 by Brian Juergens
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 36 members and 1248 guests online.
|
The Wrap with Two Gay Guys! video blog: Cranky over "Clones", "Skins", and "Sequels"
n this week's Two Gay Guys, Brent and Michael are feeling very cranky thanks to the latest Star Wars movie, the animated The Clone Wars, the new BBC America show Skins, and the new gay movie Another Gay Sequel. Why? You'll have to watch to find out. Check it out after the break! Submitted by on Thu, 2008-08-21 09:06.  Dare I say it?Submitted by
afhickman (3593 points) (744 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 11:33.afhickman "It takes a village (to make Village People)" Brent and Michael--Dudes!--you badly need a break from teenage hell. I felt the same way about "Skins" as I felt about "Degrassi"--I quickly figured out that I was not the target audience for either show. And "Star Wars"? I watched the first film in the so-called saga when I was in my late twenties (I believe it was 1978). I was mildy amused, and I didn't ask for my money back. But, as with "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter"--lo, these many years later!--I never felt the need to fork out for any of the sequels. What I've seen of them since on TV reruns has justified me in my original belief that I simply was too old ever to learn to use the force. I get a little bit of my childhood back every time I see a film like "The Wizard of Oz" or "The Thief of Baghdad," but those films belong to my childhood. If I had seen them first as an adult, I would probably think entirely differently about them. That being said, run, do not walk, to your nearest DVD store and buy a copy of "Private Property," the French film with Isabelle Huppert and Jeremie Renier. It's about family and the insidious mystery of childhood and a ton of other things, but, bottom line, it's an adult film. It is not a gay film, as such, but it does have a priceless bathtub scene involving Jeremie and his real-life brother Yannick shampooing each other's hair. (You won't see that in one of your Star Wars clones--no, sir!) I know you probably like the Star Wars films for the sheer escapism; well, "Private Property" is about escape too, but the futility of it. Huppert's character has the gall to think she can shed the fifteen years since her divorce and start life anew and that her angelic twin sons (who are loosely based on the Katzenjammer Kids) will give her their blessing. It ain't a happening thing. Well, I'm kidding of course. I know you guys like adult films, but here's one you may not have heard of and that won't be coming to your local cineplex. Forget Jar-Jar and give the Renier brothers a look.
 Thanks for the recommendation!Submitted by
 We'll check it out. But "not gay"? What is THAT?! (In this job, we see A LOT of gay stuff...)
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes Well, gayish, surelySubmitted by
afhickman (3593 points) (744 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 12:02.afhickman "It takes a village (to make Village People)" And what's gayer than two men in a tub? Speaking of whom, here are the Reniers in action:
Albeit not in a tub. I couldn't find a picture of that. I like to think that Jeremie was #101 on the AE Hot 100 poll. I have no reason to believe this, but I know of at least two of us who voted for him!  Ah, my beloved Jeremie!Submitted by
Joseph (7024 points) (1432 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 12:23.Private Property is a great film, but, whoa, heavy! It builds to an absolutely devastating ending. And you're right about it being about childhood--and also about growing up, about being an adult and taking responsibility. I pray that Jeremie makes next year's list; hopefully, The Vintner's Luck will a) be a good film, b) not shy away from the same-sex love scenes in the book and c) find an audience here in the U.S. But who wouldn't want to see Jeremie and Gaspard Ulliel making love? Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/  SkinsSubmitted by
Reb (40 points) (10 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 11:49.Maybe I'm just a weird British teenager, but where I live people are jerks to their friends and really would sell their own mother for a one night stand or a bag of weed. Having said that, Skins comes across (at least to me and my friends) as a disgustingly accurate portrayal of some of the kids I go to school with rather than atypically amoral and a bad attempt to emulate teen life. But maybe we're very different this side of the Atlantic :-). Oh, and it's set in Bristol, seeing as you didn't seem to know. God, that's depressing.Submitted by
But isn't the show still pandering to these jerks? I mean, when I was a teenager, much of my school was a bunch of a**holes. But definitely not ALL teenagers. And not all of the teenagers I work with today. Anyway, thanks for the thoroughly depressing perspective. ;-)
In my highschool it wasSubmitted by
LolaRuns (1872 points) (439 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 12:47.In my highschool it was similar. You had the group who took drugs (including some rather hard stuff), slept around and stabbed each other in the back. But it was a relatively small group and they were generally regarded as freaks by the rest of the class. I'd say it was about 10 kids out of 30 that could be considered the extended circle of the group, with a core group of 4. And at least in my school none of the core group would ever have dared to touch anybody who was outside their group and be assholes to them. I to some extent get the idea off Gossip Girl, because there is the glitz and idea that have have access to things that others don't have because they have rich parents and will likely one day end up as influential people not because of their own abilities, but because of who their parents are. But the messed up kids in my school? For most others it wasn't a case of not being able to be part of that group. It's just that most kids tried it and eventually decided "Yeah, I could join in with you, but I have well educated, gainfully employed and still married parents at home, so I really see no reason to piss my life away like you. But have fun you.". (it might be an exaggeration, but at least in my class it seemed like the main purpose of the inner circle was to tie together a bunch of kids with seriously unhappy lower class homelives and let them form semi-incestuous, dysfunctional friendships) And considering what happened to most of the kids in that "inner circle" after high school, seems like it was the others were right. Plus, even if you look at it in a fatalistic appeal kind of way, I still have a hard time seeing why this group should so much more interesting than lets say the art crowd (some, though lighter, drugs, some sex and some, though less frequent, backstabbing). Or just the normal non-insane kids who also did their amount of partying and dating. But apparently movies and tv shows consist only of either maltreated nerds or the huge asshole and bitches on the other side. So, there were kids in my school who were like that, but they were considered the assholes even back then rather than being worshipped and they were avoided more than they exlcuded others. (it helped that the "others" were generally the majority) Nick Hoult and Joe Dempsie Are Very Close Friends in addition toSubmitted by
nordic balance (not verified) on Thu, 2008-08-21 12:34.being on the show together and spend a lot of time together (cue gay rumors) so I think that's the joke he's trying to make about them having dated. Also, Nick is supposed to be the more macho of the two so I think the other part of it is that Joe is like a guy who in actuality wouldn't hurt a flea, etc. I'm not saying it's a good joke, but I think that's the contest of why Nick Holt says what he does. I understand (somewhat) theSubmitted by
LolaRuns (1872 points) (439 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 12:49.I understand (somewhat) the joke aspect, but really, abusive relationships? In my book not something I would file under humor.
 Once again...Submitted by
tim (255 points) (52 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 12:49....Brent is looking quite yummy. And you guys are not old foggies. You just have mature taste. Also, after spending some time with my young cousins (here in America), this is how they treat each other. I remember commenting as to how cruel they are to each other - even within their circle of close friends. It is sad. The show is pandering. But it is the truth. Kids nowadays have not learned kindness. I find it devastatingly sad and a poor reflection on our society. Thankfully, I have no kids.
Who was it who said...Submitted by
Joseph (7024 points) (1432 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 13:21."God created homosexuality so that the truly gifted would not be burdened with children!" Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/ SkinsSubmitted by
Darrien (3109 points) (660 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 13:49.I'm from the UK, where we have finished the second series of Skins, so I watched your comments with interest. I think a lot of your comments come from the way Skins is being marketed in the US. In the UK it is a comedy drama that deliberately has a parade of grotesques who are set up for a fall later on in the series (many of the actors playing the parents are established comedy actors on British TV). You made the grievous error of looking at it as some kind of teenage Queer as Folk (which to my understanding was the US version thereof). It really isn't. It's more like a younger version of a show we have here called Shameless (which I believe is also being shown there - but don't know the channel). That said, if you had compared Skins to the original British Queer as Folk, I think you'd probably have found similarities. The British Queer as Folk was not about nice fluffy pleasant touchy-feely gays. It had outright monsters - gay and straight. British television does not require the 'golden moment' that seems to be de rigeur for all episodes of in US series. British writers are fully expected to set up their grotesques and see where they go; when it's good, British drama requires viewers to actively work. Twee, vapid, saccharine gloop certainly exists in British soap operas, but usually there's a thoroughly sharp razor blade lurking in the candy apple. And the British generally have a quite different attitude towards humour. American friends of mine have been horrified by what British people will say to each other and seem to treat each other - but that's because they don't have the British sensibility that sees cruelty as an integral part of humour. Once you get past what is being said and see how it's being said, you'll start to understand where the Brits find the funnies. All that said, stick with Skins. I am many years beyond teendom and initially I found it hard-going. But I stuck with it, and I'm very glad I did. The drama really does build - and so do some of the laughs (I am fascinated as to what the US will make of the 'musical' in the second series). By the end of the second series, it had become an exceptional drama that was appointment viewing and packed a tremendous emotional punch. Cruelty in humorSubmitted by
Joseph (7024 points) (1432 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 14:03.Your comment about cruelty in British comedy compared to American comedy surprises me; my foreign friends have consistently remarked to me that so much of American humor is based on cruelty, on putting somebody else down, embarrassing or humiliating them--the so-called insult comedy of Don Rickles, Joan Rivers, Kathy Griffin and Will & Grace. I've often felt the difference between British and American comedy in terms of the cruelty factor is that Brit comedy is about humiliating oneself whereas U.S. comedy is based on humiliating another person. (Note: this isn't entirely true of American comedy--The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Frasier, Friends, etc., all utilized the self-humiliation comedy process, but only occasionally, if at all, the humiliation-of-the-other comedy process; but much of American humor IS based on the latter.) Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/ Shameless airs on SundanceSubmitted by
RNRoc (25 points) (7 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 14:16.Shameless airs on Sundance Channel here in the States. BTW, you can watch the musical he's referring to (if you don't want to wait till it airs on BBC America) here. It stars Maxxie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRUjZ1ehwH8  Brit HumorSubmitted by
Nukely (3426 points) (1195 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 14:28.Yes, I forgot to mention the humor in my post below. One of the funniest characters I've seen in a long time was the Drug Dealer. He's wicked, creepy and over the top to the point of you know there's somebody out there just like him.
 Fluffy gaysSubmitted by
db (3125 points) (650 posts) on Mon, 2008-08-25 18:02.The American Queer as Folk wasn't about fluffy gays either. In fact, I think the American Brian Kinney was more a monster than the British equivalent. I have yet to seek "Skins"--I'm not sure I will. I don't like being reminded of being a teenager--Buffy was as close as I like to get. Don't give up on Skins!Submitted by
RNRoc (25 points) (7 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 14:15.I think you might hate Skins because you've only seen one episode. Most reviews of Skins where the TV critic only saw 1 episode hated it with a passion. (Kind of like you guys did.) The thing you have to understand is that Skins doesn't glorify Tony or his behavior. Each episode of Skins is told from a particular character's point of view. The first episode focused on Tony. From his point of view, he's awesome, superior than everybody else, and man's gift to women. But future episodes, told from different viewpoints, don't see Tony as being that awesome. From this point on all throw up a big SPOILER ALERT for fans who don't want to know what happens. ---------------BEGIN SPOILER ALERT-----------------------------------
Over the course of 9 episodes Tony becomes more and more of an a-hole. He further belittles his best friend and cheats on his girlfriend just for the heck of it. Gradually, his friends begin to realize how big a jerk he is and he gets his comeuppance. As a result, he gets punched in the face several times. By the 8th episode, they stop talking to him altogether and ostracize him from the group. Then at the end of the 1st season finale, this happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBgcG6I1A8Q. (Watch the first 35 seconds.)
---------------END SPOILER ALERT-----------------------------------
The point of view aspect of Skins is so strong that many people who were introduced to the show with Season 2's first two episodes, which focused on gay character Maxxie, thought it was a show about a gay dancer. As for the concern about friends mistreating their friends, hasn't that ever happened to you? I've had really close friends who've belittled me. It happens. Abusive relationships like that do exist. So I'd suggest you give it another try. At least watch Episodes 2 and 3, both of which were made available to the media via DVD screeners. It's a really awesome show! I didn't see skins as pandering for pandering sakeSubmitted by
Nukely (3426 points) (1195 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 14:22.I've seen the entire series of Skins and I think it was a great show. Like the novella soaps, Skins has a plot arc that takes 2 seasons to culminate. So before you dis all the characters, give them a chance to reveal themselves.
They had a gigantic team of writers for the show, which makes me think that many of they young writers were hired more as advisors, but they did hype it as having been written by and for youth. I don't know that this was suppose to be an expose on who or what kids are up to these days but a show that kids would like. Yes, all the adults are dumb. It actually makes me laugh, like the cops in a stoner flick. But some of the adults are also rigid, clueless, carrying oppressive baggage, and self absorbed. Some of these messed up adults live's explain why the kids are the way they are. And why they have created a world that alienate themselves from adults, for better or (most times) worse. Insult their friends? Are jerks to each other? Not all of these characters, not always. Sure, in many aspects these kids are much colder than what I knew when I grew up. The writers do play that up for effect. Perhaps kids are more like that now? (Understandable if they were raised by the Jerry Seinfeld generation.) You haven't watched the entire series. Just the beginning of Tony's story. Tony is pretty much the core of the show. The main character, though they don't focus on him alone and the plots don't revolve around him. The writers had a very specific character in mind for Tony. Sorry I don't remember his 'diagnosis' but one of the writers had said what it was in an interview. I looked it up in a psychology listing on line, and they are following it like a text book in the show. Tony isn't just mean and callous, he has deep psychological problems. I don't want to ruin the plot of the story, but while he isn't a villain, he makes some very horrible choices and ends up paying dearly for them. You say the characters are vapid? They're teenagers for gosh sakes, how deep do you expect them to be? Each character does seem to represent a kind of stereotype, if you will. But more specifically a kind of problem, like anorexia, abandonment or other fears and they tend to be their own worst enemies; their faults drive them to make stupid kid decisions which they end up paying for. Typical really. The first episode is like the first day at school, where you don't remember anybody's name and you only make the most shallow judgments. Yes, Tony is too cool for school. And young fans fell in love with him from the very beginning. Then, if you followed the fan sites at the time, the audience soon sees Tony for what he is. In the end the only character who doesn't make a dramatic life change nor are we allowed to see much of his inner character is Maxxie, and perhaps they were afraid of showing his inner demons, because it might be equated with homosexual=mental disorder. I found the acting and characters and their motives understandable and compelling. The plot twists and fears gripping. But you saw caricatures and hack. Oh well, if you can't get past the first episode, you're unlikely to get much out of the show.
I think Tony appears ...Submitted by
RNRoc (25 points) (7 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 14:38.
Tony is pretty much the core of the show.
I think Tony appears to be the main character because he's the most attractive, because the first episode revolves around him and because Nicholas Hoult is the most famous cast member having appeared in About a Boy. (This is the first acting gig, however, for most of the rest of the cast, who are mostly local kids from Bristol, England.) The main character, to me, is Sid. It's kind of like how Benjamin McKenzie was touted as the star of The O.C. But geeky Seth Cohen ended up stealing all the scenes. There are a lot of episodes where Tony barely appears at all. Tony Lead, Sid ProSubmitted by
Nukely (3426 points) (1195 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 15:00.I was wondering after I wrote that if anyone would call me out on it. The writers seem to strive to make this an ensemble cast, and that is how it is advertized. Each character is given his due, shares screen time and is allowed a chance to tell their own story, which, like any group of a half dozen or so friends in a clique, doesn't always involve every member. That said, I consider Tony the "lead" character for two reasons. 1: He is often the catalyst for the conflicts in the story (and is the frequent commentor.) 2: The main plot arc that binds all of the stories and connects both seasons is his. Somebody had to do it, it just happened to be the heart throb. But I agree, Sid is the more likely protagonist.
I hope you don't mind if I go on a rant hereSubmitted by
afhickman (3593 points) (744 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 14:42.afhickman "It takes a village (to make Village People)" The odd thing about American television, at least when it comes to the sitcom, is that everyone is always putting everyone else down, but everyone pretends not to notice. This kind of thing was raised to an art form in "Seinfeld," but, elsewhere, I find it tired at best. The typical show will feature smart-mouthed spouses, smart-mouthed neighbors, smart-mouthed kids, and smart-mouthed kids' friends. Somehow, we're supposed to find all this amusing. They don't read dialogue; they just hurl insults at one another. The audience on the laughtrack invariably laughs. I would imagine that kids growing up in the age of hate TV grow up hating as well. I blame the writers for their lack of imagination. It's probably a lot easier to collect insults than to actually come up with realistic dialogue for a show. So kids talk in one-liners, their parents answer with one-liners, and communication is a dead issue. I don't really think there's much difference in this regard between American and British TV. There are both good and bad American shows, and good and bad British shows. Whenever I'm in either country these days, the only thing I can find to watch are reality shows. Throw in the occasional game show, and that's 80% of the programming in just about every country. I hate reality shows and game shows with a passion. Summer in America was especially dreary. I was really looking forward to catching up on the summer reruns, but there weren't any! I did find a couple of good first-run shows ("Burn Notice" and "Mad Men" come to mind), but it was a case of too little too late. My point is that prome-time shows in America can't usually do much with sex and violence, which are the staples of American entertainment, so they resort to insults. It's bound to have an effect on impressionable young viewers. Totally agreeSubmitted by
I didn't like WILL & GRACE exactly for this reason. The MCs just stood around insulting each other.
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com Average (3 votes): Cruelty in humour: Brit v American humiliationSubmitted by
Darrien (3109 points) (660 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 15:06.Yes, you make a good point about British humour (humiliating oneself) versus US humour (humiliating someone else). The American 'comedy roast' simply doesn't work in British culture because the victim is expected to be able to come back immediately and with just as much wit, otherwise it would simply be seen as bullying. Along with that, though, the idea of humiliating oneself is based on the idea that one has to be able to take a joke (and take revenge at some stage) or the character humiliating him/herself is such a grotesque that they deserve to be humliated and the humour comes from them not realising it. I suppose the point I was trying - and failing - to make is that the British can be far more full-on in their comments to each other. You mention Joan Rivers (who seems to have opened a new career on TV and stage over here). When I've seen her act in the US, much of what she has said has been greeted with shocked, guilty laughter. Over here, much of her humour is seen as observational and the laughs come from the wit with which she delivers the joke. She's not perceived as overly cruel and she tends to enjoyably go for the gross-out competitions with male comics young enough to be her great-great-grandson. She avoids saying one thing and meaning another - which tends to be the British basis for wit because it involves wordplay (Shakespeare has so much to answer for). The best example of that I can think of is a series we had called Yes, Minister, which, presumably, is available on YouTube.  I have to disagreeSubmitted by
Jay Digory (126 points) (43 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 18:00.
All I can say to the review of Skins is that it is obvious that you have watched only one episode of a two season show. You have NO idea what the point of the show is and you have made snap judgements on it as a whole when you have only seen a fraction of it.
No, Brent, these characters are not exactly like the teens in your books, they don't start the story as perfect, well-behaved, middle class, drug-free, straight A students and end the story exactly the same way, having learned very minor life lessons. These characters are actually going to change in the course of the show. They are going to have significant ups and downs and weather wrenching storms. Its called drama and its what makes for a good television show.  Give Skins a chance.Submitted by
lenny (249 points) (67 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 18:44.I, too, have seen both seasons of Skins (thank you, youtube), and comparing it to Gossip Girl does the show an incredible disservice. I think you should at least watch Cassie's episode before you completely write off the show. After all, this show comes from the creators of Shameless, and that show is nothing less than magnificent.
CassieSubmitted by
Nukely (3426 points) (1195 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 20:32.I agree, Cassie's parts were very compelling and informative to me. The actress is a stand out.
There are two images from Skins that continue to haunt me. One is the word 'Sory' and the other is jogging in New York. Both images took weeks for me to process. I'm very visual. I still think about them. Very few shows have that effect on me. .
I agree....and the Music!Submitted by
lenny (249 points) (67 posts) on Mon, 2008-08-25 00:47.Those visuals were complemented by a great soundtrack. LCD Soundsystem never sounded so good. I as I watched both series, I would go on the website to read the comments by the show's music supervisor.
Oh, and without giving too much away, I loved Jal's monologue, along with the music and fireworks, in the second season's most heartbreaking episode.
 TonySubmitted by
Kabir Altaf (130 points) (26 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 20:10.I have to say I actually like Skins (I was introduced to it recently and have watched a few episodes online). And I actually like Tony, he's so witty and cocky and charming, and in season 2 he shows his vulnerable side (not going to reveal the circumstances as that would ruin it for a lot of people). And Maxxie is absolutely adorable. And there are also some interesting tensions between Maxxie and Anwar (who are best friends) when Anwar, who is Muslim, has problems with Maxxie being gay. Maxxie tells Anwar that he is a hypocriticial Muslim because he picks and chooses the aspects of Islam he will follow. Overall, its an interesting show, you just have to give it a chance to grow on you.
 View the real seriesSubmitted by
isoron (2224 points) (516 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 20:36.The unexpurgated "non BBC America" version was posted on a site that will not be named. But I have the entire 2 seasons and I have to say that the first episode of the seconds season " Tony and Max" was one of the sweetest and bitterest I have seen (but then I am a sentimental old debittered queen!). Especially Maxxie's encounter with the white trashie homophobes who he totally blow's off!
SkinsSubmitted by
BSGnut (689 points) (137 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 22:59.I saw the first 2 episodes on BBC America and thought they were excellent. Sure some of the characters were unlikeable (Tony especially), but I adored Sid and Cassie, partly because they were so flawed. I saw it more as a black comedy than a drama, and it felt like a real depiction of youth culture, as irresponsible and over-the-top as that can be at times. I'm looking forward to seeing more of Maxxie. I do like the fact his being gay is almost a complete non-issue within the group. Anyone hear how the ratings were on BBCA? SkinsSubmitted by
Glenn (860 points) (188 posts) on Sat, 2008-08-23 01:14.Give it a chance. Watch the whole series 1 and then make a judgement. I mean, I adored Geography Club but I was lukewarm with Poison Oak which totally made me not want to get Zombie but I took a chance and I kinda didn't like it but still, I made a well-informed judgment before I dissed it all over the place. There were character choices you made that I didn't like personally but hey, it's your teen world and who am I to criticize, right? But it's okay...GC is still the best among the three. I just went off on a tangent...what I really wanted to say is that if you still hate Skins after watching all of it, then at least, you have all the facts.  I come back to post thisSubmitted by
Whitetee (2885 points) (624 posts) on Sun, 2008-08-24 14:32.OK our dearest Brent and Michael PLEASE just watch at least one more episode of SKINS!I`m watching season one on youtube right now and am already half way through.episode 1 is just so-so for me,but things started to get very interesting in episode 2.So far I gotta say this show put those so-called american teenage drama TO SHAME!And they handle the gay character & storyline very well!(especially in epi 6) I have a feeling that both of you guys will end up loving it! btw,you may want to watch the uncut original version like on youtube or sth,instead of the shortened ones on TV. Skins totally rocksSubmitted by
Finn (10 points) (2 posts) on Sat, 2008-08-30 05:51.Having seen both seasons, I don't see any of the main characters as a**holes and far from being about stabbing your friends in the back, it is (if you give it a chance) an immensely moving story about self-discovery, sexuality and a depth of friendship that many will envy. What is more, I think it is awesome that we live in a time where a gay character (Maxxie) can be so comfortably, convincingly and sensitively portrayed by a young straight (Mitch Hewer). Season one (which tends to concentrate on introducing you to one character at a time) is much harder work than season two (when it all comes together); but I defy anyone not to be blown away by the end of season 2.
 SkinsSubmitted by
Mad Maxxie (26 points) (5 posts) on Mon, 2008-09-01 05:04.You're being WAY too critical of Skins, if you actually watch through series 1&2 I can almost guarentee you'll change your opinions. Series 1 is all about introductions, and fun times trying to get you to like, and become emotionally invested in the characters. Series 2 is when each character's individual stories intertwine, because by series 2 you're already emotionally involved with the characters(Skins was the one show that I can say makes you truly care about the characters, they are all so different but you can easily find something to identify with each character) and the story is so deep and thought out, I for one almost felt like these were a group of my close friends. Anyways, my point is, give it a chance because it is one of the most in depth, well made TV shows I've ever seen.(Also it's pretty much the equivalent of American Idol for actors as they hold open castings for the characters for each 2 series set).
Not all TV shows/movies aimed at wide audiencesSubmitted by
GaySpouseDotCom (1131 points) (352 posts) on Mon, 2008-09-01 14:49.Skins is designed for and aimed at the 16-24 year old crowd, like ABC Family's show Greek or CW's Gossip Girl. Many shows and movies are not aimed at a wide age-range audience. Products advertised during the show usually provide a good indicator of the ages that tv show is aiming to attract.
Whether viewing gay moviesSubmitted by
peter007 (5 points) (1 post) on Mon, 2009-09-14 03:30.Whether viewing gay movies will result in nil sperm production? |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Damn, don't hold back!!!
I'm laughing so hard tears are streaming down my face! And I thought I was in a pissy mood lately! Great stuff, guys, I hope next week you find something to like!
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
male bisexuality in Skins
The thing that I really liked about Skins (not that it's not a horrible dirty pleasure) is that, when one of the characters experiments with bisexuality simply as an extension of their own sluttiness, it's a guy rather than a girl. Most of the time, that trope is limited to female characters. Not that it's a good stereotype, but it was interesting to see it turned on its head.
I'm not someone who likes Tony, but rather Cassie and Sid, who are just reprehensible enough to still be likeable.
I've had a harder time
I've had a harder time getting into Skins ever since I saw this behind the scenes video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opisjb5mMs4
Just curious? Why?
It was total over the top dead pan irony I thought. It was a joke. Are we so PC in the States that we're that sensitive? Or perhaps you know more about the actors or back story than I do? A possibility.
As to Skins in general. Just came off a marathon session of watching the first two seasons kindly posted on YouTube by a fellow named Richard. Maybe I'm a sucker for all things Brit - I am - but I liked it quite a lot. Particularly Season One. Parts of Season Two ran off the rails and got all dark and surreal for no good purpose but in total it was a satisfying watch. It's not sweet. Shit happens. These kids can be as shockingly amoral and depressingly promiscuous as some I know in RL but they aren't without heart. I think that's one of the main themes of the show. So much of teen acting out is a cover for what lies beneath. In this particular depiction nothing is sugar coated. My biggest gripe was the gorgeous Mitch Hewer who plays the out-and-doing-just-fine-thank-you Maxi, wasn't given as much screen time or story line as some of the rest. Interestingly enough, he was the most centered and sunniest one in the bunch. There's a change!
It's a matter of personal
Fair Enough
The Beatles started it.
humour bypass?
I've had a harder time getting into Skins ever since I saw this behind the scenes video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opisjb5mMs4
Was your humour bypass expensive?
PS: For the record, neither Nick Hoult nor Joe Dempsie are gay.
Rear Window
I've had a harder time getting into Skins ever since I saw this behind the scenes video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opisjb5mMs4
Was your humour bypass expensive?
PS: For the record, neither Nick Hoult nor Joe Dempsie are gay.
Just curious: Why do you find it necessary to say this? More interestingly, how do you know? Have you been following them around with a camera and photographing them in bed? Now, that would be funny!
afhickman
"The mountain has wings."