Jump to content

Uncoupled - POSSIBLE SPOILERS WITHIN


Recommended Posts

There are some disparate threads about this Netflix show but thought I would start a dedicated thread in the TV section.

I didn't hate the show, but overall found it a bit contrite and recycled.  Darren Star is getting a bit too formulaic in his approach. The characters are now so predictable that it doesn't take a second thought to see Billy as Samantha, Stanley as Miranda, and Michael as a Charlotte/Carrie Combo with a Suzanne representing gal pal Stanford.  How about some NEW character types?!  Can't gay men be more interesting than this?

The show is 'brain and eye-candy' both, but found it a little depressing showing the same bitchy, shallow, predictable New Yorkers doing their vapid best to seem so very cool.  

I think it needed like 4 more episodes to build some depth in the tone deaf characters.  D-Starr rushes to get as many break-ups, hook-ups, make-ups, marriages, and finishes with a cancer diagnosis that I predicted after two episodes - OK not really, but I was expecting some 'gay disease' to come a'creeping into the plotline.  The male breast cancer was a different angle at least.  There's also a smattering of Grindr jokes - Thanks Captain Obvious!

I guess something showing a little more diversity in the community isn't possible when New York Insta-gays are the apparent end all be all of gay existence.   Maybe I am missing the point?  Is this show for 'us' or is it for the straights?

Given the lack of good gay content out there, I will probably watch the second season if there is one, but overall I give the show a hard 'C-'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will also watch the 2nd season but I do agree the series should have focused on character development.  It seemed these friends were rushing from one fabulous event to another.  We also don’t know a damn thing about Michael Lawsons ex boyfriend.  It would have been nice to show a slice of his life outside of the relationship 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Stormy said:

I will also watch the 2nd season

Did it already get picked up for a second season? I’d be surprised.
It was better than I expected, but I agree it was a Sex in the City
knock off, which was how it was pitched, so I guess on that point
they delivered. 

At the end of the day, I didn’t care about any of them, just like
Sex in the City. Vapid NYC queens, behaving like vapid NYC queens.
You just know in season 2 (if there is one) they will be trolloping off
to a fabulous house on Fire Island, that in reality none of them could
afford. Season 3 , P-town, which they will hate because it’s not NYC.
Season 4 Rehoboth, which paradoxically they will love because it’s
”authentic"……yawn. This crap writes itself, and that’s not a good thing.

Season 1: B- (mostly for André De Shields (A+), everyone else (C-). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I watched it all, I guess I'd have to call it ... watchable. That's as much praise as it gets from me.

Mostly it reminded me that there was once a really good show about gay men--their friends, their jobs, their sex lives--that (apparently) not enough folks found all that watchable.  Low ratings got it cancelled after just two seasons (which was way too soon).

Intertitle_of_the_HBO_series_Looking.png

Looking (TV series) - Wikipedia

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a fan of Neil Patrick Harris, I had looked forward to watching this series but after the first couple episodes, was asking myself, do these characters actually represent a segment of the NYC gay community? Not being a New Yorker myself, I thought, well... maybe this is want is meant by A-List gays. If so, put me in the D-list (no, make that the Z-list). 

I forced myself to watch all 8 episodes of season 1 although there were several times I had to mute the TV and look away, it was just that insipid and cliched.  I have no plans to watch season 2. 

Edited by SundayZip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched two episodes and couldn't stomach any more. Dated and contrived and begging this question: Is every gay man in NYC supposed to be a cliché  mincing queen ?  ( With the exception of Tuc Watkins ).

Curious what the gays think... Is this stuff comforting and familiar or the gay version of black-face ? 

Edited by pubic_assistance
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Is this stuff comforting and familiar or the gay version of black-face ? 

Personally, I don’t think it has the same sting that black face did. 
I believe most of these actors are in fact gay, so that whole layer
of objectifying and mocking isn’t nearly as strong. It’s still slightly
insulting, but at the end of the day the stereotypes they portrayed
are based on reality. Just maybe not my reality, or everyone’s reality.

That’s true in any portrayal of anyone. Even those not in a ”minority"
or "oppressed" category. After all, there’s plenty of cringe worthy
shows about straight white males. At the end of the day it’s meant 
to be entertainment, not a documentary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, nycman said:

After all, there’s plenty of cringe worthy
shows about straight white males. 

Thanks for your response. The comment about stereotypes of straight white males brought me down to reality.

It's just that I know a LOT of gay and bisexual men who aren't the least bit effeminate, and that is MY day to day experience of men who like men. Growing up, I was told that homosexuals were "sissies' and effeminate. That always made me ashamed to admit that I was attracted to boys. I wasn't like that, and so for many years I literally thought there was something wrong with me. I wasn't straight but I also wasn't "a queer" as they called them in those days. The concept of bisexuality was completely unknown to me until I was in my 20s.

So when I watch a television show that is just wall to wall swish, I find it insulting to rely on these old stereotypes to portray gay men.

You are correct in pointing out, it's not a documentary, its a slice of life and yes there is certainly a group of swishy, rich gays sipping vodka martinis out there somewhere right now.  It's just one person's story, not a representation of everyone who sleeps with men.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Growing up, I was told that homosexuals were "sissies' and effeminate. That always made me ashamed to admit that I was attracted to boys. I wasn't like that, and so for many years I literally thought there was something wrong with me. 

So well said. My parents, my father in particular, obviously knew I was gay before I figured it out. It would not be fair to say they openly shamed me, but their passive pushing toward “manly” behavior and activities was one factor in my waiting until my late 30s to come out. 

That said, it's interesting how our respective reactions differ. I find myself somewhat drawn to the open and unapologetic swish of shows like Uncoupled, wishing I had the balls early on to just be me. As you point out.. It's just one person's story. 

And for some real docudrama dealing with gay shame, I recommend the series We’re Hear on HBO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched it all in the forlorn hope that the storyline would improve.
 

I found most of the characters catty and camp. Perhaps that’s why I liked the character of the 3rd grade teacher so much.
 

And alas it just wasn’t that funny. The only unpredictable scene was when Michael and the Italian “bibusinessman” were texting each other while, between them, the oblivious female realtor chattered on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...