I'm having a debate with friends... Which is better as an overall show and why? "Sex and the City," "Entourage," or "Queer as Folk." Please stick to these three.
"I'm not a catcher! I'm a piano player!" -- Schroeder from "Peanuts" ----- http://www.facebook.com/p/Brandon_Bartlett/500719306
I'd say SEX AND THE CITY, only because I'm actually moved to give a damn about what happened to some of the characters on it.
I always sit through ENTOURAGE praying for the big quake to strike L.A., just to get this pack of idiots off the screen. And the less said about that QUEER AS FOLK thing the better. A new low in tasteless vulgar sophmoric self-righteous nonsense.
"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/
The original British version of QAF was good, yeah, but it was aggressively dumbed down and cheapened up for Showtime.
"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/
Sex and the City. There is a brilliant little piece of everyone in each character, and the relationship the viewer develops with the characters throughout the series is a deep one. For me, at least.
One of my friends says "Sex and the City" is a lot like "The Golden Girls," but with a younger cast and a more modern twist. As with the GG, each character is different, yet complements the others.
"I'm not a catcher! I'm a piano player!" -- Schroeder from "Peanuts" ----- http://www.facebook.com/p/Brandon_Bartlett/500719306
While I agree that Sex and the City and Entourage are better shows, neither changed television like QAF. While it was melodramatic and sometimes very poorly written, no television show ever portrayed gay humans as fully developed, fully sexualized, fully loving, or fully conflicted as QAF. The show made a difference. It continues to do that. That really cannot be said for the others.
How exactly does QAF make a difference? I'm sorry, I just can't agree that QAF portrays anyone as fully developed anything. They never met a cheap joke they didn't like. It makes WILL AND GRACE look like OEDIPUS REX.
"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/
Do you really think Will and Grace depicted gay people any better than QAF? Lets see the issues raised by QAF - coming of age gay, family rejection (still goes on even today), HIV and the problems treatment brings, family life ( i.e. loving, fighting, marrying, divorcing, child rearing, sharing custody, working, staying at home), career, college, friends, sexuality in all its forms - monogamy, serial monogamy, a little loose, slutlike, desperation - methamphetamine problems in the gay community, family of choice not of birth, ex-gay movements, gay athletes, working class issues, hate crimes, police and official disinterest in hate crimes, marriage equality, work place discrimination, transformation of uneducated into caring heterosexual friends, importance of PFLAG, Pride, and etc. I know the characters were not fully developed, but that show alone (with the exception of 6 feet under showing a caring and committed couple) addressed important, real, meaningful issues. While the writing could certainly have been better, there are few articles on gay TV programming today that do not pay homage to the doors flung open by QAF. I get why QAF did not appeal to many gay viewers, but its importance as groundbreaking television remains.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
