Queer as Folk -- opinions?

Cafe Society
1

My wife and I have just finished watching the first season of the Showtime series “Queer as Folk” on DVD, and we both enjoyed it quite a bit. Speaking for myself, I was concerned at first that it would be a transparent “issues” show with flat characters and no real plot. I was pleasantly surprised to find that after a strong start, the show continued to get better, creating strong characters and a plausible storyline. The last few episodes of the first season were among the best ones, and the season ender was simply a stunner. While the show obviously did deal with gay issues, it usually did so in a way that took a backseat to character and plot development. We’re looking forward to starting in on the second season!

Anyway, we were talking about it today, and I was wondering what gay people think of the show. My wife and I are both straight (well… mostly :wink: ), so our perspective on the show comes from there, of course. But of course, it may be quite different from a homosexual perspective… I was wondering if homosexuals feel it accurately represents their “scene,” or their lives in any way, or if you feel it’s a misrepresentation. While I have a number of homosexual/bisexual friends, none of them have yet seen the show, so it’s a bit hard to ask them about it.

Of course, I’m also interested in anyone’s opinions, regardless of sexuality, but I am genuinely curious about what homosexuals may think of the show.

For me, I’ll recommend it to anyone, as long as I know they’re pretty open minded, and don’t mind some fairly explicit sex scenes.

So… thoughts, anyone?

2

I’m bi, and I loved the first season. About midway through the second season I quit watching it- the beginning of season was really good, but it started getting a little cheesy IMHO. Even the “cheesy” episodes were better than most shows on TV.

3

Gay here. The first season was excellent. The second season started strong, drooped, then picked back up at the end. I own the first season on DVD. Great, great episodes in there.

4

I seen a couple of episodes and it sort of looked to me as a gay version of sex and the city although I thought it wasm ore realistic

5

Disclaimer- this is not a “We do everything better!” post. High-quality US programming is (imho) usually a lot better put together than most British TV.

I probably would have really enjoyed it, had I not first seen the original British series; the US series does feel like QAF-lite to me in comparison. I’ve only watched half of the first season of the US series so far, but it seems less ‘gritty’ and much more didactic - every scene seems to feel the need for a little moral/emotional lesson, with the point rammed home with a less-than-subtle approach (I find this toe-curlingly awful); the Brit series was much more flightly in a we-don’t care-if-you-don’t-get-our-point manner. The characters are shinier, prettier; Brian doesn’t not have quite the sleaze/slime-quotient that Stuart (his Brit counterpart) had, plus has those big pretty eyes, so is much more forgiveable. Justin can be such a sweet boy - you really had to fight with your better judgement in order to feel protective towards Nathan (Brit-Justin), as he was a little snot of the highest order. The characters were less attractive, the setting less shiny, the sex (only a little, which surprised me) dirtier… Brit QAF felt more ‘real’ and as though it had a lot more to do with ‘me’. This may be that US fags just are a lot more attractive and shiny than us British poofs, though :stuck_out_tongue:

On the whole, both series were a little too issue-led for me, but a part of me was still intrigued and pleased that those issues were being addressed - as a gay man I seldom actually consider my sexuality as it’s just there and I’m used to it; I don’t have gay sex, I have sex, and it’s only ever brought up as a matter of interest/abuse by other people. Both series view active ‘gay’ sexuality as more of an integral part of everyday life; the constant discussion or intellectualising of what it is to be queer in regards to an active lifestyle. I loved seeing it all on screen and that much of the sexuality portrayed was unashamedly predatory, but both series waved the rainbow flag just a little too overenthusiastically for my liking.

I am slap in the middle of the ‘lifestyle’ portrayed (single, almost-thirty, urban, professional, attractive and slutty queer) but even for me it was over-egging the pudding; homosexuality is such a ‘precious butterfly of many colours’ that I have no clue where it would leave bears and bear-lovers, rural or isolated, leathermen, non-scene etc; just a whole heap of people left feeling rather disappointed that this huge advent in portrayal of homosexuality on TV excludes them. It would have been too ambitious to try to include all this in a couple of series, but I do think the writers could’ve concentrated less on the minutiae of sex (did anyone else think the rimming came off a little too much like a ‘how-to’ manual?) and looked for a broader context.

6

I liked the first season very much. I got rid of my satellite service last winter, though, so I haven’t seen the second season.

I have to agree with Potter in a couple of areas, though. I was a bit disappointed that the US series foucuses on the “beautiful people” and less on what real life is like. OTOH, ALL American television is pretty much like that, so I can’t really complain.

I’m also somewhat bothered by the fact that the show uses so many straight actors to portray gay people. And I’ll admit that that’s a bit of a hypocritic nitpick, because I never have a problem with a gay actor playing straight. The problem that I have is that some of the straight actors in the show, when giving interviews about the show, seem to HAVE to point out their “straightness” and remind people that they’re “just acting”… That bugs me.

But all in all, the show is very entertaining and I think does represent a pretty fair picture of one part of the “gay community” (whatever the hell THAT is…)

Besides, you can’t ever go wrong with cute boys kissing and cuddling in prime-time!

7

I haven’t seen any of the shows, so I regret that I cannot comment on them. I also apologize for the following hijack:

What is the significance of the title? It seems that part of it was left off somehow.

8

Haven’t seen it, not gay, but I heard this:

It’s set in Pittsburgh, around the “hot gay club scene”.

Huh? Pittsburgh does NOT have a “hot gay club scene.” We don’t have a gay club scene, or a hot club scene, or anything like that.

And do they speak Pittsburghese? Do they go dahntahn to see dem stillers and drink arn?

I mean, this is important.

9

I watched Season 1, disc 1 and I didn’t really care for it. I thought it was too cliche.

I won’t be renting the rest of the season.

10

Guin.

Have you truly explored the dark underbelly of Pittsburgh? :eek:

11

I truly apologize for posting incorrectly to this thread.

Move along, nothing to see here.:o

12

Actually, I’m having a Ronald Regan moment.

Forget what I apologized for. I posted correctly. It’s late. I’m out of beer. My computer sucks.

13

Queer as Folk – opinions?

Pretty Queer <rimshot! - and not that kind of rim!>
:smiley: :smiley: :smiley:
Thankyewthankyewveramuch
And for your info…hetero…I like my sheep female!

14

As I have mentione a few times, the show is nothing more than Dallas and Dynasty with Dicks.
I like the show, I’m gay and I have been there, done that, but know quite a few people who still do. However, I think the club hopping, bed hopping, pretty-boy fetish is something (most) gay men eventually grow out of. For the most part, it is nothing more than hetero singles scene in big cities (when you are in your 20’s).
Hooters, strip clubs, screwing…hey, Sopranos! (Starting back on HBO soon…see even gay men like hetero shows like that.)
The show is filmed in Canada, despite the Pittsbugh setting, which by the way I am glad they did not use West Hollywood or Chelsea in NY.
I am also a little pissed off that some of the actors seem to feel the need to go out of their way to announce they are not really queer…can you imagine the same actor making a big deal about not being Jewish, or not being a serial killer, or not being deaf in a film?
I was originally surprised to see how many straight people like this show…and in reading a recent article about QAF, there seems to be a HUGE group of heteros watching the program.
Good.
Again, it is a soap opera and nothing more, but it is encouraging that a lot of the audience is open to watching something out of the ordinary for sheer entertainment.
My question to you, Avalonian…do you and your wife admit you watch the show to your straight friends, or is this a “closet” thrill?

15

A fair enough question… we’ve been talking it up to pretty much everyone we know, gay, straight, or “other.” :slight_smile: The only rule of thumb we use for people we don’t recommend it to are those who are obviously not open to a show about these subjects, such as our Bush-loving conservative Christian neighbors. While I think they could benefit from watching the show (if they were to do so with an open mind), I doubt they would give it much of a chance. shrugs Their loss.

It’s not a dark secret for us, if that’s what you meant DMark. We quite enjoy the show, and we actively recommend it to anyone else we think might also enjoy it.

Thanks for the perspectives, everyone. While I agree with the idea that it’s sort of a soap opera, I would also have to say that the characters are better-developed than those on, say, “Dallas” or “Melrose Place.”

Also, thanks to Potter for the thoughts about the British series as compared to the American one. I meant to ask how the two compared, but forgot to do so. I suspected that the British show was probably better in a number of ways, as the originals are generally better the imitators anyway.

I also find it unfortunate that the straight actors playing gay characters have to “proclaim” their straightness whenever possible. Ideally, that wouldn’t matter, but we’re dealing with heterosexual men here. Stereotypically, I guess we can expect a little bit of chest-thumping. :wink:

Reminds me of the small controversy raised when Ian McKellen was cast as Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, and some self-important Internet “commentators” kvetched about the fact that he is homosexual and thus shouldn’t play Gandalf based on that. He wrote of it briefly on his own website, in an entry called A Gay Gandalf. Whether the actor is gay or straight really shouldn’t matter, ideally. The fact the McKellen was pretty much ideal for the role should (hopefully) help prove the point.

Probably the one complaint my wife and I have about “Queer as Folk” that has remained consistent is that the sex scenes seem very staged, not very real. With only a couple exceptions, it always seems as though the actors are constantly “striking a pose” as they have sex. It seems to me that it’s a deliberate stylistic choice to make them this way (as well as indicative of American television), but it’s not one either of us is particularly fond of.

But still, it’s a good show, and worth watching. Lola, I’d recommend trying to watch at least a few more episodes. The early episodes were my least favorite ones… as I said in the OP, the series (and the writing, IMO) got better as it progressed. Just a thought, if you’re of a mind to give it a second chance.

Thanks again for the thoughts everyone!

16

'kay.

I will check out disc 2.

17

notcynical, the title comes from a British saying, “there’s naught queer as folk,” meaning, there’s nothing as strange as people.

18

That’s cool… I didn’t know that. I like it.

19

If they showed the sex scenes the way they really happened, you’d have a hard time getting them past even the Showtime censors:eek:

“real” sex scenes are often a lot more gritty, wet, sloppy, raw and spontaneous - and frequently occur atop major household appliances. They gotta make SOME asjustments or else you’d be bordering on gay porn.