think he's one of those bourbon-drinking gays that can talk about the game with a straight guy, when he's not even close.
And the whole idea of talking to straight guys about the game really kills me. Is that the only way to relate to straight guys? I can't just talk to them about politics or movies or religion or many of the other topics in which straight men can be conversant? Why must we trade in stereotypes that all straight men watch 'the game'?
Videos