LOOKING- Page 9

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/24/14 at 6:27pm

Ew.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/24/14 at 7:24pm

"According to Variety, the Nielsen ratings for the premiere of Queer as Folk were a 4.5 household rating and a 3.0 in adults 18-49. It had 1.6 million viewers, not including repeat airings. USA Today reported that its 4.5 household rating compared favorably to a 5.1 household rating for Sex and the City. "

TV was an incredibly different landscape back then--(although I admit, those are MUCH higher than the numbers I read for the first night.) For network and cable shows--numbers have simply diminished. True Blood (which cost a lot more than Looking) scored just over a million for most of its first season, but to be fair HBO was hurting for new shows at the time so grabbed on to any they felt would have word of mouth.

Showtime's Masters of Sex, currently one of their most expensive shows due to the period trappings, averaged a 1.08 million for its season and is back for a new season. Showtime's 30 minute United States of Tara averaged 0.4 mill (no clue on demos) for its second season and came back for a fourth. So it's all relative.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/24/14 at 7:33pm

OK, I am doubting that QAF scored that high. I found this article about its last year:

howtime’s “Queer as Folk” proved there was an audience for later gay-themed entertainment like “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” “The L Word” and the recently launched cable network Logo.
But in its final season, “Folk” has lost most of that audience. Ratings for the once-hip show have fallen by more than half since its 2000 debut, and it’s in the midst of its worst year ever.
Through July 10, the most recent data available, new “Folk” episodes are averaging a 0.30 household rating, according to Nielsen numbers provided by Magna Global USA. That’s down 12 percent from last year’s 0.34 average.
It’s off 57 percent from the show’s third-season average of 0.7, and down 66 percent from 2000-2001’s premiere season average of 0.87.

(http://www.medialifemagazine.com:8080/News2005/jul05/jul18/3_wed/news4wednesday.html)

But maybe the first episode did score that high -- at the time the very thought of an American gay based drama was extremely unique. While we have had next to none since, it's no longer the same curiosity draw.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/24/14 at 8:07pm

"In Andrew Sullivan's Dissents of the Day, he quotes several people who disagree with his take on Looking, including a very eloquent former Act-Up LA member,

Dissents of the Day"

I would never subscribe to his blog, so couldn't comment, but surely he picked some of the least "dissenting" comments he received. I'd hope (then again, if they're all members, maybe not.) NOBODY commented on him saying how Weekend was the best depiction of "real" gays in *America*? As for the argument that the show should be in Nebraska... That would be boring. :P Besides that, the creators have said that they want to bring into focus how SF is still seen as a gay mecca, and how it's become harder to live there for many younger men. (Whether they do address this or not is a different issue, but the only shows I can think of that are set in places like Nebraska are traditional sitcoms.)

[inception]

Posted: 1/24/14 at 8:28pm

I see the conversation has moved on, but just finally watched this and I think it would have been better without Jonathan Groff - too pretty boy. I also did not find a lot of the the dialogue very realistic - the whole scene where the waiter was discussing the LA real estate agent with his female roommate didn't feel natural. In comparison, Girls feels real - the dialogue and situations on that show feel real - even when they are beyond the ridiculous. I know it's just the first episode, but excepting two moments it didn't work for me.
What did work? The date was well written. Asking in person, "So your drug and disease free?" was a bit fake - a flake like that would have asked that a bunch of times already online before even agreeing to a date. But we have all met guys like that who are so far out of the scene and can't handle the way most real guys live, and then judges anyone who sleeps around. Groff's character didn't do anything wrong - he's so far from being a slut and got treated harshly by a bigot. At least he found out the guy was an ass before swallowing his load - if you want honesty, that is when most guys find out that they've been out with an idiot. On Girls they wouldn't have wimped out from showing that.

The show really came to life when Raúl Castillo came onscreen. And not just because he looks like the younger brother of the guy I slept with two days ago. Everything about the scene on the bus felt real. Suddenly the dialogue popped. If he is where Groff is headed, then the show might be worth sticking with.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 1/24/14 at 8:43pm

There are times I found the situations on Girls real but the dialogue is pretty Woody Allen/novelistic. Hannah can say stuff off the bat that most people would have written in their diary the day after. The character's a writer and Dunham certainly can write but I never got the mumblecore/realism/neo-Cassavetes movement she was tied to early in her career.

I fond Looking's pretty low-key and no thrills which is why I thought it worked. I LOVED Dom and his roommate's interactions. Maybe it is because the one woman character on this show of gay men is not herself a stereotype at the expense of the male characters to be a relief.

Not to defend sex-negativity but Patrick did come off too strong in telling a guy off that bat something sexual he did.

As for the sex scenes not being explicit, eh. The reason a certain moment on Girls was so shocking and so impacting is that nobody was expecting that shot to be shown and it is in no way shown as something enjoyed by the two people in that scene at all. Haigh/Lannan seem to have a different way of showing sex and intimacy. I like Girls but I cannot really call the scenes of any of the couples in the history of the show having intimacy, except for Ray and Shoshanna pillow talk that was played for laughs.

Updated On: 1/24/14 at 08:43 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/24/14 at 11:26pm

I discussed the show with a friend tonight over dinner. He LOVED Weekend, but he found it "boring" as well. he likes to be provocative when he knows I disagree with him on things, so I felt weird when he said pone of the least realistic things was the conversation between Dom and his ex female ex felt forced because she should have seemed more into him. I thought that was one of the best moments in the show.

Strummer I would be a terrible date--I honestly have, when asked about relationships, felt it comfortable to tell too much.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 1/24/14 at 11:31pm

That's why I liked that scene because I've done that too and I knew I was too TMI within finishing telling that.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/25/14 at 9:58am

I don't mind the dialogue being a little pumped beyond reality, and I am willing to take my lumps for the possibly overreaching Sex and the City comparisons. That doesn't change the fact that I'm unimpressed. I still feel that these three guys, based on the first episode alone, are not sufficiently individuated, charming, funny, edgy or otherwise interesting on any level. But I'm willing to give it more time. It took me a while to warm to Masters of Sex, for instance, but now iike it very much. I loved Weekend as well, Eric, but I'm bored so far with Looking.

I actually liked the scene on BART as well, and the guy who Patrick met on it, Raul Castillo's character, is the most interesting character so far. And I liked that Patrick, possibly naively, gets in his own way and may not have optimal dating boundaries to realize that talking about cruising the park on a first date was not the best move, especially with the kind of guy he thinks he wants to be with. That was a recognizable bit of life that worked for me.




Updated On: 1/26/14 at 09:58 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/25/14 at 11:18am

I still feel that these three guys, based on the first episode alone, are not sufficiently individuated, charming, funny, edgy or otherwise interesting on any level.

Neither were the characters in the first episode of [FILL IN NAME OF SITCOM].

[Kad]

Posted: 1/25/14 at 12:50pm

Some shows go through entire first seasons before finding their footing in an amazing way.

Anyway, speaking of worked-out pretty boys, Andrew Keenan-Bolger talks about his appearance on tomorrow's episode (as Dom's Grindr hookup!)
Andrew Keenan-Bolger on Belting 'Defying Gravity,' His Looking Sex Scene and Trolling Grindr

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/25/14 at 4:16pm

umm... yeah, I'm gonna need to see Andrew Keenan-Bolger singing 'Defying Gravity' in the shower. Count me in for episode two.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 1/25/14 at 5:09pm

I noticed Jamie Babbit and Joe Swanberg have directing credits for the show besides Haigh on IMDb. Curious to what those episodes bring in terms of directorial eye.

[Master Bates]

Posted: 1/26/14 at 11:40am

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/27/14 at 12:29am

I'm going to be honest and say that Andrew way over hyped his guest appearance. He made it sound way more exciting than it actually turned out to be, but I never thought I'd see Crutchie's o-face so I guess that's a plus, although it sort of gave me the same stomach turning feeling I felt when that whole scandal broke out about the actress playing Mary Poppins on Broadway who had appeared in some porn flick. Aside from that I really liked this episode though. The golden girls reference made me smile, Patrick is totally a Rose and his awkward dating habits were made even more apparent in this episode. There is something endearing about the character, but maybe it's just me.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/27/14 at 8:45am

In case anyone still cares what I think (and I doubt they do, at least on this thread), last night was strike two. And if Andrew Sullivan's "tribute" to the show as one that's just about three guys who "happen to be gay" (as ridiculous, dubious and corrupt a commendation as that might be) wasn't proved completely baseless before, it sure the hell is now.

Actually, I think it would be great if in, for instance a thriller, a police drama, a spy story, sci fi, a western, anything where the primary focus isn't romance and or sexuality - a character - particularly a principal - is gay for absolutely no particular reason (a Gravity, a Skyfall, etc.) - rather than such characters always, almost by default, being straight, for no particular reason.




Updated On: 1/27/14 at 08:45 AM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/27/14 at 2:42pm

I still care what you think :P I DO agree though with the second part of your post.

[Kad]

Posted: 1/27/14 at 2:58pm

Val Kilmer's character in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang actually is a fairly good example.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/27/14 at 3:15pm

Haven't seen Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Maybe Skyfall was not the best example given Javier Bardem's character, but there Bardem's brutal sexual aggressiveness towards James was the raison d'etre of his being gay (or bi, or just sexually aggressive, as the case may be).

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 1/27/14 at 3:20pm

No GIF of AKB's "O face" yet? You've let me down BWW.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/27/14 at 3:24pm

He looked like Linda Blair in THE EXORCIST. Tongue stabbing the wind...eyes rolled to the back of the head...Head banging up against the pillow rapidly and repeatedly. You get the picture...

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/27/14 at 4:07pm

^ LOL But pretty accurate...

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/27/14 at 4:08pm

^Not a bad recap.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/27/14 at 9:04pm

I like this week's episode a lot more than I did the premiere.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/27/14 at 10:06pm

Dom was playing John Grant in his car and Patrick turned it up. I could be friends with those two. I loved episode two so much that I spontaneously applauded when the last scene ended. I was by myself.