LOOKING- Page 46

[Luscious]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 2:56pm

I don't think the writing was bad. Not great, mind you, but not bad. Sure, some of the characters and story lines could have been more compelling, but I just don't think a story about a group of gay men navigating in today's world, specifically, San Francisco, USA, is all that interesting in and of itself, regardless of the writing. A group of gay men in today's Iran...now that might make for some compelling TV! Or a period piece about a group of gay friends in the early days of the liberation movement, and the years leading up to the Stonewall riots, that could even work in the right hands.

Updated On: 3/27/15 at 02:56 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 4:25pm

I thought the writing was great for what it was--a slice of life with sometimes annoying gay guys. I found it fun and entertaining watching them and their messed up lives. Screw it if I felt that they didn't represent me (what the **** does?) or if I felt that was boring.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 4:37pm

Screw it if I felt that they didn't represent me (what the **** does?) or if I felt that was boring.

There was only one character on that show I could identify with but I seriously refuse to waste my time on a badly written show let alone a boring one. My time is too valuable to waste, but to each his own. The public has responded by tuning out in droves and the consequence of that was it's inevitable cancellation. Looking was a show looking for an audience, when they should have been looking for continuity and good writers to keep viewers interested and invested. The show had a promising start alas it was unable to deliver.

Updated On: 3/27/15 at 04:37 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 4:42pm

'My time is too valuable to waste, but to each his own.'

Can I make a confession? I feel the exact opposite. I feel like a half hour on a Sunday is not much time to give up to a show like this. Even though I had MAJOR problems with it, it didn't feel like too much of an investment, so I never gave up on it.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 5:22pm

I get that SonofRobbieJ, but for me at least it got to the point that even that half hour took effort to get through and I was totally giving the show a chance to "pick up" but it never really did for me and I just gave up on it and I don't think I was the only one. The ratings don't lie - - - the show took a huge dip in viewership.

But don't get me wrong I'm not doing a happy dance over it's cancellation.

Updated On: 3/27/15 at 05:22 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 5:28pm

Oh no...I so get that!

But Eric said a number of times something to the effect of 'Why waste your time on something you don't like?'

I guess for me there were enough small moments that made me interested...though they were fleeting. I'm getting more and more interested in television production and I'd love to develop something gay-centric. Watching this was helpful with that. And...in the end...it's just a half hour on a Sunday. What else would I be doing?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 5:32pm

Oh wow...that's cool. If watching the show actually inspired you to develop something along those lines then that's a great thing. I would love to hear what you have in mind I am sure it's good. I wish you luck with it.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 5:54pm

Yeah, Robbie, I'm just not sure you have the requisite sensibility to do something gay.

[Luscious]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 6:13pm

Interesting commentary.


What Was 'Looking' Missing?

Updated On: 3/27/15 at 06:13 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 6:20pm

An interesting read.

"Maybe the show’s failure to connect with gay audiences had more to do with the way gay men traditionally approach pop culture. So much of the entertainment we love isn’t actually gay: Mommie Dearest, The Golden Girls, Judy Garland, Madonna, Ab Fab, etc. We love divas and absurd, outsized personalities, and the guys on Looking didn’t even come close. A lot has been written about how important it was that a show like Looking was out there, depicting gay lives. And yes, it’s important for gay people to see themselves and their stories represented on television. But there was also something extremely odd about seeing things on TV that were so specific to being gay. It almost felt gratuitous, "

So we are doomed to only having campy gay shows? (And he's wrong, as this thread proves, that gays didn't hate watch Looking. Just not enough.)

[HorseTears]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 8:44pm

We'll never know for sure, but I imagine that if this show had been about a similar group of straight people it would have also had a small, niche audience, but because it was set in a heteronormative space it might have been a big enough niche audience to sustain it for a few more seasons. I don't have any data on this - how could one? - but I suspect the "ick" factor still applied for a lot of potential viewers. You know the mentality: gay marriage is great, and I like the fat funny one on Modern Family, but gay men actually being intimate and sexually frank with each other? Groooosss!

I know it's more subtle than that. I'm not suggesting that people who turned the show off were grossed out by the gay stuff - I recognize that plenty of people didn't connect with the show's sensibilities. I'm talking about potential viewers - people who probably never tuned in BECAUSE of what the show was about. When the actual actors from the show are saying their parents told them that watching Looking made them uncomfortable, I don't think it was solely because their kids were being depicted as open, unapologetic, sexually active gay men, but because ANYONE was.

That leaves you largely depending upon gay men as an audience and to expect gay men to be one monolithic block in 2015 is probably asking too much. And then we get into the wildly varying statistics on how much of the population actually IS gay in the first place. I know several straight female friends who were big fans of the show, but it was not a water cooler show for them that they'd discuss with all their gf's the way GIRLS is - or at least - was. I'd be curious to see the breakdown of viewers, but I'm imagining they were under-represented and perhaps better marketing to women might - MIGHT - have saved the show.

[HorseTears]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 8:44pm

We'll never know for sure, but I imagine that if this show had been about a similar group of straight people it would have also had a small, niche audience, but because it was set in a heteronormative space it might have been a big enough niche audience to sustain it for a few more seasons. I don't have any data on this - how could one? - but I suspect the "ick" factor still applied for a lot of potential viewers. You know the mentality: gay marriage is great, and I like the fat funny one on Modern Family, but gay men actually being intimate and sexually frank with each other? Groooosss!

I know it's more subtle than that. I'm not suggesting that people who turned the show off were grossed out by the gay stuff - I recognize that plenty of people didn't connect with the show's sensibilities. I'm talking about potential viewers - people who probably never tuned in BECAUSE of what the show was about. When the actual actors from the show are saying their parents told them that watching Looking made them uncomfortable, I don't think it was solely because their kids were being depicted as open, unapologetic, sexually active gay men, but because ANYONE was.

That leaves you largely depending upon gay men as an audience and to expect gay men to be one monolithic block in 2015 is probably asking too much. And then we get into the wildly varying statistics on how much of the population actually IS gay in the first place. I know several straight female friends who were big fans of the show, but it was not a water cooler show for them that they'd discuss with all their gf's the way GIRLS is - or at least - was. I'd be curious to see the breakdown of viewers, but I'm imagining they were under-represented and perhaps better marketing to women might - MIGHT - have saved the show.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 11:40pm

if my life was like any of the Looking gays I would need to be in therapy to prevent my suicide.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/28/15 at 10:59am

My takeaway from that John Russell critique from Next magazine:

Murder mysteries, life-threatening illnesses, political scandals, life-or-death situations—none of that soapy stuff was what the show needed. I think what it was missing were compelling characters.

The goals of the writers are not what was at fault. The execution was.

Bad writing killed Looking.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/28/15 at 11:04am

And that is different from your life in any other show... how? I would hope that anyone's life being like a tv drama would include therapy...

Horse--well said, and I agree (obviously.)

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/28/15 at 11:06am

"The goals of the writers are not what was at fault. The execution was.

Bad writing killed Looking. "

But it wasn't. It always advertised itself as being anything but a gay soap opera. It probably would have done better if it WAS a soap. But it's not like it did a bait and switch, PJ.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/28/15 at 1:53pm

I'm long on record as being TOTALLY OVER the serialization of all TV shows in the post-Cheers era.

I can think of a MILLION ways to make an interesting slice of life series about gay guys (and their friends) in a major American city that doesn't have to be serialized from week to week and that could actually be good.

So yeah, it wasn't advertised as a soap but it had continuing stories, oh wait, sorry, "arcs". God I hate arcs.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/28/15 at 2:27pm

For good or bad, I don't think Looking even had arcs--it just started and stopped, which is probably why many people have said that it played better as a "binge watch"

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/28/15 at 3:36pm

Let's make a Discovery Channel special: "In Search of Looking's Arc". We could even design a museum and theme park.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 11:10pm

I'm linking this mostly for Eric, in the event he still hasn't had enough sprawling analysis. :)https://medium.com/human-parts/in-which-we-grow-tired-of-looking-for-representation-65e2efdb02e

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 11:31pm

 I only read the first couple lines of that, but I guess Dom really did have a chicken?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/2/15 at 11:47pm

Keep [BLEEP!]in' that chicken.

[HorseTears]

Posted: 4/3/15 at 12:49am

I think it's time for everyone to move on.  I couldn't get past the first couple of paragraphs.  Not because of Rohin Guha, but because I'm all Looking'd out - I think he wrote a really interesting collaborative piece a few weeks ago on Medium - Guardians, Gatekeepers, and the Gay White Media.  

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/3/15 at 2:59am

Someone did a think piece on Patricia Arquette's Medium?!?!  I only watched a few episodes, but man, this will be a must read if it's about her and Looking!!

[HorseTears]

Posted: 4/3/15 at 3:13am

Smartass.