Support NeoGAF

[Magnus]

Cross-posting thoughts from the LGBT thread - forgot this one existed!

Looking was fun….if a little…predictable? I mean, I just felt like I knew where every story was going to go.

And I can't help but make comparisons to the defining gay series of the 2000's, Queer as Folk. I miss the hour-long format there. I miss the larger cast. I miss having ONE badass around, even if he was hateable at times (Brian), I miss some of the camp (Emmett - it feels like Looking is going out of its way to dodge all camp and stereotypes, even though they really are part of the modern gay world, whether we like it or not)….but I do appreciate that there was some focus on Open Relationships, and online dating, two things that have made their way into people's minds much more over the last decade. Going to be interesting.

Also, yay for Jonathan Groff. Infinitely more likeable and relatable than Justin. Oof.

I don't know any of the characters' names yet. Except Groff - I think it was Patrick? People called him Patty. I don't know. lol.

 

[Tucah]

Pilot was good. I liked the characters from what we've seen so far and Groff is an incredibly likable (and goddamn adorable) lead. It did struggle a bit to fit a lot of character introductions into a half hour but it was an enjoyable pilot and I'm certainly going to keep watching.

 

[Blood Diamonds]

why is everyone in this show gay

 

[xxracerxx]

why is everyone in this show gay

Is this a serious question?

 

[RatskyWatsky]

why is everyone in this show gay

why is everyone on every other show straight

 

[hateradio]

I have to cover the screen every time the creepy mustache guy is on.

His mustache.

why is everyone in this thread gay

fixed

 

[biosnake20]

why is everyone in this show gay

 

[Blood Diamonds]

Is this a serious question?

no.

why is everyone on every other show straight

damn it

So anyway, the date scene and the threesome scene were really awkward, and the show is actually pretty funny. I like the way the characters interact with each other, each one of them feels pretty unique and different. I think the writers managed to create characters that feel real.

edit:

I have to cover the screen every time the creepy mustache guy is on.

His mustache.


fixed

what are you talking about his mustache looks really good in motion

 

[Hours Left]

I liked it.

Dom is the best. (Though he's already making horrible choices! Oh television.)

 

[TheOddOne]

why is everyone in this show gay

 

[royalan]

Overall, I enjoyed it. It was a little TOO slow moving in parts, and the dialogue was a bit flat. But I'm intrigued. I feel like Dom and Doris had the best chemistry out of any of the characters, though. And Jonathan Groff's acting was noticeably stiff - that bus scene was incredibly dry, despite all of the "I'M STARING AT YOU TO CONVEY ATTRACTION."

However, Groff has serial killer eyes, and that has always been a turn-on for me.

And I can't help but make comparisons to the defining gay series of the 2000's, Queer as Folk. I miss the hour-long format there. I miss the larger cast. I miss having ONE badass around, even if he was hateable at times (Brian), I miss some of the camp (Emmett - it feels like Looking is going out of its way to dodge all camp and stereotypes, even though they really are part of the modern gay world, whether we like it or not)….but I do appreciate that there was some focus on Open Relationships, and online dating, two things that have made their way into people's minds much more over the last decade. Going to be interesting.

My roommate actually called this out while we were watching. We got a glimpse of gay night life in San Francisco, and there wasn't a single drag queen, twink, flame queen, or unattractive-person-over-40 in sight. It's only the first episode, so there's plenty of time for that to change, but so far the show seems like the picture-perfect vision of the new-age gay hipster's idea of what the gay community "should" be like (facial hair, flannel everywhere, tiny t-shirts with ironic sports logos, and obnoxious bits of dialogue like "hey, do you have any bourbon?").

 

[alternade]

I did not like it at all. It feels like an instagramed version of reality. The main character is to naive to be believable and the rest of the cast just seem......there. The plot seemed absent. That might be a product of it only being 30 minutes. I'm all for more of us on Tv but there was nothing relatable about the whole thing.

I'll try the next few episodes as a few of the reviews I've read said it takes a bit to speed up.

 

[Matt_]

I liked it, laughed quite a bit and the characters do seem really interesting, I just think it would have benefited from being a double episode premiere so we could get a better feel for show.
Was the nurse his sister or his ex?

 

[Cornballer]

- HBO put the entire pilot up on youtube for streaming

 

[Cornballer]

- NY Mag review
- IndieWire review

 

[Frost_Ace]

I liked it. How many episodes is this season again?

 

[Cornballer]

I liked it. How many episodes is this season again?

8

 

[Hige]

I don't understand the need to post like 10 different reviews for the show. Some NYC critic that watches TV for a living liked it, so I should like it too? I forgot this was on so I'll check it out later.

My roommate actually called this out while we were watching. We got a glimpse of gay night life in San Francisco, and there wasn't a single drag queen, twink, flame queen, or unattractive-person-over-40 in sight. It's only the first episode, so there's plenty of time for that to change, but so far the show seems like the picture-perfect vision of the new-age gay hipster's idea of what the gay community "should" be like (facial hair, flannel everywhere, tiny t-shirts with ironic sports logos, and obnoxious bits of dialogue like "hey, do you have any bourbon?").

Yeah, I fear that shows might be trying too hard to be non-stereotypical that they just become a distorted fantasy fueled by idolization of "masculinity".

 

[PBY]

I don't understand the need to post like 10 different reviews for the show. Some NYC critic that watches TV for a living liked it, so I should like it too? I forgot this was on so I'll check it out later.

".

Reviews aren't a replacement for your taste. But it is interesting to read about different perspectives and thoughts on a piece of media- basically long-form thoughts, not unlike what's going on in this thread.

 

[Cornballer]

I don't understand the need to post like 10 different reviews for the show. Some NYC critic that watches TV for a living liked it, so I should like it too?

I don't read all of the reviews, nor would I expect anyone else to do so. It's more to give a general sense of the quality of the show in the eyes of critics, as they're typically the only ones that see it pre-air. With the television market as crowded as it is these days, it's a lot to ask someone to sample everything to see if they'll like it. Personally, I lean on a few critics that tend to have similar taste as me, and that serves as a rough guide to picking out shows that I might be interested in watching.

As far as post-air reviews and discussion, again, I don't expect many people to read all of it. But a lot of people do find it interesting to look through some of the ideas and thoughts of other viewers as it can enhance your appreciation of the show.

 

[ngower]

Watched the premier on YouTube this morning. Really good pilot. A bit empty, but that's to be expected when you're being introduced to a bunch of characters in a short window of time. Regardless, I really love how Haigh captures queer life (in his short films, Weekend and now Looking). Really excited by what's to come.

[EDIT] On the note of portraying a single 'type' of gay man, that's definitely true thus far, but I believe RuPaul's Drag Race queen and San Francisco native Honey Mahogany is supposed to be in an episode, so I'm sure there's more to come.

 

[Hige]

Reviews aren't a replacement for your taste. But it is interesting to read about different perspectives and thoughts on a piece of media- basically long-form thoughts, not unlike what's going on in this thread.

Sure, but I would trust the opinions of posters in this thread more than someone that does it for a living. I don't find value in a navel-gazing run-through of an episode's plot and some analysis about how it relates to society as a whole.

 

[Dany]

I don't understand the need to post like 10 different reviews for the show. Some NYC critic that watches TV for a living liked it, so I should like it too? I forgot this was on so I'll check it out later.

Maybe that NYC critic and I have the same taste in shows and its good to know what he/she likes about the episode.

Sure, but I would trust the opinions of posters in this thread more than someone that does it for a living. I don't find value in a navel-gazing run-through of an episode's plot and some analysis about how it relates to society as a whole.

I care about tv reviews only depending who reviews them or the outlet. It's the same for films, I trust certain critics. Ebert was my go to person for movie criticism. After every movie I'd see,I would go to his website and see what his opinion was.


edit: I'll check this show out tonight. I don't watch too many shows that are 'light' and I guess if its about gay men might as well see if its any good.

 

[anaron]

Sure, but I would trust the opinions of posters in this thread more than someone that does it for a living. I don't find value in a navel-gazing run-through of an episode's plot and some analysis about how it relates to society as a whole.

Who cares?

It's to share a general consensus and give posters who are interested/not interested the chance to read about the show or give it a chance based on word of mouth.

 

[lunch]

Sure, but I would trust the opinions of posters in this thread more than someone that does it for a living. I don't find value in a navel-gazing run-through of an episode's plot and some analysis about how it relates to society as a whole.

I enjoy reading reviews because I like to get a sense of what other people think so that I can better understand my own opinions. For television reviews, I mostly read The New Yorker and The A.V. Club. The latter highlights aspects of the episode I may have missed (the A.V. Club discussed the structure of the episode, and how each of the characters continue each other's sequences, which wasn't something I noticed). Reviews shouldn't be a substitute for a person's opinion, but they can help inform an opinion, especially for someone who may be new to a genre.

Also, the mention of Enlightened in the opening paragraph of The A.V. Club's review broke my heart.

 

[ivysaur12]

One of the difficult aspects of this show is that people -- gay men, mostly -- are going to value the series through their own self. How much does this relate to my experience? How is this genuine?

And that's difficult for any minority culture, but especially for gay people. We're a diverse group of people without many cultural icons who don't really have a "community" or a collective background since no community norms were really "passed on" from generation to generation. I don't think Looking is attempting to be a story for everyone, but I do think it's attempt to broaden itself works in its detriment. The more niche and more specific its world is, the more genuine it would feel. As of now, it's sort of a boring, indie-shot piece without a really strong point of view. "What does it mean to be gay in 2014?" is too broad for this show to take on.

I think, and maybe this is wrong, but I think this is why the reactions have been more mixed from LGBT people. You look at this show and compare it to your own set of experiences and realities, while straight people might not have the same points of references that gay people will.

Gawker wrote a review that Looking embraces normalcy too much, that it doesn't capture the weirdness and the fuck-establishment aspects of gay culture. That's true, but I also think that's a bit of a flawed criticism. Being gay doesn't necessarily mean being part of the gay community, and being part of the gay community doesn't necessarily mean you want to tear down the wall of traditional gender norms. Being gay means different things to different people and expecting some one else's interpretation of that means to match your own is a fool's errand.

I have no idea what I really meant to write at this post or how to tie it up or whatever. Reading the experiences different gay people had with the pilot today has been a really incredible experience, because it's lead to a certain level of catharsis and introspectiveness on what it means to be a gay person in 2014, even if the show never really matched that for most people.

I thought the pilot was boring and sad and didn't resemble my experience with what it means to "be gay" in 2014. But I think that's okay? I don't know. I'm rambling.

 

[kirblar]

Being gay doesn't necessarily mean being part of the gay community

One of many things that's caused me to absolutely loathe identity politics.

You can look at this, or look at Drag Race, and you can see different sides of it. It's a wide spectrum, with a whole lot of different parts. No creator should feel the need to tell everyone's story- it's not possible.

What "worked" for me, though, was that it was focused on "sex easy, relationships hard" in a way that should resonate both for people in general, especially now that straight relationships keep moving closer and closer over time to resembling gay ones with the advent of birth control. Patrick rings true as a character in that he seems to be very concerned with his appearance. Not being "that guy." Even though he's not closeted, his behavior patterns sort of evoke it (and the "good girl" thing, if he were a woman) for me.

The Gawker article, speed-reading through it, doesn't seem to understand that this "normal young gay guy life" isn't actually something most people are aware of or understand. He's bored with a mirror into his own world. But that's what it is, and to try and ask it to be something it's not is... ugh.

 

[royalan]

One of the difficult aspects of this show is that people -- gay men, mostly -- are going to value the series through their own self. How much does this relate to my experience? How is this genuine?

And that's difficult for any minority culture, but especially for gay people. We're a diverse group of people without many cultural icons who don't really have a "community" or a collective background since no community norms were really "passed on" from generation to generation. I don't think Looking is attempting to be a story for everyone, but I do think it's attempt to broaden itself works in its detriment. The more niche and more specific its world is, the more genuine it would feel. As of now, it's sort of a boring, indie-shot piece without a really strong point of view. "What does it mean to be gay in 2014?" is too broad for this show to take on.

I think, and maybe this is wrong, but I think this is why the reactions have been more mixed from LGBT people. You look at this show and compare it to your own set of experiences and realities, while straight people might not have the same points of references that gay people will.

Gawker wrote a review that Looking embraces normalcy too much, that it doesn't capture the weirdness and the fuck-establishment aspects of gay culture. That's true, but I also think that's a bit of a flawed criticism. Being gay doesn't necessarily mean being part of the gay community, and being part of the gay community doesn't necessarily mean you want to tear down the wall of traditional gender norms. Being gay means different things to different people and expecting some one else's interpretation of that means to match your own is a fool's errand.

I have no idea what I really meant to write at this post or how to tie it up or whatever. Reading the experiences different gay people had with the pilot today has been a really incredible experience, because it's lead to a certain level of catharsis and introspectiveness on what it means to be a gay person in 2014, even if the show never really matched that for most people.

I thought the pilot was boring and sad and didn't resemble my experience with what it means to "be gay" in 2014. But I think that's okay? I don't know. I'm rambling.

I...agree?

I agree!

Honestly, I think this is an example of how a show's way of marketing itself can effect how people perceive it. Drawing this back to Girls since that's the common comparison, with Girls you have a show about 4 white girls living in New York City completely unaware of how spoiled they are and how good they have it, and as such they're mostly really shitty people who are, nevertheless, fun to watch. The problem came when they took that idea, and billed it as "This is what it's really to live in New York City!" at which point they provoked the ire of a shit ton of people who live in New York whose lives aren't like that at all. But, once you get over the way Girls initially markets itself, and see it for what it actually is, it's not a bad show.

With Boys, I think they're doing themselves a disservice by marketing themselves as a "gay show." Because so far it's not very inclusive, and it's not really trying to be. Don't pretend to paint with a wide brush if you're really not. Just focus in on the characters you've presented and give us a reason to care about them.

Also, speaking to my roommate about the show this morning, he brushed it off as being "just another show about gay people FOR straight people." And I have to admit, so far he's not wrong. The episode did seem to have a blur filter applied to it in regards to how these men live their lives. Based on some of the reviews posted, I was expecting something a little more raw (where was all this "unbridled view of gay sexuality" some of these reviews talked about? All I saw was a lot of 'fade-to-black').

And it makes me sad, because after all these years we still have not gotten a show that's given us as raw and honest a view of the gay community as Queer as Folk, and that show is almost a decade old. I fucking hated that show by the end of season 3, but one criticism that could never stick with QaF was that it straight pandered. QaF was definitely a show about gay people, FOR gay people.

Spoiler

We've also yet to get a show that rivaled QaF's gay sex scenes, sadly.

 

[Empty]

liked it more than i expected. want to learn more about the characters, only get a small glimpse in the thirty minutes thanks to the leisurely pace. what's there is promising, mainly from the lead guy. i like that he's a videogame developer and it plays into his character, but not like a raging stereotype comedy nerd, more sort of defining who he is as a late twenties guy as opposed to the doctor he has a date with.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

I thought it was going to be horrible, but I enjoyed it.

I also thought it was going to be an hour long.

 

[ivysaur12]

I...agree?

I agree!

Honestly, I think this is an example of how a show's way of marketing itself can effect how people perceive it. Drawing this back to Girls since that's the common comparison, with Girls you have a show about 4 white girls living in New York City completely unaware of how spoiled they are and how good they have it, and as such they're mostly really shitty people who are, nevertheless, fun to watch. The problem came when they took that idea, and billed it as "This is what it's really to live in New York City!" at which point they provoked the ire of a shit ton of people who live in New York whose lives aren't like that at all. But, once you get over the way Girls initially markets itself, and see it for what it actually is, it's not a bad show.

With Boys, I think they're doing themselves a disservice by marketing themselves as a "gay show." Because so far it's not very inclusive, and it's not really trying to be. Don't pretend to paint with a wide brush if you're really not. Just focus in on the characters you've presented and give us a reason to care about them.

Also, speaking to my roommate about the show this morning, he brushed it off as being "just another show about gay people FOR straight people." And I have to admit, so far he's not wrong. The episode did seem to have a blur filter applied to it in regards to how these men live their lives. Based on some of the reviews posted, I was expecting something a little more raw (where was all this "unbridled view of gay sexuality" some of these reviews talked about? All I saw was a lot of 'fade-to-black').

And it makes me sad, because after all these years we still have not gotten a show that's given us as raw and honest a view of the gay community as Queer as Folk, and that show is almost a decade old. I fucking hated that show by the end of season 3, but one criticism that could never stick with QaF was that it straight pandered. QaF was definitely a show about gay people, FOR gay people.

Spoiler

We've also yet to get a show that rivaled QaF's gay sex scenes, sadly.

Going forward, the show has a weird obsession with not being a gay show, but instead being a show about a group of friends who happen to be gay with a bit of a "look how normal we are!" through line. That's not only a disservice to the show, but also weakens the POV. Being gay is is different than being straight in a multitude of ways. These characters are going to have different experiences with their lives because of it. Don't be afraid of that difference or shy away from it -- show us. That's where the interesting drama is.

You see a lot of young gay writers with a script they describe as The Gay Girls (or, as I've started to call them, Gurls scripts). And all of them have the same faults, including Looking -- they seem inorganic. All of them want to make broad statements on GAY LIFE! by letting their characters fall to the side. They are enamored with the macro idea of "BEING GAY IN 2014!" instead of the microcosm of how these characters lives are unique and special BECAUSE they are gay, among other qualities.

 

[ZeroFate]

Had no idea there was a thread for this show, cross post from LGBT:

Looking was tons better than I thought it would be. Could tell it was from the same guy behind the movie "Weekend". I feel like his style works better with a larger cast because Weekend bored the heck outta me with just the two leads.

They also did a great job at making Groff's character easy to relate to (at least for me). 28 here and only been in one relationship that lasted 5 months (and I totally skim Okcupid at work too haha). Not to mention he's a freakin videogame designer. marryme.gif

AND to my surprise they actually threw in two minorities (asian and spanish dude). Pretty funny considering a lot of people were assuming it'd be another case of the non-existent minority ala "Girls". Apparently someone took their notes.

 

[lunch]

Going forward, the show has a weird obsession with not being a gay show, but instead being a show about a group of friends who happen to be gay with a bit of a "look how normal we are!" through line.

That's disappointing to hear. How many episodes have you seen?

 

[ivysaur12]

That's disappointing to hear. How many episodes have you seen?

3, though everyone says it gets better as the series goes on, so there's that.

 

[kirblar]

That's disappointing to hear. How many episodes have you seen?

It's the opposite for me, I'm actively turned off by insularity.

 

[Thomas_Daly]

how long is an episode 30 or 60 (with ads)

was it good i didnt watch it yet

 

[Tucah]

how long is an episode 30 or 60 (with ads)

was it good i didnt watch it yet

30 minutes. I liked it, seems impressions were mixed leaning towards positive.

 

[Thomas_Daly]

30 minutes. I liked it, seems impressions were mixed leaning towards positive.

thanks , will watch when i have time

would anyone here be interested in a new QAF of was that over the top ?

 

[B-Ri]

One of the difficult aspects of this show is that people -- gay men, mostly -- are going to value the series through their own self. How much does this relate to my experience? How is this genuine?

And that's difficult for any minority culture, but especially for gay people. We're a diverse group of people without many cultural icons who don't really have a "community" or a collective background since no community norms were really "passed on" from generation to generation. I don't think Looking is attempting to be a story for everyone, but I do think it's attempt to broaden itself works in its detriment. The more niche and more specific its world is, the more genuine it would feel. As of now, it's sort of a boring, indie-shot piece without a really strong point of view. "What does it mean to be gay in 2014?" is too broad for this show to take on.

I think, and maybe this is wrong, but I think this is why the reactions have been more mixed from LGBT people. You look at this show and compare it to your own set of experiences and realities, while straight people might not have the same points of references that gay people will.

Gawker wrote a review that Looking embraces normalcy too much, that it doesn't capture the weirdness and the fuck-establishment aspects of gay culture. That's true, but I also think that's a bit of a flawed criticism. Being gay doesn't necessarily mean being part of the gay community, and being part of the gay community doesn't necessarily mean you want to tear down the wall of traditional gender norms. Being gay means different things to different people and expecting some one else's interpretation of that means to match your own is a fool's errand.

I have no idea what I really meant to write at this post or how to tie it up or whatever. Reading the experiences different gay people had with the pilot today has been a really incredible experience, because it's lead to a certain level of catharsis and introspectiveness on what it means to be a gay person in 2014, even if the show never really matched that for most people.

I thought the pilot was boring and sad and didn't resemble my experience with what it means to "be gay" in 2014. But I think that's okay? I don't know. I'm rambling.

I think the show has pilot syndrome. we will be able to judge it better off the second episode.

The lack of drag queens is an oversight though.

 

[Matt_]

Is Queer as Folk worth giving a watch?
I'm assuming people are talking about the US series and not the UK series too?

 

[SteveWinwood]

im straight am i allowed to watch this

 

[lunch]

Is Queer as Folk worth giving a watch?
I'm assuming people are talking about the US series and not the UK series too?

It seems that most people who enjoyed Queer as Folk watched it when it originally aired. I tried watching it a year or so ago and made it five episodes in before giving up. I thought the acting was bad and the characters rather stereotypical. I'm willing to bet that over the course of the show, they became increasingly fleshed out, but I wasn't interested enough to continue, especially since in the more than ten years since the show began, its plot lines can be seen in a variety of other pieces of gay media. I liked Hal Sparks though.

im straight am i allowed to watch this

Considering some of the discussion above of the show catering more to a straight audience, we'll give you permission this once.

 

[Thomas_Daly]

Is Queer as Folk worth giving a watch?
I'm assuming people are talking about the US series and not the UK series too?

what the uk one because its the shortest then the usa one its a good show little over the top

im straight am i allowed to watch this

yes you are ,

 

[royalan]

Is Queer as Folk worth giving a watch?
I'm assuming people are talking about the US series and not the UK series too?

I'm talking about the US series, never saw the UK series.

And QaF is a decent enough show. Some of the characters can be a bit flat, and the show did have a bit of a diversity issue (minorities were pretty much completely ignored outside of orgy scenes, and lesbians only got passing lip service despite two of the main characters being lesbians), but despite that it did a better job of portraying a well-rounded cast of gay characters than pretty much any show...well, ever. It's problems aside, for an honest look at what constitutes "gay life" in the US, Queer as Folk is still the standard, with The L-Word following not too far behind.

 

[Matt_]

It seems that most people who enjoyed Queer as Folk watched it when it originally aired. I tried watching it a year or so ago and made it five episodes in before giving up. I thought the acting was bad and the characters rather stereotypical. I'm willing to bet that over the course of the show, they became increasingly fleshed out, but I wasn't interested enough to continue, especially since in the more than ten years since the show began, its plot lines can be seen in a variety of other pieces of gay media. I liked Hal Sparks though.

what the uk one because its the shortest then the usa one its a good show little over the top

I'm talking about the US series, never saw the UK series.

And QaF is a decent enough show. Some of the characters can be a bit flat, and the show did have a bit of a diversity issue (minorities were pretty much completely ignored outside of orgy scenes, and lesbians only got passing lip service despite two of the main characters being lesbians), but despite that it did a better job of portraying a well-rounded cast of gay characters than pretty much any show...well, ever. It's problems aside, for an honest look at what constitutes "gay life" in the US, Queer as Folk is still the standard, with The L-Word following not too far behind.

I think I'll definitely give it a watch then, if only to see the differences in its take on the community compared to how Looking is going to handle it. I'll probably watch the Uk version too as it's only ten episodes

 

[ivysaur12]

Queer as Folk also feels very dated, which is odd because it's not that old. It's still worth a watch, but I wouldn't ever consider it required viewing.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

So, the show was initially a bit hard for me to relate to. Even living in LA, I've never experienced this, sort of gay bubble where I'm just surrounded by queer culture everywhere. (It'd be awesome, but just hasn't happened. Probably cause like 99% of my friends are straight.)

Still the episode had me smiling throughout, and the protagonist at least, was really likable. I realize the gay community's huge and diverse, so I understand if I can't identify with the show 100%. I'm still hooked and already kinda care about the characters. Can't wait for episode 2.

Is Queer as Folk worth giving a watch?
I'm assuming people are talking about the US series and not the UK series too?

Oh my god QaF (US version) is the shit. The show is so freaking playful, ridiculous, and doesn't take itself seriously at all, but still has substance. (Somewhere in there among all the raunchy bits.) Nothing will replace it for me.

Queer as Folk also feels very dated, which is odd because it's not that old. It's still worth a watch, but I wouldn't ever consider it required viewing.

Hmm, it's definitely been a while since I watched it. I'll have to go back and revisit it all. It was all so grand, and over the top. Especially at a time when gay-tv and gay-culture as a whole was still swept under the rug by most people.

 

[royalan]

Also, sorry Groff, but as far as gay dorks on television go:

Will always be tops.

Gosh, Michael was just so adorable (and way too fucking good for Brian). *.*

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I thought Michael was super annoying. He became that way later on at least.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

The Castro is also much, much more gay than West Hollywood. And West Hollywood has a rainbow crosswalk.

Lol that crosswalk...

One of these days I'll have to visit Castro for sure.

I have to say, I really wish shows like these were an hour long. Doesn't feel like they could delve as deeply into everything with a 30-min format best suited for sit-coms.