"Queer as Folk" and "Six Feet Under": required watching for gays?

[bulge]

Not exactly fly openers like soccer matches, but you should watch them both, boys.

 

[Joshua_me]

What's worth learning from QAF? LOL. It's softcore porn. We're not talking a documentry about third world hardships here.

*sheesh*

A roomful of gay men sniping at each other ! Who would have thought that could ever happen ?

I don't think your comment on QAF is a fair one. Yes, there was lots of soft core porn, but that was only one small aspect of the show.

There was plenty of commentary and insight about the complexities of gay relationships, the good times and the bad, mixed in with a healthy dose of homophobia from the "public" and the way they perceived "Liberty Avenue".

The writing certainly stumbled more than it's fair share, but there are dozens of truly heartfelt and believable moments scattered across the arc of that series.

Part of the problem was by the shooting of the last season, the cast basically hated each other in "real life". There's a reason Rosie O'Donell's scenes were shot only with "the Mom" in the show.

 

[demedja]

Are bi people qualified to vote? Wasn't sure, so I didn't.

If I had voted I would have picked neither. I don't think that gay kids today would watch either of these shows and come away impressed or enlightened.

Still, I liked Six Feet Under. To me that show was good comedy and good drama. I didn't watch it because of the gay subtext in some of the episodes. Ultimately, it was about the humanness of the characters, and I found their stories interesting to watch.

Queer As Folk was a show that I never really got into, although the British version was much better than the American one. To me, Queer As Folk kinda sorta started out ok but many of the story lines were so far-fetched and over-the-top that I just couldn't watch it anymore.

I've heard about GLEE but never watched it. Can't say I'm all that interested to watch it either. I don't watch TV very much anymore, but when I do the shows I watch are mostly educational and travel stuff on the Science, History, and Discovery channels.

 

[Lube]

Part of the problem was by the shooting of the last season, the cast basically hated each other in "real life". There's a reason Rosie O'Donell's scenes were shot only with "the Mom" in the show.

Really? I didn't know that.

Did any of them move on to anything else? Other than Sharon Gless, I can't say I've seen any of them around.

 

[Lube]

Are bi people qualified to vote? Wasn't sure, so I didn't.

I didn't watch it because of the gay subtext in some of the episodes. Ultimately, it was about the humanness of the characters, and I found their stories interesting to watch.

. I don't watch TV very much anymore, but when I do the shows I watch are mostly educational and travel stuff on the Science, History, and Discovery channels.

Sure you can vote. In this case I was using gay as a synonym for GLBT.

Why didn't you watch the episodes with a gay subtext? I think it showed them in a very boy-next-door realistic way.

I'm a big fan of nonfiction TV, too (not to be confused with reality TV )

 

[altlover85]

Sure you can vote. In this case I was using gay as a synonym for GLBT.

Why didn't you watch the episodes with a gay subtext? I think it showed them in a very boy-next-door realistic way.

I'm a big fan of nonfiction TV, too (not to be confused with reality TV )

I think he meant he watched the show, but not only because it had gay subtext. He watched all the episodes.

 

[Lube]

I think he meant he watched the show, but not only because it had gay subtext. He watched all the episodes.

Oh, duh, I see. He didn't watch it only because of the gay subtext. That makes a lot more sense. Thanks.

 

[altlover85]

It is too much of a complete overblown stereotype of what it is to be "gay."

It is a drama. It's not meant to be a documentary.

Even as a straight female I know that there are way too many discrepancies in the way the characters and situations are portrayed. Not all gay men are concerned with being drunk, high, tanned and at the gym, they don't spend all their time worrying about the next club opening. They aren't out to bed every hot guy in town.

True. There are some gay men like those on the show and some that aren't like those on the show.

They did show a great deal more of the gay bashing/political issues than many shows have, but there was too much of the bitchy queen stuff to even notice, if you are watching it to learn about what being gay is about, you are only seeing the over dramatized way the creators are showing each issue.

I hope that people are watching QAF and any other show with a critical eye and not taking the show for gospel. If they aren't, the shows writers aren't to blame. It's the fault of whoever educated the viewers of the show about the usage of media.

Learning what it means to be gay by watching it on television, whether it be cable or not, is a poor way of learning. If it were more reality based, nobody would watch. Therefore there is too much overblown and I fear that a lot of the people in society who rail against the community are basing their knowledge on these shows. And not on what it is like in reality.

I don't really see that many people from the Family Research Council watching these shows. Even if the men were not partiers, I'm sure people against the community would find something else to hate, like the sex, so I'm not sure what your point is.

There is way too much of a broad spectrum in this world and not enough people know realize that truth. This thread is further proof that the OP has no clue of how the real world works, and only wants to believe what being gay looks like in his head, and on TV.

I thought he was asking if the shows would be good examples of showing younger gay men the issues that some (I would say most) faced at the beginning of the century. I think QAF is such a show, as long as you realize it's entertainment first.

 

[BFizzle]

This thread should really feature more on-topic discussion about how fine Brian Kinney is.

 

[Ryuukie]

Actually, I think it's more important for the younger gays to watch MGM musicals. They are culturally illiterate gays if they don't.

 

[altlover85]

You take way too much for granted.

Spend some time looking through this site at the advice and posts that Lube has contributed to this site and then come back to me when your head is out of his ass.

You can pretty up your posts and his posts all you want, but there isn't anything that is going to change my view. That might be a shitty way to be, but I've tried to be reasonable. But reasonable does not work in this case.

He may not be correct about everything he writes and he may have a view point different than some of the posters on here, but I happen to agree with him on some things. The usefulness of certain TV shows in helping some people out is one of those things.

I am not an idiot and I know that these shows are dramatizations. But you ask anyone in the Mormon church or the far right or whoever else is standing in the way of gay rights what they think a gay person is and I'll be dammed if they don't describe Brian Kinney to a "T." Half of America thinks being gay is wearing pink chiffon and singing show tunes. Because that's what movies and television show us.

There are gay guys that like to go to the club and there are gay guys that like to wear boas and sing show tunes. There are gay guys that don't do either of those things.

What does that have to do with the fact that these shows are valuable to some people?

What would you like to see as far as representations of the gay community?

 

[altlover85]

I thought Ted was cute, so that helped me be more into his storylines. I saw some of myself in Michael, Ted, and to a much lesser extent, Justin.

 

[Lube]

There wasn't enough tea consumption. As a gay man who consumes a lot of tea, I didn't find the shows representative of my "lifestyle" at ALL.

Oh, Ger! Ha ha ha ha ha!

 

[Lube]

I thought Ted was cute, so that helped me be more into his storylines. I saw some of myself in Michael, Ted, and to a much lesser extent, Justin.

I probably related most closely to Ted, being the logical one. As a bear, though, it was hard for me to relate very strongly with any of them in terms of sexual attraction. Thankfully there were some cute hairy bodies in the club--because I was rarely turned on by any scene with Justin or Brian.

Overall Emmet was my favorite character--what spunk he had! You don't have to be a bear or cub for me to appreciate good qualities in a gay man.

 

[Lube]

In light of recent comments about the show being unrealistic, or the stupidity of saying any show is required, it's interesting to review my very first post in this thread, where I predicted the synthetic drama that was to ensue:

"Queer as Folk" and "Six Feet Under" are two American cable TV shows from the early 2000's. Completely different shows, although they are both soap opera-ish. Oh, the drama!

They both cover many, many issues that gay men have to deal with, in one case as the main theme of the show, in the other case as one of several themes.

Yes, I understand that they are not realistic. They are TV shows after all.

But the writers of both shows purposefully wrote many difficult situations into each show on themes of coming out, accepting yourself, accepting femininity, accepting diversity in the gay community, and many other issues that gay men have to deal with.

As these shows fade into history, it seems like many younger guys have never seen them.

Do you think it's important that gays watch these shows and think about them? (Please don't take my "required watching" comment literally: I don't think we should be chained up and forced to watch them. )

 

[altlover85]

In light of recent comments about the show being unrealistic, or the stupidity of saying any show is required, it's interesting to review my very first post in this thread, where I predicted the synthetic drama that was to ensue:

Why would you assume that anyone would take into account what you actually wrote in your first post?

/sarcasm

 

[FanofFiction]

*sheesh*

A roomful of gay men sniping at each other ! Who would have thought that could ever happen ?

I don't think your comment on QAF is a fair one. Yes, there was lots of soft core porn, but that was only one small aspect of the show.

There was plenty of commentary and insight about the complexities of gay relationships, the good times and the bad, mixed in with a healthy dose of homophobia from the "public" and the way they perceived "Liberty Avenue".

The writing certainly stumbled more than it's fair share, but there are dozens of truly heartfelt and believable moments scattered across the arc of that series.

Part of the problem was by the shooting of the last season, the cast basically hated each other in "real life". There's a reason Rosie O'Donell's scenes were shot only with "the Mom" in the show.

Thank you for your reasonable and level headed response to my opinion. It's nice to see that there are some men online that don't attack your person for not liking a television show.

I don't know if the show ever really showed the complexities of real gay relationships. From the episodes I watched (and admittedly they were few and far between), it seemed to be surreal people in surreal situations. This is understandable because it's television and nobody wants to watch 'real' situations with 'real' people. The homophobia they dealt with on the show wasn't anything new to me either so I can't say that I learned anything there in that regard.

But as I said, I hated the show so never watched many episodes. I think I may have watched ten in total so I couldn't give it a fair critique. But what I did watch, didn't appeal to me.

 

[fetaby]

the stupidity of saying any show is required, it's interesting to review my very first post in this thread, where I predicted the synthetic drama that was to ensue:

At which point I would say it was less about being able to predict and more about being able to produce.

I do not admire the ability to divorce oneself from their actions. Offensive behavior is still offensive regardless of your attitude towards it.

SO as for proposing "required watching," when that question is asked the line on where the material actually stands is blurred.

Asking if it is and asserting it should be are one in the same.

Please don't take my "required watching" comment literally:

So how are we supposed to take it? We are talking about literal people literally sitting down and investing time in literally watching these shows.

And if not, if you intended for us to discuss how these shows may or may not impact gay youth, why even associate a directive at all. It's pushy.

 

[altlover85]

SO as for proposing "required watching," when that question is asked the line on where the material actually stands is blurred.

Asking if it is and asserting it should be are one in the same.

No it's really not.

Should all young gay men be required to use condoms? I can ask the question and still hold the position that they should not.

And if not, if you intended for us to discuss how these shows may or may not impact gay youth, why even associate a directive at all. It's pushy.

Perhaps he should have titled the thread "Should young gay men be required to watch QAF and SFU?" and then perhaps he would have gotten a better response. I don't know.

 

[fetaby]

No it's really not.

Yes, it really is.

To parallel, your question should read, " Should condoms be required for safer sex?"

The assumption that the material is a given in the definition is the assertion.

It's asking if anyone wants to play cards, and then breaking out the Canasta deck.

There's a reason why these shows are fading into the background. And that's not to say they won't return.

"Should young gay men be required to watch QAF and SFU?"

That's even worse.

The long and short? When Lube stops acting like he works at the one size fits all gay box factory, he'll stop having people criticize his threads.