Girlsfriend made such a display out of not being able to walk in her fancy shoes to pick up her Golden Globes. We get it Lena! You're not like every other hyped celebrity! You're regular! So, sooooo regular.
She's so damn happy.
Yup. I'm sure Lena loses a lot of sleep over the DL haters.
She really has no room to gripe. She has to know that a fat, fugly passive-aggressive TV personality is going to be a lightning rod for criticism. She should laugh WITH us.
She's just a fat ugly Woman.
That ugly cunt was born on third and thinks she hit a triple.
I officially love her. You eldergays are so damn clueless.
Eldergay? I turned 20 this month. Not that it should matter. Women are such cunts. Always bitching about men.
Says the cunt bitching about other cunts
Stop making fun of the handicapped
Love her. She's so talented and charming.
this made me like her more, actually
I'm with R11.
I love her show, but she SHOULD say "No" to at least one media opportunity.
She is beyond overexposed and it has resulted in her being the Sarah Palin of tv. Hugely welcomed and then even more loathed
I still think she's fat and ugly.
But, I like the show. The motor mouthed Jewish girl is hysterical and the only one that can act. Adam is a great character and the actor does a good job with the material.
Dunham should stay behind the camera. She's unattractive, says all her lines like she is reading them of que cards and really needs to spare us the sight of her disgustingly fat body.
What's that smell?
Oh, Lena is storing a kosher burrito up her guntgash.
What a winner.
She must be über-duber connected to have Howard Stern turn tail and apologize. I don't recall his ever doing that before in 30 years.
Did Lynne Redgrave get this kind of criticism back in the 60's?
Probably not as intensely because women knew their place back then.
I'd love to fast forward a decade to see how people remember her and this show in the future.
So celebs do look themselves up on the internet.
Self important twat.
Lens Dungham should bitch slap her own beef curtains!
What is your problem, R8?
Lena is a damn good writer. I think she is a smart and engaging performer and I think she is really on target with the nudity etc.
She is certainly connected and I don't honestly know how much of that was given to her or how much she created but she made good use of it.
She is the real deal. I don't think Lena is a Gummer situation at all.
r25 back to clarify. I don't mean to throw sour grapes at the Gummer girls.
The point is simply that whomever whas helping Lena was helping a very worthy cause.
Meryl's children have been given jobs they wouldn't have been able to even get auditions for if it weren't for their mothers shadow.
Hopefully they will prove worthy of all this excessive nepotism, I think Lena already has proven herself unique and worthy.
That's funny, R19.
I've never seen this Girls show or heard or seen Lena Dunham move or speak, so I can't comment, but from the comments here, I'm guessing it's not worth my time. I'm a gay guy and have little tolerance for women and their emotional ups and downs, unless they're really laid back and awesome, which most are not. On the other hand, some straight guy friends whose tastes I share say the show is really great.
She's Lisa Lampanelli's 'nigga.'
She's certainly adept at exposing the misogyny that's rampant just below the surface of many. It's like a cultural rorschach. And a segment of DL gets a big fail. Interesting.
I've written an episode of "Girls." Please let me know what you think of the script.
Narcissism and whine.
Stuff self with tons of carbs and booze.
Shopping and feigning astonishment that my Hummer-sized ass can't fit into a size 6.
Sloppy sex with someone who has to fuck me with the lights off.
Complain about money despite unwillingness to do anything remotely resembling work or anything that isn't posing and striking an attitude.
Sex with a homeless dwarf.
And, the piece de resistance never seen before: Food, whining AND sloppy depressing sex AT THE SAME TIME.
I'll be waiting just over there, you can bring me my damn Emmy that-a-way.
[quoteShe's certainly adept at exposing the misogyny that's rampant just below the surface of many. It's like a cultural rorschach. And a segment of DL gets a big fail. Interesting.
While that's true about DL, I would not call Dunham or the use of her characters a mature authority on women's rights and issues. She clearly has training in literature and storytelling, but that does not make her exceptionally "adept" at conveying anything. In fact, she has yet to prove that to me in her work.
In a statement, Dunham responded to her critics by saying, "Moo! Mooooooo moooooooo moooooooo! Snort!"
Dunham then turned on her hooves and stampeded back to the craft services table, which she ate.
The criticism and "I'm not that interested in the subject matter of women" in this thread is similar to the screed a certain segment of the straight world very vocally proclaimed when Will and Grace first debuted.
It was an ignorant, self-involved, hateful segment that had no true interest in art, culture, social politics and equality; and who was extremely opposed to minority groups having a voice or even being seen.
In time, Girls will be seen as seminal as the Mary Tyler Moore show.
"Women are such cunts. Always bitching about men."
I guess the irony of your "statement" escapes you.
I don't recall that group, R33, but okay. They must have been a minority themselves. Furthermore, I know of gay people who can find a thing or two fundamentally disconcerting about W&G.
To give Datalounge some credit, it demonstrates that gay men (for whatever reason) voraciously endorse accessible abortions for women. But otherwise, I agree. Most other topics about women just have a misogynistic spin to them.
Nonetheless, I cannot view GIRLS as groundbreaking or revolutionary material. It's vague enough to exude ambiguity: is it truthful? Is it ironic? Is it just plain dumb? Is it dumb on purpose? And so on. After carefully considering the many possible creative vantage points of this show, none of them, in my opinion, fill a void in culture, art, or humanity that is lacking or missing. It could become so, but I doubt it; that would kill its id and ego. It's a decently-done, badly-cast miniseries compared to its hype.
Girls is many things - and there is a vast amount of thoughtful criticism (in the purest sense of the word) discussing it all over the internet.
Your question, however, speaks to something the series is absolutely consciously inviting its viewers to ask themselves about Millennials.
"Are they truthful? Are they ironic? Are they just plain dumb? Are they dumb on purpose?"
Sadly, these are pressing questions, as the Millennial generation presses forward in all their texting, sexting, tweeting, infantile adultness. What will become of them is a pressing cultural and political question. Girls is holding up a mirror, so to speak, at Millennials, and all their self-absorbed glory.
From MSNBC article posted today (not about Girls.)
[quote]Millennials have been called apathetic, entitled, self-centered, and dumb. But at 80 million strong, 18-32 year olds are the largest generation in American history –which means, like it or not, the world has to deal with us.
Not to mention that Girls is completely adding new dimensions to sexual politics by showing sex and bodies in a more real way - which has everyone in a lather.
If turds had cunts, Lena is what would fall out of them
[quote]Your question, however, speaks to something the series is absolutely consciously inviting its viewers to ask themselves about Millennials. "Are they truthful? Are they ironic? Are they just plain dumb? Are they dumb on purpose?"
R36, I know. The series of questions I posed was not the criticism, and I'm familiar with comments like yours, which insist upon explaining the show's "brilliance" with meta-applications.
Have you seen the Twitter accounts of and/or interviews with the people who write for Girls? They must be holding up mirrors to themselves as well, first of all. They've also claimed to represent everyone at one moment, and a niche demographic the next.
The main issue, for me, is that the show's brand value will keep it from doing anything that is actually worthwhile for these "millenials" you speak of. Self-aware young adults do not need this show. Self-sabotaging and self-absorbed young adults will see what they want to see.
r38 - They are not claiming to represent everyone. For example, they certainly aren't trying to represent white male republicans aged 55 and up. Context is needed.
The brand value has already proven itself as it has launched long, thoughtful discussions about a myriad of topics among a myriad of demographics across multiple media platforms. Discussion benefits everyone.
No one "needs" a television show, especially a 1/2 comedy. So there really isn't any point you are making around that. The show is created for entertainment and it's audiences apparently feel inspired to react and discuss. Again - that is it's brand value and cultural import. This is not up for debate, it is simply fact.
I'm in my 50s and not only do I love her I've always had the distinct impression that those trashing her were young people who expect all successful tv personalities to be the sanitized Barbie Dolls of today.
Sad, then, r37, that turds appear to be male.
Lena is terrific.
There is no reason in the world for Lisa Lampanelli to exist.
Ugly tattoos on cafeteria lady arms is not a good look.
R39: Who do you work for???
r39 here. I'm in marketing. And if I could get people to discuss the brands I represent like they talk about that show, I'd be one rich fuck.
The target audience of that show is THE ONLY ONE that matters to many, many advertisers.
Except there is ZERO advertising on that show, r45.
If I weren't on a gay board, I would have thought R32's "funny" comment was tailored by a humor-impaired denizen of Free Republic. Then again, it could be a straight male freeper snooping around who realizes he shares a common bond with the gays and is trying to act hip and celebrate a rare agreement.
It sounds like you've been indoctrinated by someone or something. No kidding. You sound like a religious apologist. You also sound up for anything but an open discussion. But since this is kind of fun:
[quote]They are not claiming to represent everyone. For example, they certainly aren't trying to represent white male republicans aged 55 and up. Context is needed.
Context IS needed. I was using the fact that the writers have been sketchy about this (they have) to explain why I have trouble crediting them with making a work of genius. And trying to say that anything questioned is "all part of their plan" does not fly for many reasons.
[quote]The brand value has already proven itself as it has launched long, thoughtful discussions about a myriad of topics among a myriad of demographics across multiple media platforms. Discussion benefits everyone.
That's barely the brand value. Or, let's act like it is; I'm saying that it's not likely to go anywhere actually helpful. Furthermore, I have seen reviews and interpretations of episodes by mostly professionals, but that's about it. Those who are tremendously (and I mean tremendously) impressed with its satisfactory structuring should study more cinema.
[quote]No one "needs" a television show, especially a 1/2 comedy. So there really isn't any point you are making around that. The show is created for entertainment and it's audiences apparently feel inspired to react and discuss. Again - that is it's brand value and cultural import. This is not up for debate, it is simply fact.
No, there is a point. This show's head is far up it's own ass, and media assign "poor taste" to anyone who doesn't think it's extremely original, informative, and real (or fictitiously wonderful, for that matter). Regardless of what they say otherwise. The writers, like much of this entertainment industry generation, cannot seem to tolerate much major criticism at all, dismissing the source as a "hater."
Grandpa? I'm 40 yrs old and I look younger than Dunham. 25 years younger.
She has the face and body of a middle-aged woman.
I weep for Patrick Wilson.
Who is this bitch and why do people continue to start threads about it?
[quote] The target audience of that show is THE ONLY ONE that matters to many, many advertisers.
This is why we are fucked.
I love fantastic, strong, intelligent women. The women on Girls are rarely any of those things.
I go to college with many of these girls. They can't get out one single fucking thought without 20 "likes" and "y'knows" and yes those threads about vocal fry are annoying, but...so is vocal fry.
Movies and TV are so off kilter. I dislike the fact that most movies are made for juvenile men just as much as I dislike the fact that the intense focus of most TV and news shows is on women 18-34, and our wholesale need to make everything fluffy and rom-com-esque to sell it or tell it is just FUCKED UP.
[quote] our wholesale need to make everything fluffy and rom-com-esque to sell it or tell it is just FUCKED UP.
And yes, Dunham does take the subject matter into some unhappy endings. I'll give her points for that. But I still think there's a lot of vapidity and deep self-involvement in the show.
Stop the presses! R7 "officially" loves her. You know, based on her "official" position of being a fat gash herself.
Someone asked about Lynn Redgrave. No, Miss Redgrave wasn't treated as anything but what she was; a charming, smart, well-educated, savvy newcomer who also happened to know everyone in the business based on the family being full of actors.
This Dunham creature - ungainly, rude, dull, untrained, lazy, entitled and apparently illiterate - simply attracts the types of slack-jawed do-nothings for whom the presence of a gunt is evidence of worthiness.
See R7 for an example of the type.
Her acting was awful in the Patrick Wilson episode. That long Geary monologue was horrible and self absorbed. It brought back those Carrie rants to Mr. Big. Very cringe inducing.
r48 - I am not surprised that you are the same crazy bitch poster talking to itself on the "Did you ever hate your favorite celebrity once you met them" thread.
What the fuck happened to your mind and why are you so upset?
You don't seem like a very civil or reasonable person, R56, and good luck trying to speak rhetorically on the internet. Feel free to point out specific parts of my points that you don't like. Did I upset you when I said that actors don't get paid for their actual work? I stand by that. I stand by my observations of Hollywood culture as well. I obviously can't give away key identifiers of myself, so I don't know what you expect.
In addition, I don't know happened to YOU that made you so averse to a poor man's debate. But there are few more convenient sites than this to vent opinions about fame culture, mainstream entertainment, and msm. There is much to be analyzed about it. You implied that you love discussion spurred by these things, across a myriad of media platforms.
Lena's face reminds me of cake batter or hard dough bread.
All of the vitriol spewed by Dunham haters has absolutely made me love her. She's a writer who's work is being talked about, debated, scorned, and revered. Good for her. She did it.
she did what? create an unappetizing "brand"? It's the same old "Sex in the city" shit with tattoos and flab. And Sex in the City was the same old sexist shit sold as "feminism" as well. It's bullshit.
R39 sounds as fat as Lena
Haters didn't make you love her, R59.
I said this in another thread. I believe we need more plain looking people, more ugly people and more people who don't look like swizzle sticks on tv.
British tv wouldn't put out a show consisting of actors and actresses who look like plastic surgery advertisements. I'm sick of the slick-looking, liposuctioned, nose bobbed, laser-and-Botox faced supermodels.
BUT -- to constantly tell a fairly unattractive, overweight person how beautiful she is is bizarre. And to have that unattractive person naked (especially on toilet bowls stuffing her face) is more bizarre. Imagine if Kevin James, Roseanne Barr, Chris Farley, John Belushi, Woody Allen were constantly naked in their tv shows/films and constantly being told how beautiful/handsome they are. It's too freaky and a bit nausea-inducing.
Moderation. And a little modesty. I don't want to see your flab. And you seem ridiculous when people keep telling you that you're beautiful when you're clearly not. That's buying into lookism. You can be ugly/plain/chunky without having people constantly tell you you're beautiful. Just be real.
You know, when I was young I looked great in my fringed buckskin jacket and bandana. It was hip, cool, and up-to-the-minute fashion-wise.
But I stopped wearing them when I got older and that look went out of style. I'd look ridiculous in those clothes today.
Which makes me wonder about these tattoos people have. They're stylish now, but you can't give them to Goodwill when they go out of style.
Can dermatologists fully erase those things leaving no trace behind?
The gays love and enjoy her.
Her looks don't bother me at all and, yes, we do need regular looking people on television and in the movies. I also like her show but I find her public persona really overbearing and annoying; she needs to let her work speak for itself instead of trying hard to become the female James Franco.
What are her OCD issues?
Why does she insist on being naked? Is that part of her "art"? I think I'd like her more if she kept her clothes on and stopped using.
I love r60.
By the way, hatred for Dunham goes waaay beyond Datalounge. We are rather mild in comparison to predominantly-straight sites.