Is the TV show "Girls" only famous because it's women doing vulgar humor ?

#1
I've heard a lot about this show and I watched 2 episodes, it blows, I feel like the only reason this is still on air is because women want to prove they can do vulgar humor too, it's like when that movie Bridesmaids came out, that blew too, the only time I even giggled slightly during that film was when they get diarrhea in the dresses.

Seriously, women, if you want to do vulgar humor, at least get Seth Rogens funnier friend (that Evan Jewname guy) to write it for you.
#3
I've gone into depth about my many issues with this show in my previous posts. But it boils down to every aspect of it being badly made.

Quote by guitarxo
I don't know but I think all the characters are annoying.

+70 billion.

We should start up some kind of hate club for this show. With jackets.

pretentious small text, right justified signature
UG's professional coffee nerd
also UG's musical theatre nerd
roscoe's wetsuit
#4
As guys, you're not the target audience. The show itself is pretty good, the writing is strong and the characters, though sometimes annoying, are very realistic.
#5
Quote by billytalent77
As guys, you're not the target audience. The show itself is pretty good, the writing is strong and the characters, though sometimes annoying, are very realistic.

uhuh
Quote by SlackerBabbath
My ideal woman would be a grossly overweight woman who would happy go jogging, come home all sweaty and let me put my dick under her armpit while she shuffles a pack of cards.

Stay classy, pit.
#6
Quote by billytalent77
As guys, you're not the target audience. The show itself is pretty good, the writing is strong and the characters, though sometimes annoying, are very realistic.

Sometimes annoying? Realistic? If I knew people like that in my life I would constantly be slapping them.

And I am a girl, and they're clearly not making it appealing to me.
cat
#9
Quote by billytalent77
As guys, you're not the target audience. The show itself is pretty good, the writing is strong and the characters, though sometimes annoying, are very realistic.


EDIT: WARNING: THIS RESPONSE CONTAINS A LONG, SELF-INDULGENT, WHINY RANT THAT IS PRETTY MUCH ALL OPINION. DO NOT APPROACH THIS POST WITH SERIOUSNESS. PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK.



The writing is strong? Are we watching the same show? The writing is the biggest problem.
All the characters are inconsistent in their motivations and have little to no redeeming qualities (except for one or two characters). Anyone outside of the leads in the show are written as shallow and one-note and only ever seem to be plot points rather than real people that happened to be thrust into these situations. The dialogue feels like it hasn't seen an edit past the first draft and is sloppy. There's a difference between an intentionally loose and conversational tone that's used in other shows and the muddy exchanges between characters in this one. It also feels like Lena Dunham has just tried as hard as she can to have the bedechel test in full force, letting quality suffer as a result.

And the plotting is just as bad. The stakes are never high enough for me to actually give a shit whether or not these characters succeed or fail in their storylines. I get that it's supposed to be like "just real life girls and their real middle class problems", but other shows have managed to pull that off realistically while still giving actual reasons for the audience to care about the consequences of the characters actions.
And it never really feels like anything is built up, there is no rising dramatic action. Things just happen out of nowhere and every episode plods along at the same pace.

Seriously, every episode reads like a "before" spec in a script doctor's portfolio.

Nothing against Lena Dunham, she's done great work before and I'm sure will do great work later. She (and her writing staff) just didn't exactly hit it out of the park with this one.

pretentious small text, right justified signature
UG's professional coffee nerd
also UG's musical theatre nerd
roscoe's wetsuit
Last edited by ozzyismetal at Sep 11, 2013,
#10
Quote by ozzyismetal
The writing is strong? Are we watching the same show? The writing is the biggest problem.
All the characters are inconsistent in their motivations and have little to no redeeming qualities (except for one or two characters). Anyone outside of the leads in the show are written as shallow and one-note and only ever seem to be plot points rather than real people that happened to be thrust into these situations. The dialogue feels like it hasn't seen an edit past the first draft and is sloppy. There's a difference between an intentionally loose and conversational tone that's used in other shows and the muddy exchanges between characters in this one. It also feels like Lena Dunham has just tried as hard as she can to have the bedechel test in full force, letting quality suffer as a result.

And the plotting is just as bad. The stakes are never high enough for me to actually give a shit whether or not these characters succeed or fail in their storylines. I get that it's supposed to be like "just real life girls and their real middle class problems", but other shows have managed to pull that off realistically while still giving actual reasons for the audience to care about the consequences of the characters actions.
And there never really feels like anything is built up, there is no rising dramatic action. Things just happen out of nowhere and every episode plods along at the same pace.

Seriously, every episode reads like a "before" spec in a script doctor's portfolio.

Nothing against Lena Dunham, she's done great work before and I'm sure will do great work later. She (and her writing staff) just didn't exactly hit it out of the park with this one.

Plus, no one wants to see Lena Dunham with her clothes off.

"Watching Lena Dunham with her clothes off on television is like rape"- Howard Stern
#13
Quote by ozzyismetal
The writing is strong? Are we watching the same show? The writing is the biggest problem.
All the characters are inconsistent in their motivations and have little to no redeeming qualities (except for one or two characters). Anyone outside of the leads in the show are written as shallow and one-note and only ever seem to be plot points rather than real people that happened to be thrust into these situations. The dialogue feels like it hasn't seen an edit past the first draft and is sloppy. There's a difference between an intentionally loose and conversational tone that's used in other shows and the muddy exchanges between characters in this one.

The inconsistency in motivations if kind of the point, and if you're going to judge writing on the likeability of the characters then that's a whole 'nother problem. And please give examples of how the dialogue is bad.

Quote by ozzyismetal
It also feels like Lena Dunham has just tried as hard as she can to have the bedechel test in full force, letting quality suffer as a result.

Wow man, really. I shouldn't have to point out the many problems with this statement.


Quote by ozzyismetal
And the plotting is just as bad. The stakes are never high enough for me to actually give a shit whether or not these characters succeed or fail in their storylines. I get that it's supposed to be like "just real life girls and their real middle class problems", but other shows have managed to pull that off realistically while still giving actual reasons for the audience to care about the consequences of the characters actions.
And it never really feels like anything is built up, there is no rising dramatic action. Things just happen out of nowhere and every episode plods along at the same pace.

Have you ever watched Mad Men?
#14
Quote by WhiskeyFace
The inconsistency in motivations if kind of the point,

I dunno, these characters feel more like the writers have forgotten previously established traits rather than them being complex, self-contradicting people.
Quote by WhiskeyFace
and if you're going to judge writing on the likeability of the characters then that's a whole 'nother problem.

Likability was probably the wrong phrase. Possibility of pathos perhaps? I just feel there's little for the audience to be invested in.
Quote by WhiskeyFace
And please give examples of how the dialogue is bad

Been a little while since I've watched it, might re-download some episodes and scour them for examples.
Quote by WhiskeyFace
Wow man, really. I shouldn't have to point out the many problems with this statement.

Again, nothing against the Bedechel test or what it stands for, many good shows pass it with flying colours. It (and other parts of the writing) just feels forced here, they don't feel like real people talking, it feels like a writer's voice. Like when you think about what to say as a comeback after an argument is over rather than what someone would realistically say in that situation. It feels too controlled, too sterile.

Quote by WhiskeyFace
Have you ever watched Mad Men?

Yep. It's alright, nothing to write home about. Then again, I can see why people like it, just like I can see why people like Girls. I just disagree.

pretentious small text, right justified signature
UG's professional coffee nerd
also UG's musical theatre nerd
roscoe's wetsuit
#15
Quote by WhiskeyFace
Have you ever watched Mad Men ?

That show is pretty bad too, whenever ask people why they like it, most of the time the only thing they can come up with is, "It really looks like like the era it's set in and the fashion is so of it's time", seriously, I think people just get distracted by Christina Hendricks tits for an hour.
#16
Quote by lemmyisgod97
...seriously, I think people just get distracted by Christina Hendricks tits for an hour.

I have friends that are straight girls and watch it for this exact reason. No one is immune.

pretentious small text, right justified signature
UG's professional coffee nerd
also UG's musical theatre nerd
roscoe's wetsuit
#17
Quote by ozzyismetal
Yep. It's alright, nothing to write home about. Then again, I can see why people like it, just like I can see why people like Girls. I just disagree.
Quote by lemmyisgod97
That show is pretty bad too, whenever ask people why they like it, most of the time the only thing they can come up with is, "It really looks like like the era it's set in and the fashion is so of it's time", seriously, I think people just get distracted by Christina Hendricks tits for an hour.



It's also kind of contradictory to say you can see how people would like it while also saying it's flat out bad.

But Girls is in the same family as Mad Men. They're character pieces, they're not about having rising dramatic tension towards a climax like Breaking Bad. And yes, the characterisation in Girls is good.
#18
Quote by ozzyismetal
I have friends that are straight girls and watch it for this exact reason. No one is immune.

They're like that Hynotoad from Futurama, you can't look away.

#19
Quote by WhiskeyFace


It's also kind of contradictory to say you can see how people would like it while also saying it's flat out bad.

But Girls is in the same family as Mad Men. They're character pieces, they're not about having rising dramatic tension towards a climax like Breaking Bad. And yes, the characterisation in Girls is good.

The It Crowd is better than Girls and Mad Men combined.
"We don't need no education"
"Yes you do, you just used a double negative."
#20
Quote by WhiskeyFace
*jump out of window*

Fair enough. I realise that disliking Mad Men is somewhat of a cardinal sin amongst writers.
Quote by WhiskeyFace
It's also kind of contradictory to say you can see how people would like it while also saying it's flat out bad.

That wasn't my intention, I was just giving the reasons why I thought it was bad. Sorry if the my tone wasn't really conveying that.

Quote by WhiskeyFace
they're not about having rising dramatic tension towards a climax like Breaking Bad.

You're so gonna hate me, but another show I'm not too big on. I'm surprised I haven't been taken behind a corner and beaten by other industry people yet

pretentious small text, right justified signature
UG's professional coffee nerd
also UG's musical theatre nerd
roscoe's wetsuit
#22
Lena Dunham sux
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#23
Quote by The Madcap
My reaction as well. Fuck that was painful to read.

Eh, can't please them all.
And I just realised I didn't even answer the question in the title, just kinda went off in another direction. I'm the worst.
EDIT: Rant post now has a disclaimer. Woo.

pretentious small text, right justified signature
UG's professional coffee nerd
also UG's musical theatre nerd
roscoe's wetsuit
Last edited by ozzyismetal at Sep 11, 2013,
#24
I guarantee that no one that actually watches Mad Men are doing it for the "set pieces" or Christina Hendricks. Watching any show like Mad Men, or Girls (though Mad Men is significantly better), is not something you can just drop for an episode here or there. Most of the negative opinions in this thread sound like people that've seen maybe two non-sequential episodes, (understandably) didn't see the appeal, and then wrote it off as crap. That's like picking up a book, flipping to a chapter halfway through, not liking it, and then condemning the whole thing.

Oh and on the idea of the character's lacking pathos and are therefore unrelatable and "bad," I guess you've never watched Seinfeld.
#26
Quote by billytalent77
Oh and on the idea of the character's lacking pathos and are therefore unrelatable and "bad," I guess you've never watched Seinfeld.

Seinfeld was funny though.
Girls isn't funny.
#27
Quote by guitarxo
Sometimes annoying? Realistic? If I knew people like that in my life I would constantly be slapping them.

And I am a girl, and they're clearly not making it appealing to me.

I think you underestimate how silly your fellow females can be irl

All they need to do now is make a show called guys and our devolution into the second dark ages will be complete
#28
my ex watched the show and made me watch like 5 episodes in a row with her. i've never been water boarded, but i imagine the experience cant be too far off.
#29
Never seen it.

Someone once told me that it was Two Broke Girls, but they changed the title, but after doing a little bit of research, this is not the case. I have seen a bit of Two Broke Girls, and it is shite.
WHOMP

Think of that next time you are not allowed to laugh.
#30
Quote by donender
Never seen it.

Someone once told me that it was Two Broke Girls, but they changed the title, but after doing a little bit of research, this is not the case. I have seen a bit of Two Broke Girls, and it is shite.


I don't watch the show, but dat Kat Dennings doe
#32
Never heard of this. But basically it's like an amy schumar stand up, but actually worse?
#35
Quote by Rockford_rocks
As I said I don't watch the show

Dem nudes doe

Dem massive tits tho, seriously tho, the funniest thing about that is that she used to vlog on youtube and the nude pictures were taken in the same room , she couldn't even deny it.