Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > TV Talk
Reload this Page >

Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

TV Talk Talk about Shows on TV

Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

Old 02-17-13, 01:58 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
 
DJariya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: La Palma, CA
Posts: 63,888
Received 768 Likes on 571 Posts
Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Synopsis:

Hannah gets an e-book deal that comes with a fast-approaching deadline; Marnie hosts Booth's art party; Adam persuades Ray to take a trip to Staten Island; Jessa's depression forces a retreat to Hannah's place.


Episode 6 of 10
Old 02-17-13, 07:19 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

In this episode, Lena hooks up with the Elephant Man for two days of nakeness and debauchery ...

Makes me long for SJP's voiceovers.
Old 02-17-13, 09:41 PM
  #3  
Moderator
 
dex14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 33,909
Likes: 0
Received 980 Likes on 662 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

This episode was a total turnaround for me. Very very funny.

One thing though... I don't see how Hannah can't come up with something to write about. You just had a weekend tryst with a doctor. Use that.

Also... was John Cameron Mitchell playing himself?
Old 02-17-13, 11:09 PM
  #4  
IIG
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Little Rock
Posts: 1,462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

When the shows are like this, I really believe Girls is one of the best shows on television. The supporting cast is so awesome, I could watch Adam or Shoshanna spew dialogue all day long. Hannah is the least interesting character, and the focus on her was dragging the show down. The whole Adam and Ray storyline was hilarious.
Old 02-17-13, 11:31 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 519
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

Loved the ongoing diatribe about Staten Island...so true of what everyone in NYC thinks about Staten Island except people from Staten Island. And the well deserved verbal beatdown from the dog owner's daughter....HILARIOUS

Its so funny how everyone on the show talks about what Hannah is wearing...like THAT is the most memorable thing about her...

how can anyone not enjoy watching these character being miserable?

Thumbs up to whoever puts together the music for this show...
Old 02-18-13, 07:23 AM
  #6  
Moderator
 
dex14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 33,909
Likes: 0
Received 980 Likes on 662 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

The Staten Island stuff was golden.
Old 02-18-13, 09:54 AM
  #7  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,580
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

Originally Posted by bluesix View Post
how can anyone not enjoy watching these character being miserable?
That is exactly the problem. Nearly all current cable "comedies" rely upon the audience enjoying watching a bunch of pathetic creatures. These shows seemed to be embraced by those who spend a lot of time professing to care so deeply about others yet love to see the misery of others. House of Lies, Californication, Girls, etc...they all feature selfish, egotistic, obsessed, weak characters who are slaves to various addictions (greed, sex, power, vanity, etc.).

The odd thing is that the most of the cable dramas feature some sympathetic or even admirable characters. Even the villains seem to have some redeeming features. The comedies, on the other hand, are populated by characters who need a good butt-kicking every other second.

It's not prudishness. Entourage, Sex & the City, Hung and other 'raunchy' comedies featured characters who were at least moderately likeable and had people who seemed to genuinely care about each other. The characters in Shameless care about their clan and have some sense of decency even when they don't show it, but it seems that the characters in a lot of these shows are just spoiled, immature brats. Maybe seeing them get their comeuppance is enjoyable, but not when you've had to deal with these people in real life. Then it's just annoying or sad. But funny...naw.
Old 02-18-13, 10:16 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 9,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

I disagree, I work with people this age all the time, and when you view the show as a parody of the early-20-somethings, this stuff is hysterical.
Old 02-18-13, 02:59 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 13,730
Received 130 Likes on 85 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

Originally Posted by dex14 View Post
One thing though... I don't see how Hannah can't come up with something to write about. You just had a weekend tryst with a doctor. Use that.
I'm trying to remember if there was episode in which we heard some of what Hannah has written. I'd like to know if she's less annoying on paper than in life.

Shoshanna's like dialogue is like totally annoying and like whatever.
Old 02-18-13, 06:28 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

I don't know where the hell they dug up this guy who plays Adam, but he's phenomenal.
Old 02-19-13, 04:20 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
JeffTheAlpaca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 15,805
Received 138 Likes on 122 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

Adam was in the Marines before joining the show and he was on Kimmel a couple of weeks ago.


Jorma Taccone from the Lonely Island Boys is a player on this show bagging Marnie and Sin Joo.

More Adam and Ray scenes please.


Alex Karpovsky is also a indie filmmaker.


lex Karpovsky has taken the term "working actor" to a new level over the last two years. In addition to his continuing role as Ray Ploshansky on HBO's Girls, and a supporting turn in the Coen Brothers' upcoming drama Inside Llewyn Davis, Karpovsky found time to write, direct, and star in two extremely different but equally compelling films being released today.

Rubberneck is an unsettling thriller about an unstable lab technician who becomes obsessed with a coworker after a one-night stand.

Red Flag is a quirky road trip comedy about a neurotic independent filmmaker who embarks on a tour across the American South. Both Rubberneck and Red Flag are available on Video on Demand, and will also begin a double-bill screening at Lincoln Center in New York City on Friday, Feb. 22
http://theweek.com/article/index/240...laying-himself

Old 02-19-13, 04:21 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
spainlinx0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 16,932
Received 162 Likes on 93 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

The Tweety Bird speech was hilarious.
Old 02-19-13, 07:03 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 2,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

Originally Posted by IIG View Post
When the shows are like this, I really believe Girls is one of the best shows on television. The supporting cast is so awesome, I could watch Adam or Shoshanna spew dialogue all day long. Hannah is the least interesting character, and the focus on her was dragging the show down. The whole Adam and Ray storyline was hilarious.
Agreed.

Only show I know of that can go back and forth from greatness to unwatchable many times during a single episode.
Old 02-19-13, 08:38 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

Originally Posted by IIG View Post
When the shows are like this, I really believe Girls is one of the best shows on television. The supporting cast is so awesome, I could watch Adam or Shoshanna spew dialogue all day long. Hannah is the least interesting character, and the focus on her was dragging the show down. The whole Adam and Ray storyline was hilarious.
This is pretty much my exact thoughts minus listening to Shoshanna all day...a couple hrs perhaps but not all day.

I though it was interesting for no reason I can explain that I liked that this was not written by Dunham.
Old 02-20-13, 03:26 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Very far away..
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

The guys on this show are so much more interesting than the girls. Get rid of all 4 and have it be about Adam and Ray on adventures and it will be the greatest thing ever.
Old 02-20-13, 04:18 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
JeffTheAlpaca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 15,805
Received 138 Likes on 122 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

Carson Daly interviewed Jenni Konner the other mastermind behind Girls.


<iframe width="512" height="288" src="http://www.hulu.com/embed.html?eid=ov60qhuqegtcfzuy_gmb5a&partner=metacafe&uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hulu.com%2fwatch%2f454342" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>
Old 02-20-13, 10:16 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
That is exactly the problem. Nearly all current cable "comedies" rely upon the audience enjoying watching a bunch of pathetic creatures. These shows seemed to be embraced by those who spend a lot of time professing to care so deeply about others yet love to see the misery of others.
In my opinion the humor and satisfaction in the show doesn't derive from "hah, look at these pathetic fuckups!". It plays to me as a serious show with random funny moments.

The characters are not written to be likeable, and I think that's a good quality of the show. They feel authentic to me in that they are broken and sometimes come across as shitty people. I find myself alternating between liking and hating many of the characters, sometimes even within the same episode.

The show is personally the best I've seen at finding the shittiness, happiness, and humor of real life. And it's not something you have to force yourself to appreciate, most of the episodes are massively entertaining.
Old 02-20-13, 10:24 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 519
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

as a writer, its been a well known fact to me in my career that to be successful you have to create believable characters people can relate to and then torture the hell out of them in their storylines....its called 'drama'

and it ties into a well known phenomenon about human nature that has been around since the bible called 'schadenfreude'

look it up kids
Old 02-21-13, 08:06 AM
  #19  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,580
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

Originally Posted by bluesix View Post
as a writer, its been a well known fact to me in my career that to be successful you have to create believable characters people can relate to and then torture the hell out of them in their storylines....its called 'drama'

and it ties into a well known phenomenon about human nature that has been around since the bible called 'schadenfreude'

look it up kids
Perhaps that what you personally have to do to be "successful", but it your assessment is a general assessment of what is required for writers to be successful, it's far off the mark.

For just one example, examine the exquisitely-written Andy Griffith Show episodes (and read chapters from books about the making of the show and see how much care went into hammering out what seems so effortless on the screen).

This type of humor may not appeal to those who demand 'trendy' or 'cutting edge (sic)' humor, but it has stood the test of time. Characters do not have to endure or be subjected to demeaning behavior, humiliation, or self-flagellation in order to be funny.

As a "kid" who has witnessed decades of television and enjoys both past & current high-quality shows...and as an English major...I always found that 'conflict' is the driving force behind entertainment, not "drama" (as is Drama Queen 101). I have found that MOST people want characters who are likeable though flawed, and that they do not enjoy seeing "the hell tortured out of them" unless it's in soap operas. Sure, most people have their moments of self-doubt & fear, but they don't have to parade their neuroses around for the world to see.

I'm sure that there are viewers who 'relate' to Hannah & her cohorts...perhaps people who were in therapy since age seven (like Lena Dunham, according to the new Rolling Stone cover story) who were excruciatingly annoying to most people in their past (including their parents) and use the word "like" three times in the same sentence (as Dunham does in her post-show interviews and the article).

But your theory that characters have to be put through the emotional wringer constantly (and fall on their faces 90% of the time) is pretty easily rebutted. Just look at the negative comments about the show posted here in a forum whose posters are probably 95% liberal on social & political matters, and you'll see that not everyone eats up this stuff and finds it 'funny'. If the characters were 14, it would make more sense (since most teens tend to be drama queens & totally self-centered). However, for those who see the characters as a parody of what twenty-somethings are like, maybe they are hanging out with the wrong crowd. Most young adults whom I see in their mid-twenties have graduated and are holding down responsible careers, and many are married and beginning to raise a family. The exceptions tend to be the slackers who are stuck in Never-Never Land (and who keep getting fired from jobs, getting their licenses suspended, and spending 45 days in lockup for their third DUI).

Although Dunham has made it clear that "I am not Hannah", she also stated in one post-episode interview that she felt that the show represents a pretty accurate depiction of the relationships that most twenty-somethings go through. Considering that she and her cast-mates were children of artists, musicians, and famous people (David Mamet, Simon Kirke, etc.), perhaps that is her experience. If so, she needs to get out and meet some new people.
Old 02-21-13, 08:19 AM
  #20  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,580
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Girls -- "Boys" -- 2/17/13

Originally Posted by SpanishTechno View Post
In my opinion the humor and satisfaction in the show doesn't derive from "hah, look at these pathetic fuckups!". It plays to me as a serious show with random funny moments.

The characters are not written to be likeable, and I think that's a good quality of the show. They feel authentic to me in that they are broken and sometimes come across as shitty people. I find myself alternating between liking and hating many of the characters, sometimes even within the same episode.

The show is personally the best I've seen at finding the shittiness, happiness, and humor of real life. And it's not something you have to force yourself to appreciate, most of the episodes are massively entertaining.
I have to admit that I prefer the honesty and less predictable nature of Girls to the formula-ridden wet dream of Californication, which has followed the same pattern since the first episode. Or the even worse House of Lies, which isn't funny at all.

Although Californication has its humorous, absurdist moments, Girls favors the awkwardly realistic to the buffoonish. I can acknowledge the exaggerated-for-effect nature of the some of the characterizations in Girls as being done for entertainment purposes, but it's still hard to tune in unless there's some sort of expectation that these characters will grow up sometime within the next 10 years. I prefer "real" people to the slapstick, cartoonish creations on mainstream networks, but that still doesn't mean that viewers find it entertaining to watch selfish, privileged people whine about their lives all of the time.

If this upper trend toward arrested development continues, younger viewers can expect to see more and more shows about people in mid-life who can't achieve independence and let go of their own self-centered natures. Those types of depictions used to be used to lampoon characters as the exceptions outside the norm...it appears that the depiction of 40-something 'children' will be the new normal in the future.

Maybe that's just a consequence of the extension of life expectancies.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.