|
I actually like the show a lot, it's one of my favorites this season. But I think this article does a fairly good job at getting to the heart of the privilege issue on this show (race and class, in addition to gender): http://gawker.com/5903468/a-girls-w...people-problems Specifically: quote:None of which makes Girls' portrayal of urban millennial life unrealistic. I've been to plenty of dinner parties where everyone was white, including myself. In fact, I'd argue that the show, taken as a whole, is even more accurate for these shortcomings. It really is the voice of a generation: a generation of white people who suck at talking about race.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 17:07 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 03:13 |
|
|
Irish Joe posted:Can we not make this about being victimized by the Goon patriarchy? It was an over-hyped show with a lackluster pilot. There's not much more to it than that. Almost every critic's opinion was based on having seen 3 episodes of the show. To watch the pilot and claim the hype was misguided is a bit false until you've been exposed to all of the content they based their opinion on.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 17:25 |
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:Almost every critic's opinion was based on having seen 3 episodes of the show. To watch the pilot and claim the hype was misguided is a bit false until you've been exposed to all of the content they based their opinion on.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 17:28 |
|
|
SpaceMost posted:I don't think pilots should get a free pass just because they're pilots, especially on HBO where the pilot is usually as exceptional as the rest of the series. Nobody's saying the pilot gets a free pass, they're saying that the show was judged as a three-episode whole.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 17:34 |
|
|
Apparently The Incredible Hulk reads this thread http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/18/...irls-criticism/
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 18:13 |
|
|
Stop posted:I actually like the show a lot, it's one of my favorites this season. As someone who doesn't have HBO, a lot of how the show was promoted, reviewed, and criticized has turned me off to it. I'm still an Apatow fan; I'm not going to rule out ever watching it. But if I ever do and end up liking it while the show fails to adequately resolve its problems, I'll feel guilty as hell about it. zoux posted:Apparently The Incredible Hulk reads this thread
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 18:44 |
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I thought this and this (yes, jezebel... sigh) were pretty good in taking the show's race problems seriously. Even though that one writer apologized for that stupid tweet, I still find it hard to believe that they intimately understand or want to understand the show's problems and attempt to address them. I can accept the show wasn't trying to be the "voice of a generation", yet the show still embraced all the reviews branding it so. No it's more that the show doesn't have anything to do with race (inasmuch as race can be removed from anything in our racist society).
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 18:48 |
|
|
Loved the interview scene with Mike Birbiglia. It was interesting to finally see the likable side of Hannah for a long stretch: intelligent, sharp, funny, personable. In fact, they were getting along so well, I almost didn't buy that he would call the whole thing off after one inappropriate joke. I thought his reaction would be more like "listen, I like you, just cool it with the surprise sex jokes." Then again, that seemed to be a theme for the episode: Hannah learning that there are things she's fortunate enough to only joke about. The doctor at the end putting her in her place, and even the weird semi-abusive role play sex at the beginning. Then they spend the whole episode being kind of flippant about a friend getting an abortion. There were some rough patches. Half the episode felt like a game of "Hey, let's see how many times we can say the word ABORTION in this scene!" And the whole "We're the ladies" bit kind of dragged on. The show doesn't have a lot of hard jokes, and that felt like it was trying to be one. I'm not in love with the show yet, but I'll definitely keep watching. It's certainly one of the more interesting shows on TV now. On the other hand, I'm a little worried that the highest compliment I can give it so far is simply "it's interesting."
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 18:58 |
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Am I the only one who finds Hulk Smash reviews unreadable in general? There's a reason why CAPS LOCK is frowned upon. Anyway, the writer seems to belittle the race issues by saying "Nobody hated other equally problematic shows, so why criticize this one?" The nepotism problems doesn't seem to be as serious as the race problems, yet it's still related to it. Nah, I had to close out halfway through, I wish someone would put up a blog where they run it through a filter that de-Caps it and find-replaces the word 'Hulk' with 'I'. That said, I think the whole race argument is dumb as hell. We've seen 2/3 episodes, depending on whether or not you're a critic who has seen the screener, and while it's true that none of the main characters are any race other than white, so what? You've got 6 people out of an entire city that are the same race, it's not like it's uncommon for a close group of friends to be entirely of the same race, and it doesn't make them or the writers racist for making them so. Aside from that, you have the "only black character was a homeless creep" argument, which is true, but again, we're two episodes into the series, there haven't been that many characters to begin with. If we get through the entire season without seeing any other non-white people, you might be able to make a point about this, but with the incredibly large number of shows that have been set in New York City and bypassed the racial diversity found there, it just seems like people are stretching to make an argument against a show they just didn't like. Likewise with the nepotism charges. None of the actresses are doing a poor job (hell, I think they're all very talented, and Dunham is probably the worst of them, in terms of actual acting ability), and even if they did get the jobs because of their lineage (which I'm sure played a part in getting where they are, simply because being an actor relies so much on who you know, but was not even remotely the sole reason they were cast), they're doing a good enough job, and probably cost quite a bit less than actresses with experience, which makes sense because people are gonna try to save money any way they can. Did they probably beat out more talented actresses? Yeah, probably, but that's Hollywood. poo poo happens. edited edit: I'm a dummy who needs to stop trusting IMDB edit: And wait, what's wrong with Jezebel? Yoshifan823 fucked around with this message at Apr 23, 2012 around 19:48 |
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 18:59 |
|
|
zoux posted:No it's more that the show doesn't have anything to do with race (inasmuch as race can be removed from anything in our racist society). quote:"there is an argument to be made that the whiteness of Girls is a manifestation of how cloistered the characters' lives are." She notes that after living in the city for two years, the characters have "mostly failed to establish relationships outside the group of people they graduated from college with." She continues, "That may be the show's myopia, or the characters' limitations, or both, but as with many things in Girls, those perspectives are not actually one and the same." quote:Does Girls have the right to be all-white? Of course. But we, the public, have the right to critique the insular, homogenous world a young woman with the good fortune to have her own TV show has chosen to present. Because it's exclusionary, disappointing, unrealistic, and upsetting. And it perpetuates a sad trend. As I said before, I actually like the show and will continue to watch it in the future. But it's not fair to wave away the very salient criticisms made about the show and its societal implications. Like it not, the show has been praised by critics thus far as "voice of its generations" or whatever. It's fair to criticize the show for what it doesn't bring to the table and the general myopia of its characters and the writing staff. It's still early, but the criticisms are fair. If the show can refute those criticisms by creating a convincing non-caricature character outside of their homogeneous comfort zone, then I'm sure the critics will be happy to eat their words. I am just not convinced the writers of this show are capable of doing that.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 19:10 |
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:
Talk about a strawman. I think you'll find considerable overlap between people who criticized this show for it's lack of minorities and those same people who criticized shows like Friends for the same thing,. It's not a new phenomenon, but it's disheartening to see a show that is acclaimed for being fresh and bold to fall into the same traps that mid 90s sitcoms fell into. Community, 30 rock, Happy Endings, could have easily just been casts of all identical white people, but those shows are better because of their diversity. I liked the show but I still found the complete lack of diversity in NYC to be a little shocking. I mean, Anyone with any kind of importance was white. You're telling me one of the friends at the dinner thing couldn't have been a minority? the person interviewing her at her job? you're telling me there couldn't have been rich material for plotlines if her british cousin was biracial instead?. While it's not uncommon for close groups of friends to be racially homogenous it's not uncommon for friend groups to be racially heterogeneous either and the point is that they chose for everyone of importance to be white, when they could just have easily not have had everyone be white. The only way it'll ever get better is for people to make noise about it, and it's kind of insulting that every time minorities bring up their lack of representation on TV people tell them to sit down and stop whining.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 19:31 |
|
|
Stop posted:As I said before, I actually like the show and will continue to watch it in the future. But it's not fair to wave away the very salient criticisms made about the show and its societal implications. I'm not saying it's not a valid critique but I don't see how it's particularly salient. The lack of roles for people of color on American TV is wide spread. I'm not sure why this show is singled out for being particularly racist. The Collector posted:Talk about a strawman. I think you'll find considerable overlap between people who criticized this show for it's lack of minorities and those same people who criticized shows like Friends for the same thing,. It's not a new phenomenon, but it's disheartening to see a show that is acclaimed for being fresh and bold to fall into the same traps that mid 90s sitcoms fell into. Community, 30 rock, Happy Endings, could have easily just been casts of all identical white people, but those shows are better because of their diversity. I know fuckall about NY but isn't Brooklyn and especially the Williamsburg area known for being largely gentrified mostly white communities?
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 19:32 |
|
|
Contrary to what THE HULK says, being a white, college-educated, upper middle-class New Yorker is far from a universal experience. I am absolutely fine with the show being about a group of (wo)manchilds finding their way, but critics should stop saying it speaks for young people. It's about the problems of a very particular part of the population (not getting a job after working for free for two years?); I imagine that critics only think otherwise because either they or many of their friends fall into the subset in question.quote:If we get through the entire season without seeing any other non-white people, you might be able to make a point about this, but with the incredibly large number of shows that have been set in New York City and bypassed the racial diversity found there, it just seems like people are stretching to make an argument against a show they just didn't like.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 19:36 |
|
|
zoux posted:I'm not saying it's not a valid critique but I don't see how it's particularly salient. The lack of roles for people of color on American TV is wide spread. I'm not sure why this show is singled out for being particularly racist. I think it's just a victim of it's own hype, I don't think Girls is any worse in this regards than According to Jim was but Girls is being hyped as this super progressive, ground breaking, edgy, new voice of a generation, and people like me tune in and see a homeless drunk black man with a taste for white women  quote:I know fuckall about NY but isn't Brooklyn and especially the Williamsburg area known for being largely gentrified mostly white communities? Maybe? but Avatar was a story about a bunch of Asian kids trying to save the world, Akira was about bunch of kids in Tokyo trying to save their friends, and Hollywood somehow managed to make sure to deviate enough from reality to make sure that enough white people were in it. Why is it that these things have to be accurate whenever people of colors voices are being silenced. There are poo poo tons of upper middle class black/hispanic/asian girls that would have been "the only black/hispanic/asian/biracial girl" at their school their whole lives and as a result would have predominantly white friend groups. A group of gentrified white communities with a couple of token minorities would also be true to life, and yet they aren't even given that much. The Collector fucked around with this message at Apr 23, 2012 around 19:45 |
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 19:36 |
|
|
The Collector posted:I think it's just a victim of it's own hype, I don't think Girls is any worse in this regards than According to Jim was but Girls is being hyped as this super progressive, ground breaking, edgy, new voice of a generation, and people like me tune in and see a homeless drunk black man with a taste for white women I think that "voice of a generation" thing that was put in the trailers really did this show a disservice. In context in the show, it's a laugh line and I think meant to show how these people think they are way more important than they actually are. Any time they meet someone outside of their circle the people, like the gynecologist, are horrified by what's going on. Also I don't remember the homeless drunk black guy thing was that in the pilot? e: I remember it was just that guy outside the hotel who told her to smile. I didn't get that as a catcall at all, I've been accosted by homeless people who've said more or less the same thing to me.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 19:41 |
|
|
The Collector posted:Talk about a strawman. I think you'll find considerable overlap between people who criticized this show for it's lack of minorities and those same people who criticized shows like Friends for the same thing,. It's not a new phenomenon, but it's disheartening to see a show that is acclaimed for being fresh and bold to fall into the same traps that mid 90s sitcoms fell into. Community, 30 rock, Happy Endings, could have easily just been casts of all identical white people, but those shows are better because of their diversity. They certainly could have, but they weren't. I'm assuming that a lot of those roles were probably not written as "White Doctor" or "White Friend" or "White Interviewer", and probably the homeless guy was not written as "Creepy Black Guy". And again, we're two episodes into the season. If the lack of diversity continues to be an issue, I'd absolutely agree that there's something to be changed, but as of now, there have been like, 12 characters. Could/should at least one of them that wasn't a creepy homeless guy have been black/asian/indian/any race that isn't white? Yeah, probably. I don't think it was a conscious effort on the part of the people involved to make everyone white.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 19:49 |
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:They certainly could have, but they weren't. I'm assuming that a lot of those roles were probably not written as "White Doctor" or "White Friend" or "White Interviewer", and probably the homeless guy was not written as "Creepy Black Guy". And again, we're two episodes into the season. If the lack of diversity continues to be an issue, I'd absolutely agree that there's something to be changed, but as of now, there have been like, 12 characters. Could/should at least one of them that wasn't a creepy homeless guy have been black/asian/indian/any race that isn't white? Yeah, probably. I don't think it was a conscious effort on the part of the people involved to make everyone white. Yeah but that's the point, even when they aren't trying to, it still somehow magically turns out mostly white. I don't think they are evil racists, I think that they are just so used to white being the default, that unless they specifically have a character marked out for a minority they will just assume it should be a white person. How do you propose we change that unless we specifically call their attention to it? Lena Dunham already said that she will take these things more into account in season 2 because of the responses and the outpour so I don't get the nay-saying about the people who are making note of this. zoux posted:I think that "voice of a generation" thing that was put in the trailers really did this show a disservice. In context in the show, it's a laugh line and I think meant to show how these people think they are way more important than they actually are. Any time they meet someone outside of their circle the people, like the gynecologist, are horrified by what's going on. Honestly I don't know what to say, because I think that you and I and YoshiFan just fundamentally disagree on whether or not it is a worthwhile endeavor to point these things out whenever they happen. I guess you guys think it's unfair to the showrunners to call them out on this, when other people are just as bad but I don't, because not only do I think that it would have been easier for them to include a minority character , I think it would have been a better show for it . Unless we point these things out, the situation will never improve, and minorities will continue to get shut out of meaningful roles on tv. Let's just agree to disagree because I don't want this thread to turn into the RACE IN TV thread. The Collector fucked around with this message at Apr 23, 2012 around 19:59 |
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 19:55 |
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:They certainly could have, but they weren't. I'm assuming that a lot of those roles were probably not written as "White Doctor" or "White Friend" or "White Interviewer", and probably the homeless guy was not written as "Creepy Black Guy". And again, we're two episodes into the season. If the lack of diversity continues to be an issue, I'd absolutely agree that there's something to be changed, but as of now, there have been like, 12 characters. Could/should at least one of them that wasn't a creepy homeless guy have been black/asian/indian/any race that isn't white? Yeah, probably. I don't think it was a conscious effort on the part of the people involved to make everyone white. Well two things: 1) In the articles quoted, they had casting calls that were basically stereotypes of the sassy minority types for one-off jokes. 2) The argument is that the writers are not deliberately racist and hate everyone who's not white. It's just that their perspective is really myopic. They wrote the world they know, and it turns out, surprise-surprise, that world is a Lilly White Brooklyn. I think it's disappointing and demonstrates a major blind-spot/weakness in the writing staff. But I think this is also an opportunity for them to show that they can actually write a convincing minority character without it being ham-fisted or "hey here's a token minority!". Like I said, this is a fair criticism right now. If the show develops in unexpected way, I'm sure we'll all be very happy about it.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 19:58 |
|
|
The Collector posted:Honestly I don't know what to say, because I think that you and I and YoshiFan just fundamentally disagree on whether or not it is a worthwhile endeavor to point these things out whenever they happen. I guess you guys think it's unfair to the showrunners to call them out on this, when other people are just as bad but I don't, because not only do I think that it would have been easier for them to include a minority character , I think it would have been a better show for it . Well I mean, not to be a dick about it, but if the very next episode introduced a reoccurring black girl character who had her head on her shoulders and spent the entire episode telling the four main characters how obnoxious they're being, would every blogger who has been criticizing the show go "OK, mission accomplished, good job guys, we changed something", would they say "Well now the show sucks for reasons Y, Z, and AA", or would they be reasonable and say "We probably shouldn't have judged this show before we saw all of the episodes from this season". I'm not saying you shouldn't judge a TV show on an episode by episode basis, because that would be silly, TV shows are aired episode by episode, that should be how you judge them as well, but there's a difference between "this show does not have any people of color" and "these two episodes did not have any people of color". (Note: the situation above is probably not going to happen, but I'm saying wait to judge whether or not the show is racist until the season is over.)
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:01 |
|
|
zoux posted:The lack of roles for people of color on American TV is wide spread. I'm not sure why this show is singled out for being particularly racist. Heck, the Hulk article cited Freaks and Geeks in defense of Girls. I loved Freaks and Geeks. Yet Freaks and Geeks bothered me for only having one speaking black person ever in a deleted scene, even after considering the show's time and setting. Feig and Apatow where channeling their experiences as teens growing up at that place and time where there wasn't many black people; but the choice of that time and place is still a creative choice nonetheless. People shouldn't forget black showrunners don't have as many opportunities to apply their versions "generation-defining universal experiences". Sure, F&G got cancelled before people watched it, but consider how many careers of white actors it launched. I'm annoyed when shows only have white regulars. Heck, I'm annoyed when shows cast blacks, latinos, and asians into supporting roles but not the lead. I'm also annoyed when minority characters are written in into later seasons of certain shows, because no matter how well or poorly they're characterized, they're dismissed as gestures of political correctness rather than natural narrative choices. Trust me, no problematic show is being "singled out". People who watch The Bachelor feel the same way that their reality show is being "singled out" in a lawsuit. Sorry, I'm not trying to turn this into the "RACE IN TV" thread, but addressing the "singled out" thing requires context. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at Apr 23, 2012 around 20:21 |
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:01 |
|
|
Stop posted:2) The argument is that the writers are not deliberately racist and hate everyone who's not white. It's just that their perspective is really myopic. They wrote the world they know, and it turns out, surprise-surprise, that world is a Lilly White Brooklyn. I'm saying it's not the writers. They're not writing the characters as any particular race, aside from maybe the asian girl in the pilot (based solely on her name, and even that could have been changed later), it's the people casting who are doing it. Lena Dunham is only one of the writers. It's still an issue, but it's not an issue on the level of the writing. edit: I actually think a Race in TV thread would be interesting. I might start writing one up.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:06 |
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:People ARE complaining about how whitewashed television is in general. The fact that Seinfeld, Friends, and Sex and the City have nobody white white actors as regulars is among the permanent scars of those shows in NYC. And the fact that people will look back decades from now at those shows fondly only amplifies those shows' race problems. Sure I agree 100% with everything you are saying, I'm just wondering why I'm ony seeing it in this thread and not every single other one in this forum.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:08 |
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:They certainly could have, but they weren't. I'm assuming that a lot of those roles were probably not written as "White Doctor" or "White Friend" or "White Interviewer", and probably the homeless guy was not written as "Creepy Black Guy". And again, we're two episodes into the season. If the lack of diversity continues to be an issue, I'd absolutely agree that there's something to be changed, but as of now, there have been like, 12 characters. Could/should at least one of them that wasn't a creepy homeless guy have been black/asian/indian/any race that isn't white? Yeah, probably. I don't think it was a conscious effort on the part of the people involved to make everyone white.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:16 |
|
|
quote:would every blogger who has been criticizing the show go "OK, mission accomplished, good job guys, we changed something", would they say "Well now the show sucks for reasons Y, Z, and AA", or would they be reasonable and say "We probably shouldn't have judged this show before we saw all of the episodes from this season". But why would that matter? I like the show, I see a problem with the show, and I agree with the critics on its race problem. They are not hating on the show just to hate on it. The most powerful arguments are coming from individuals who are concerned about this systematic problem and how this "progressive" show is perpetuating the problem. If they "fix" it, then these critics would celebrate it. They would have nothing to apologize about, they were correct in their assessment of the show so far. They would have cause for celebration. However, based on what we've heard from the show creators, that ain't going to happen. quote:I'm saying it's not the writers. I think it's a reasonable guess to say that Durham and other writers have significant input into casting decisions and may even communicate those desires in casting roll calls. Regardless, it's an organizational problem . quote:Sure I agree 100% with everything you are saying, I'm just wondering why I'm ony seeing it in this thread and not every single other one in this forum. Setting (Brooklyn/NYC), Themes, Critical Acclaim, and the fact that the show is actually pretty good. The fact that it's HBO may play a role as well I guess?
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:17 |
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Well I mean, not to be a dick about it, but if the very next episode introduced a reoccurring black girl character who had her head on her shoulders and spent the entire episode telling the four main characters how obnoxious they're being, would every blogger who has been criticizing the show go "OK, mission accomplished, good job guys, we changed something", would they say "Well now the show sucks for reasons Y, Z, and AA", or would they be reasonable and say "We probably shouldn't have judged this show before we saw all of the episodes from this season". I'm not saying you shouldn't judge a TV show on an episode by episode basis, because that would be silly, TV shows are aired episode by episode, that should be how you judge them as well, but there's a difference between "this show does not have any people of color" and "these two episodes did not have any people of color". Honestly I would be less bothered if every single one of the characters had been white. But they've shown that they are perfectly willing to cast minorities, as long as they are homeless dude #1 and good with computers girl #2. Long term though, I won't be happy until poo poo is fair. I wouldn't ask a fellow feminist to stop campaigning for equality just because poo poo is better for women now then it used to be, and I won't stop campaigning for better portrayals for minorities until I get those, and I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing a show episode by episode. All I can do is make judgement on what i've seen. The reason why I am extrapolating to the rest of the season is because Dunham and the other writers have not really given any reason to think that the rest of the already filmed episodes are any different. All that being said, I came into this not expecting to like this show, I like it (I put it on season pass the second after Hannah made that date surprise sex joke) I just think it could be better.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:17 |
|
|
I thought the last episode was funny, and will watch more because of the entertainment. I don't particularly care about hypothetical actors careers, of any race or gender, so ima not look at this thread ever again. This whole social activism with regards to tv shows is pretty silly, and its all very First World Problemsy no matter how you look at it. Reading about how terrible it is that there was a black guy playing a homeless guy is just not something I am going to subject myself to. Similarly, I would assume that people that don't like a show wouldn't watch it, but then here we are.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:18 |
|
|
HTJ posted:Contrary to what THE HULK says, being a white, college-educated, upper middle-class New Yorker is far from a universal experience. I am absolutely fine with the show being about a group of (wo)manchilds finding their way, but critics should stop saying it speaks for young people. It's about the problems of a very particular part of the population (not getting a job after working for free for two years?); I imagine that critics only think otherwise because either they or many of their friends fall into the subset in question. Annie Hall is one of the great love stories of all time. It is also about an intensely circumscribed world of rich Manhattanites. Art can be universal in theme while still being intensely specific in subject and environment. Throwing in a minority character might be a worthwhile thing to do, but it is by no means a necessary component to something being good, if the artist/creator is channeling their specific viewpoint in a honest and fair manner. These people are in no way exemplars or role models, and the show is very aware of that, and in fact has a lot of fun skewering them. What responsibility does a show like Girls have? To tell an interesting story honest and truthfully. And I think it is achieving that so far. The nepotism thing isn't even worth addressing. EDIT: ^^^^ There do seem to be some people in this thread coming in here with an agenda, ready to rant about a show they barely bothered to take in or consider. Shageletic fucked around with this message at Apr 23, 2012 around 20:21 |
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:18 |
|
|
SpaceMost posted:"Colorblind" is just another word for "privileged." Please don't say stuff like this. It's overused and just shuts down discussion. The Collector fucked around with this message at Apr 23, 2012 around 20:26 |
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:19 |
|
|
The Collector posted:please don't say stuff like this. It's overused and just shuts down discussion. It's like a millionaire claiming they don't see class. e: \/ And then you say something like that. 
Ofc. Sex Robot BPD fucked around with this message at Apr 23, 2012 around 20:28 |
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:23 |
|
|
zoux posted:Sure I agree 100% with everything you are saying, I'm just wondering why I'm ony seeing it in this thread and not every single other one in this forum. I'm looking on the front page and , only selecting shows that I have watched I see: "The Good Wife", "Eureka","House", "Smash", "Star Trek", "Game of Thrones", "Legend of Korra", "The Simpsons", "Community", "The Office","Stargate", "How I Met Your Mother" and "Doctor Who". Of all of these shows, only HIMYM could have faced similar criticisms, and I'm sure it probably did when it first came out. I agree with you guys that some people are latching on to this cause, as another tool to beat up on a show that is by women for women, however I don't think it's fair to dimiss the validity of the cause itself, just because some toolbags are using it as a way to beat up on women. The Collector fucked around with this message at Apr 23, 2012 around 20:27 |
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:25 |
|
|
quote:What responsibility does a show like Girls have? To tell an interesting story honest and truthfully. And I think it is achieving that so far. That's one point of view, and it's a valid one, but I think this also applies here: quote:Does Girls have the right to be all-white? Of course. But we, the public, have the right to critique the insular, homogenous world a young woman with the good fortune to have her own TV show has chosen to present. Because it's exclusionary, disappointing, unrealistic, and upsetting. And it perpetuates a sad trend. Also, I think it's sad that we can't have a discussion about race in TV shows, without someone zipping in and saying "First World Problems!!!" and peacing out. There are legitimate concerns and it's kinda ironic that the concerns of minority communities are suddenly FWP, particularly since "Girls" is literally "First World Problems" the show. quote:I agree with you guys that I think some people are latching on to this cause, as another tool to beat up on a show that is by women for women, Not in the last page Stop fucked around with this message at Apr 23, 2012 around 20:29 |
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:27 |
|
|
Please don't take this as me saying "Stop having this discussion", but stop having this discussion... here. Take it to my brand spanking new Race on Television thread. Because there have been some excellent points made in this thread, and I think it's a topic worth exploring in greater detail.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:32 |
|
|
Anyway, I also thought this show nailed it when they showed just how much non-job related stuff impacts interviews. It was really  to see Hannah and Syracuse guy bond over bars and music , and reminded me of the time I bonded with an interviewer over knowing how to spot tourists and determine where they were from. I'm sure stuff like that is even more heightened in "glamour industry" positions like arts and music and it was a pretty realistic touch IMO.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 20:37 |
|
|
The Collector posted:I'm sure stuff like that is even more heightened in "glamour industry" positions like arts and music and it was a pretty realistic touch IMO. For my first ever television job, my interview consisted of 5% going over my resume and qualifications, and 95% shooting the poo poo. Years later, my producer told me that they hired me specifically because we spent 10 minutes talking about how much fun it was to drop toys down the laundry chute as a kid.
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 21:29 |
|
|
The Collector posted:I liked the show but I still found the complete lack of diversity in NYC to be a little shocking. The Collector posted:Why is it that these things have to be accurate whenever people of colors voices are being silenced. You are criticizing the show for being inaccurate by not having minorities in it. Fine. Then, literally one post later, you say that, if the show would be accurate by not having minorities, then it shouldn't try and be accurate. Are you surprised that people don't think this is a good argument? If you just want shows to have more minorities, why not just directly state that shows should have just have more minorities instead of making dumb arguments that don't really apply? Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at Apr 23, 2012 around 21:32 |
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 21:30 |
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:You are criticizing the show for being inaccurate by not having minorities in it. Fine. Then, literally one post later, you say that, if the show would be accurate by not having minorities, then it shouldn't try and be accurate. http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...hreadid=3480855 we should just lock this thread and make a new one so that we can start anew. The Collector fucked around with this message at Apr 23, 2012 around 21:39 |
| # ? Apr 23, 2012 21:31 |
|
|
I thought the second episode was much stronger all around, and surprisingly Shoshanna isn't as bad as she was in the pilot. Jenna(? - super hip traveler) was quite annoying this time around, but i get her character more now. I just hope that her getting her period wasn't a way to just make jokes about Abortion but not have the gall to go all the way and have a character get one. That seems like a cop out. Just a quick answer to the person who mentioned Brooklyn/Williamsburg being white washed - you can't really walk two blocks without seeing 3+ races of people, its great. HOWEVER, Greenpoint is worse and is mainly racist white Polish people, including a growing crew of Neo-Nazi's who attacked me and a couple friends one night in Williamsburg, on their way back. However there is still quite a mix of races all throughout Brooklyn, and NYC in general.
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2012 02:00 |
|
|
Christmas Jones posted:Like Hannah in the show, who I do NOT see as aspirational, I'm overeducated and underemployed, with well-off parents who are living it up while I jealously watch. But having parents who are less than willing to support their kids, that's a valid topic of discussion.
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2012 02:47 |
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:But having parents who are less than willing to support their kids, that's a valid topic of discussion. She's 24. Them cutting her off with no warning was harsh. But the fact they were supporting her at all up to that point was going above and beyond. I'm going to give it another episode but right now the only character I really care about is Hannah's roommate. She is ambitious, actually has a job, has to deal with her complete idiot friends, and has a realistic relationship issue. If the show was dealing with characters like her (young people dealing with becoming adults while actually, you know, working and experiencing issues other than "I am a privileged white person. Life is so hard") I would be way more interested in it as a whole.
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2012 03:16 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 03:13 |
|
|
Yeah, I think it's interesting that for all the talk about how spoiled she is no one mentioned how messed up it is that they literally just cut her off all at once. I mean even people who get fired still get their last paycheck.
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2012 03:19 |
|
