or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'Girls' on HBO HD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'Girls' on HBO HD

post #1 of 133
Thread Starter 


About the show

Quote:
Originally Posted by HBO View Post

Created by and starring Lena Dunham ("Tiny Furniture"), the show is a comic look at the assorted humiliations and rare triumphs of a group of girls in their early 20s. Dunham wrote and directed the pilot of the series, which she executive produces along with Judd Apatow and Jenni Konner.* The cast also includes Jemima Kirke, Allison Williams, Adam Driver and Zosia Mamet.* Episodes were shot in New York. The ten-episode season debuts in 2012.

"Girls" on HBO airs on Sunday's at 9:30 PM CST only on HBO.

For more information about "Girls", please see the official website below.
http://www.hbo.com/girls/index.html#/girls/index.html

___________
I thought the pilot episode was good. I laughed a few times at Lena Dunham. She is such a nerd sometimes

I might be the only male member who enjoys this show. Seems like a "spin-off" of The L Word. Catch y'all next week for episode two titled "Vagina Panic"
post #2 of 133
Hated it from start to finish. Wanted to like it. Couldn't. Terrible writing. Terrible acting. Terrible dialogue. And it made the unforgivable sin that no comedy should ever commit - it wasn't funny. I went from watching Eastbound and Down into this unfunny drivel.

Perhaps I'll be the guy on page 1 of the show that everyone laughs at after 6 seasons and a movie because he hated something that turned out to be god's gift to comedy, but I doubt it. This was just atrocious.
post #3 of 133
I thought it was brilliant. I never watched shows like The L Word or Sex in the City but for me this show really delivers.
post #4 of 133
I thought it was good enough to give some slack. It's yet another in an endless stream of examples of how shoehorning shows into either "comedy" or "drama" doesn't work. I'll go with "light-hearted" for this one.
post #5 of 133
Thought it was passable but thats about it. All the talk about it's originality, I didn't see it. the show reminded me of a fairly standard low budget indie movie. All "introspective cool" and "urban realism" for today's twenty-something females just out of college.
post #6 of 133
I'm a white male well outside its demographics (50) and I LIKE this show.
BTW Tiny Furniture is on Sundance in a few weeks DVR already set.
post #7 of 133
Yeah, I'm a 56 yr. old white male, and I almost didn't bother. There's definitely a lit-school vibe to it, and that gets old fast, but I'm willing to give it some time. Nice to see non-traditional casting - I'd hate to see the thing if USA had bought it.
post #8 of 133
It's like a cheesy ripoff of the stuff Zach Braff used to do outside of Scrubs. Pretentious, cloying, and too much of a reliance on crappy emo-rock. The movie Singles did this infinitely better over a decade ago...as did about 1000 Ethan Hawk movies. As the credits rolled and it said written by, directed by, starring etc etc all the same person, my wife stated, "We get it, you're responsible for this turd." 'cept she used a more colorful word.

The only part of it that rang true to me was the awkward sex scene.
post #9 of 133
Meh-.

One of those comedies that just assumes it's funny and therefore is allowed to get away with unfunny writing.
post #10 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by gruven42 View Post

Meh-.

One of those comedies that just assumes it's funny and therefore is allowed to get away with unfunny writing.

Haven't seen it yet, but this description makes it sounds like HBO's former series, "Hung."
post #11 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyehill View Post

Hated it from start to finish. Wanted to like it. Couldn't. Terrible writing. Terrible acting. Terrible dialogue. And it made the unforgivable sin that no comedy should ever commit - it wasn't funny. I went from watching Eastbound and Down into this unfunny drivel.

Perhaps I'll be the guy on page 1 of the show that everyone laughs at after 6 seasons and a movie because he hated something that turned out to be god's gift to comedy, but I doubt it. This was just atrocious.



nah, your not that guy, I hated it too. I really wanted to like it but I just didn't.
post #12 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mylan View Post

nah, your not that guy, I hated it too. I really wanted to like it but I just didn't.

Me either... I couldn't wait for it to finish or show me something. It came off of my timers immediately following episode 1...
post #13 of 133
I have to admit, going in and given all the glowing previews, I was expecting more than I came away with. I've seen it called "brilliant" and similar - not for me. I found it mildly boring, if decently written and portrayed. One of the drawbacks for me was the main character being not very likeable in her circumstances. I realize she is written that way to make a point and will probably change a bit going forward. But, I seriously doubt I will be going forward with her to see it unfold.

About the only reason I made it to the end was to identify the actor who played the father. I recognized the face and knew that I had seen him younger - then saw that it was Peter Scolari from the old Newhart show.
post #14 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint350 View Post

I have to admit, going in and given all the glowing previews, I was expecting more than I came away with. I've seen it called "brilliant" and similar - not for me. I found it mildly boring, if decently written and portrayed. One of the drawbacks for me was the main character being not very likeable in her circumstances. I realize she is written that way to make a point and will probably change a bit going forward. But, I seriously doubt I will be going forward with her to see it unfold.

About the only reason I made it to the end was to identify the actor who played the father. I recognized the face and knew that I had seen him younger - then saw that it was Peter Scolari from the old Newhart show.

Tom Hank's roommate from a much funnier "making it in the big ole city, just trying to make end's meet" TV show.
post #15 of 133
Guess I had my expectations way to high based on all the buzz and positive reviews (multiple 100/100 ratings on metacritic).

Didn't laugh once during this one - clearly I just don't get it. I'm am 43 years old and don't consider myself old, but if this is supposed to be "brilliant", then I guess I am out of touch. I'll try another to see if it gets better, I guess.
post #16 of 133
I also was a little underwhelmed compared to the reviews, but keep in mind critics are usually provided multiple episodes to view. I'll hang in there for awhile, due to HBO's track record as much as anything.
post #17 of 133
Thread Starter 
TV Reviews
Love in the Ruins
By Nancy DeWolf Smith, Wall Street Journal - Apr. 20, 2012

* * * *

The girls of HBO's dark comedy "Girls"technically women in their early-to-mid 20sdon't know a thing about real sacrifice or suffering. At first that makes them unsympathetic. Although there is a great deal of explicit sex in "Girls," it is not meant to beand for the most part is notin any way erotic. Mix that with a bunch of 21st-century spoiled slacker girls and you have the makings of something truly repulsive. But don't turn away yet. Something astonishing is happening here too.

"Girls" kicked off last week with the travails of Hannah Horvath (series creator and writer Lena Dunham), a perpetual unpaid intern and unfinished-memoir writer who is furious when her parents announce that after supporting her for the two years since college graduation, they are pulling the plug. O woe, how dare they!

The rest of the quartet includes Shoshanna (Zosia Mamet) and her free-spirited English cousin Jessa (Jemima Kirke), a substitute baby sitter who comes on to already-taken men. Another friend has a real job: Marnie (Allison Williams) works in an art gallery. But she is existentially cursed with a boyfriend who loves her too much, or as Marnie laments: "He's so busy, like, respecting me...that he looks right past me and everything that I need." In a future episode Marnie will find excitement in the flip side of that scenario, which is another reason to hang on until "Girls" gets some traction in your gut, if not your heart.

Hannah is glib and self-deprecating in the way that a clever but plain and plump woman can become, and as self-obsessed as only the aimless can afford to be. The job market for the educated unskilled is rough, though Hannah is so eager to be witty that she blows a promising interview. She passes time at the apartment of Adam (Adam Driver), a male roughly her age who takes $800 a month from his grandmother so he can enjoy the unencumbered lifestyle of a 14-year-old. And in that apartment, in scenes of systematic debasement, Hannah offers her body to Adam without joy or apparent desire.

Stupid girl. Stupid, all of them. Lying down with men that never call, let alone ask for a date, but only text or, lowest of the low, Facebook you. Or just drifting in a tiny universe world where if anything good happens, it will be an accident, like, totally random.

They've come a long way, babyand then it hits you: Here it is, after some 50 years of women's liberation, and what characterizes the lives and expectations of today's young women? Passively offering themselves to indifferent men; getting pregnant by mistake; well schooled but careerless. Free to roam the globe taking foreign lovers and shucking oysters, but no less hobbled in other ways than their female forbears were. After decades of you-go girl, here they are, reduced to making collages on an "affirmation board," so low is their self-esteem.

Humor can take the edge off. Yet if anything about "Girls" is true, and on some level much of it is, we have a cultural train wreck showcased every week on TV. No wonder it often hurts to watch. No wonder it is so difficult to look away.

'GIRLS'
Sundays at 10:30 p.m. on HBO


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...estyleArtEnt_6
post #18 of 133
I like how the show does not fall to stereotypes of Women. And I thought the pilot was promising. It attracts to my demographic. Late teens/ 20's. And I have friends who remind me of some of these characters. I think the show will slowly get there.

My biggest gripes were the parents, whose dialogue was just disgusting and so unreal and I thought the sex scene was pretty grating. I will watch a few more. Because I do like it and I like the indie-feel.
post #19 of 133
Thread Starter 
Can't wait.

Hopefully HBO's new female time slot will be good. Veep and then Girls.
post #20 of 133
Thread Starter 
Good episode tonight.

Lena Dunham is talented.
post #21 of 133
So yeah, the show remains awful. I weep for whatever "generation" claims Lena speaks for them. Incredibly awful dialogue, terrible directing, and again it's billed as a comedy...but it isn't funny.

This, however, is funny:

post #22 of 133
Well the mockup was working until it stated Lena Dunham invented a Canon (which makes no sense whatsoever) and the comment about paying for HBO when it directly compares Girls to one of the best reasons to pay for HBO. Satirical failure there.

Anyway, thought this week was better than the first. The nuts discussion and the puppy/virgin comparison I thought were quite funny.
post #23 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post

Well the mockup was working until it stated Lena Dunham invented a Canon (which makes no sense whatsoever) and the comment about paying for HBO when it directly compares Girls to one of the best reasons to pay for HBO. Satirical failure there.

Anyway, thought this week was better than the first. The nuts discussion and the puppy/virgin comparison I thought were quite funny.

The joke makes complete sense if you understand Dunham's history (Tiny Furniture shot on a 7D). As for GoT, it's widely available on video (and oddly enough in book form). No need to pay for HBO. Whoever mocked that sheet up definitely doesn't view it as a reason to pay for it. So it actually works. Whether we agree with it or not is another discussion.
post #24 of 133
Judging from the title and the network it was on, I was expecting tons of nudity and sex on the first episode, which didn't get much of, then bam! they starte with too much of it on the second.. rollercoaster style.. LOL

Didn't get what happened to aborting girl.. did she get her period or what? wrong pregnancy test?
post #25 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyehill View Post

The joke makes complete sense if you understand Dunham's history (Tiny Furniture shot on a 7D). As for GoT, it's widely available on video (and oddly enough in book form). No need to pay for HBO. Whoever mocked that sheet up definitely doesn't view it as a reason to pay for it. So it actually works. Whether we agree with it or not is another discussion.

Makes sense? Really? So using a camera automatically means you claim to have invented it? Did she ever proclaim to have been the inventor or the one who brought SLR filming to the masses? If that was the case then there are probably a good few thousand inventors of the Canon EOS line who chose to film with them.

The only place you can watch GoT season two is on HBO. Same applies for any of the other high quality shows HBO still puts out on a regular basis. In fact it's more ironic that whoever did this made that comment at HBO given the extremely strict limitations of their distribution.

Lame satire is lame satire and being able to use Photoshop doesn't make you a comedy writer. So in that respect not being as funny as the creator thinks they are is something he has in common with the show he's attacking.

I've seen far funnier attempts on Something Awful's Photoshop Phridays.
post #26 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post

Makes sense? Really? So using a camera automatically means you claim to have invented it? Did she ever proclaim to have been the inventor or the one who brought SLR filming to the masses? If that was the case then there are probably a good few thousand inventors of the Canon EOS line who chose to film with them.

The only place you can watch GoT season two is on HBO. Same applies for any of the other high quality shows HBO still puts out on a regular basis. In fact it's more ironic that whoever did this made that comment at HBO given the extremely strict limitations of their distribution.

Lame satire is lame satire and being able to use Photoshop doesn't make you a comedy writer. So in that respect not being as funny as the creator thinks they are is something he has in common with the show he's attacking.

I've seen far funnier attempts on Something Awful's Photoshop Phridays.

Google it, she says "I practically invented it." Just because you're clueless about the backstory doesnt make it any less funny. The image works on numerous levels. Wish the show did.
post #27 of 133
Thread Starter 
Good episode tonight.
post #28 of 133
No nudity though

OTOH Tiny Furniture was on Sundance last night and I recorded it.
post #29 of 133
I like how the parents put the one girl out on her ass. Watching hipsters fail is good times.
post #30 of 133
I was really impressed with 'Tiny Furniture.' After the first couple of episodes, I was still a little on the fence as to whether she could pull of a whole series. But, I think she really hit her stride with this last episode. Some very perceptive writing and the acting was excellent all around.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'Girls' on HBO HD