Fleabag

I liked it. What didn't you like about it?

I absolutely loathed everything about the first and only episode I watched. Besides being unfunny, all the characters are so physically unattractive. This could be a millennial sensibility, but the characters seem too old to be millennials.

I watched only the first two episodes and then gave up.

I loved it, but the first season isn’t to everyone’s taste... the second season (which won the Emmy and last night’s GG), on the other hand, is much funnier and relatable.

I watched the entire first season, but it really didn't grab me. If I want to watch a similar show (that's actually funny), I'll watch Miranda!

I tried watching it and was bored. The woman (Fleabag?) isn’t supposed to be appealing or sympathetic and the writers achieved that objective quite well.

I watched the first season and it had some funny moments and was well written and Phoebe was great in it, but it wasn't lifechanging and as amazing as everyone seems to think it is. It's definitely better written than a lot of the crap that gets thrown on TV in the states, though.

I enjoyed "Crashing" a lot more, which she wrote an co-starred in, but it unfortunately only had one season.

R6 she is HIDEOUS!

It’s overrated shite, like most of the BBC’s output nowadays. Rarely is the hype machine ever worth listening to. x

It's awful. That lady kept looking into the camera while delivering unamusing quips. I hate it when ugly people look at me!

I think they do well in America because we're starving for WELL-WRITTEN shows. What passes for writing and plot development in a lot of American shows is so formulaic and boring. I think part of it is because our seasons go on for much longer, but overall the quality of writing just seems to be better.

I had a hard time with the early episodes. Stick with it. It gets much better.

For anyone who only watched the first season, watch the first episode of the second season if you were underwhelmed. It’s truly quite a bit different vibe than season one.

I've only seen the first season, which I found really great! That Fleabag is so plain-looking is what makes the show.

In Season 1, she stuck fairly close to her stage show which inspired the series. I also think Season 2 is better. She didn't want to do Season 2, but reluctantly agreed to do it and I'm wondering if that's why it's better, ie Season 1 she had worked with that material over and over for a couple of years; Season 2 she had a very short amount of time to write and it was fresher and she didn't have time to overthink it.

I thought season 1 was better than 2! So for we Americans, the humor is too subtle, but for the Brits the humor may come off as too outlandish. I liked it! Though I would be curious as to what the Brits think of Pheobe Waller Bridge. She's very talented. She writes Killing Eve and Fleabag and the most recent 007 Bond film. She needs a vacation, now!

She's a posh, educated womyn of means.

This chick and her ugly mug need to go back to the U.K. stat!

Of course, most of the DL thinks Steel Magnolias and Golden Girls is the height of humor. Of course you won't understand the humor of someone FORTY years younger than you.

r19 The fact that you lump together Golden Girls and Steel Magnolias shows you have not understanding of what is good humor.

Couldn't get into season 1. Season 2 on the other hand was great. Andrew Scott had a big part to play inthat.

Brilliant. Above and beyond anything else on television for a long while.

I loved both seasons, but I thought the second season was better. I love how sexy priest was the only one who actually saw her, who saw her breaking the fourth wall. How tragic that the one person who sees you completely is a priest; a sexy one, mind you, but, still, a priest. The scene when she is in the confessional and expresses her rages and desires was beautiful. And I think Waller Bridge is actually quite attractive.

Yes, I don’t think Phoebe Waller Bridge is ugly. She’s just normal looking and doesn’t glam herself up. She looks like my college professor aunt.

She's UK gorgeous. She's US "alright".

She has a tall, statuesque figure though, regardless of the face.

That's how I felt about "The Detectorists."

Ugly people love this show. Attractive people don’t get it.

She’s self pitying and repulsive, but the uglies find her hilarious and relatable, “it’s the world’s problem, not mine!”

The Priest plot line was vulgar. Ugly posh British woman forcibly seduces uninterested Irish priest u til he yields. Very colonial.

R20 You missed the point, you foolish halfwit. You know nothing.

R23 gets it!

Didn’t like it because a woman that homely would not be getting that much sex with attractive men. No. Way.

I loved her weird boyfriend from S1 with the toys (he was weird but SO hot) and the ass fucking guy. Because who among us haven't been there?

R30 first of all, she’s fairly attractive. Second of all, a major point of season one is that she’s a bit promiscuous. And most men won’t turn down any girl who’s offering it up. Sometimes even if she’s butt-ugly.

She is more irritating than a bag of fleas, that's for sure.

Didn’t like season one. In fact I hated it and PWB, but season 2 was much better. She’s a really good writer, but a little too into her own genius at times.

Tried watching it - insufferable, self-flagellating, mopey “woe-is-me” main character. It’s like Bridget Jones but without the fun. Cringefest galore.

There’s a scene where the main character (can’t even be bothered to remember her name) waitresses at an event and drinks all the champagne left in glasses after multiple guests drank from it. Ewwww. Enough to turn me off this sadomasochistic series.

Could not get into it, though I did try.

I hate breaking the fourth wall. Just not my thing.

I gave up Amazon Prime so I have not seen season 2.

Send her and Ricky Gervais back to the UK.

Transcendent show. I can totally see how some homos of DL couldn't relate, though. They want Ben Aldridge all to themselves...

[quote] And most men won’t turn down any girl who’s offering it up. Sometimes even if she’s butt-ugly.

Lol. The ugly and mediocre men will. The beautiful and rich men won’t. I have a lot of straight female friends throwing themselves at hot guys only to be IGNORED. I keep telling them they’re aiming for guys outside their league, but they won’t listen and keep making fools of themselves at clubs.

Phoebe Waller-Bridge seems really desperate for sex attention. Did she steal this dress from her 15-y.o. cousin? The ill-fitted, under-sized garment (trying to push out the small boobs as much as possible) is hilarious.

Trash!

OP- I agree with you. I couldn't watch more than a few minutes of the first episode. EXTREMELY obnoxious characters and UNFUNNY.

I know a real life fleabag. She drinks the leftovers out of stranger’s drinks and gropes both men and women. She has a foul musty odor like dentures mixed with dirty underwear. Maybe ten years ago a very drunk man would’ve taken a stab at her, but I doubt her moth eaten flanks have been parted in recent times. She’s about fifty, so she’s illustrative of what will happen if the PWB character doesn’t die but continues on her path. Aging isn’t kind to desperate characters.

The actress is fug.

If the main character were in her late teens or early twenties - her reckless, infantile, trashy ways would have been at least comprehensible. College-age is the age where boundless stupidity can still be somewhat tolerated (teens’ prefrontal brain cortexes haven’t been fully formed yet). But Phoebe W-B is in her mid-30s so her character behaving so slovenly & childishly is just off-putting. The character seems to have stunted mental development.

But r45, that would be expected and boring. The whole point of season 1 is that she’s definitely a bit stunted.

R19 pretty much nailed it.

It definitely seems that she wants to be seen as sexually attractive r40, and hot, rather than the big boned, broad shouldered, massive chinned, lipless, horsey-type that she is. She wants to be seen as a sex kitten but seems like she’s stuck on the “sturdy gal” setting.

Did she offend the right wing somehow? A lot of the responses seem similar to theirs when they don't like someone taking a political position they disagree with.

Brilliant television. It and Mad Men were the best shows of the decade.

The only label she´s ever worn is "Drip Dry".

R49 Oh please. DL poking fun at some unattractive, obnoxious horsefrau is hardly right wing or new or politically motivated.

She's like the British Lens Dunham

Still I'd like to know what percentage of the first eighteen responders voted for that Cheeto, bet it's above 50%

Yes you’re the only one.

[quote] Very colonial.

Oh Jesus: R27 throwing out (and misusing) the Woke putdown je jour. We get it dear. You’re so virtuous you shame us all!

Series 2 definitely better. Coleman brilliant. Personally I preferred the brilliant and gut-wrenching hilarious BBC ‘Pulling’, which is in the same territory.

de jour. Bloody auto correct!

She's the British Sarah Jessica Parker.

I looked up pictures of her and she looked pretty. You all must be some Greek Gods and goddesses on here. I think Sarah Jessica Parker and Jen Aniston have huge jaws, but Flea Bag’s didn’t look so bad. She has an aristocratic look, which for women is what they used to call “handsome.”

Exactly, she looks like what upper-class English young women used to look like in the Edwardian era.

r52 there's too many people here berating her appearance in specific manners which implies there's something else involved. I know DL humor, thank you.

R61 No you do not, apparently.

r62 I'm guessing you can't tell the difference between DL humor and right wing humor. I condole you.

r62 some of the responses are quite witty. But a suspicious majority of them are unfunny and repetitive in a way that is not "DL".

R63 You sound like a boring, tedious, old scold. Away with you and your schoolmarm finger-wagging

r65 I'm afraid you sound like one of the anti Meghan-Markle trolls.

R66 And I'm afraid you sound like an idiot because I would never waste a moment of my life even discussing those inbred Royals.

And you, R66, sound like one of the "if you don't like the same celebs I like you're a bigot" bores.

Overrated

Sorry, no, r67 and r68.

I'm afraid you fail.

I don't really care one way or another about the creator of Fleabag. I think she's a good writer and not a bad actress. But I'm not going to be writing her letters or joining her fan club anytime soon.

The people bashing her on this thread - aside from the funny jokes - are attacking her for no real good reason, and posting repetitively to the same thread, which means there's something else going on other than people thinking she's unfunny or unattractive.

Your attacking of me - repeatedly and rather crazily - for daring to suggest otherwise - is exactly the same as the anti Meghan-Markle trolls in those threads, because they can't stand having to justify their unusual hatred.

It's also exactly the same way our collection of right wing trolls attack certain Hollywood stars who have made political comments in the past.

There's a specific tenor and cadence to the attacks, they're by a handful of people, and they obsessively post over and over again in the same threads.

I'll let you have the last words though, because I know you can't help yourself. You will have to respond, because I'm hitting far too close to home for your liking.

R70 You are tedious and you me. I am as far from right wing as you can get, but your Frau Patrolling of what people can or cannot say is equally obnoxious. Feel free to block me because I am blocking you and moving on.

She looked knocked up at the GGs.

She reminds me of those pix of aristocratic women from the 20s and 30s. Tall, longish face, beautiful skin. I rather like the look, but it's not been in fashion for a while. Recently it's been very round, baby-doll faces .

I don't know that there's a political bias at work here, sounds more like the usual Internet envy--how dare someone who's not *that* beautiful dare to succeed?

She's not drop-dead gorgeous like Margot Robbie, but in real-life terms, she'd had no problem shagging a lot of men. I mean, have you actually seen what real people look like?

It’s good, it’s funny.

It’s not the greatest comedy of the past few years, no.

R3 the oldest Milennials are 40.

Her parents are both aristocrats and bankrolled her personal theatre company.

She has a rich girl life but at least worked successfully with her parents money unlike, say, marshmallow man James Middleton.

[quote] She reminds me of those pix of aristocratic women from the 20s and 30s. Tall, longish face, beautiful skin. I rather like the look, but it's not been in fashion for a while.

She’s a regular-looking British/Scottish female - they were never “in fashion”. (The big-boned, sturdy Scottish look really jumps out at me - the nose in particular). Average Brit females generally have a reputation in Europe as being weird-looking and weird-dressing. If you look at any poll - most Europeans don’t rate British female looks that highly.

[quote] in real-life terms, she'd had no problem shagging a lot of men. I mean, have you actually seen what real people look like?

Oh please - stop with your frau-ish fantasies. She’d have no problem being a penetrated partner for "a lot of" ugly, old and mediocre-looking guys. But beautiful, fit, athletic young guys don’t seem to want to touch her with a ten-foot pole. Here is her "boyfriend" below (he’s almost 50, 15 years older than her, looks like her dad when standing next to her).

And what ugly city do you live in? Waller-Bridge is a Londoner. London is a bit like LA and NYC - lots of models & actresses from all over the world are based here. Most London guys are spoiled for choice: beautiful French girls, Swedish girls, Romanian girls, Italian girls. It’s an open buffet at every bar.

I loved Fleabag and I am actually surprised that American audiences have taken to it, as it's super British in it's humour.

I loved the slow reveal in the first season of what happened to Boo, and I particularly liked Olivia Coleman's character.

[quote] The whole point of season 1 is that she’s definitely a bit stunted.

But the character is stunted in Season 2 as well. When her daddy doesn't pay her enough attention - she breaks glasses for other waiting staff to clean up after her. Couldn't stand the protagonist. Like chalk on a blackboard.

Love her and the show. If you don't - simple - just go back to your Real Housewives.

[quote] It and Mad Men were the best shows of the decade.

Sure, Jan. The complex historical-period social commentary in Mad Men is light years ahead of Fleabag’s little kitchen-sink “me me me” simplicity.

It's simple and it's remarkably well-done and written.

r70, I think they're bots.

There was a reveal on reddit recently when a swarm of right wing attack bots started posting "about the democratic debate" hours before it was to take place and in a political thread about something else entirely. People were baffled, initially. The bots, appearing to be real users, were negatively remarking on a variety of things they were supposedly watching the candidates do, agreeing with one another, on and on and, yet, there was no debate taking place for them to be responding do. Later, reddit revealed they'd banned some-thousand accounts as a bot swarm -- different accounts unmasked by another programming glitch.

All of that to say: I'm not wasting my time trying to argue with robots. Block them and I'll bet, even if no one responds to them, they'll continue the defensive aggression. Someone probably miscalculated that PW-B would make a political statement in her acceptance and these attacks on her were loaded and ready to go.

R78, I'm in California, there's no shortage of beautiful women here, so I have some grounds for comparison. You think straight men are way pickier than they are about women--they really don't spend their time analyzing jawlines.

This isn't news.

R85, lol. We’re not talking about ugly or old straight men. Most beautiful, athletic straight British guys don’t fuck every double-chinned female that throws themselves at them. Sure, they might use one as an impromptu CUMDUMP once in a while and discard her afterwards, like a used condom. But most handsome straight Brits want beautiful girls, not crop-haired, big-nosed females in their mid-30s.

Yeah, not really into it. Very much "seen it" already.

I thought she was very well made up and dressed on Fleabag and some award shows (Emmys), but the GG look was a miss. On the other had, she said she will be auctioning the dress for the benefit of the Australian bushfires, so there’s that, at least. R73 Margot Robbie may have a gorgeous face but the producers of the Wolf of Wall Street did not want her initially because of her short legs & she had to be photoshopped in the final version. Nobody’s perfect.

R88, Dataloungers are perfect.

R88, I think some guys are pretty much perfect :) (looks-wise). Like Paul Newman, Chris Evans, Alain Delon, etc. Unlike females, they don’t even need face-paint to stand out ;).

[quote]I couldn't watch more than a few minutes of the first episode. EXTREMELY obnoxious characters and UNFUNNY.

Well then, clearly it was too subtle for you. Guess you can’t be in the ‘We Totally Get It’ Club.

You obviously don’t get British humor.

[R86] I’m sure PWB is sad to not be a pinup or a cumdump for British jocks.

[quote]the GG look was a miss. On the other had, she said she will be auctioning the dress for the benefit of the Australian bushfires, so there’s that, at least.

She was wore a suit, you Idiot Bot.

Yes R84. Making fun of people's looks is extremely new and unheard of on Datalounge! It must be bots!

Phoebe is a beast of a woman. Whenever her massive face mole is revealed, I shudder.

I like PW-B's face, but then again, I like interesting (not plastic surgery nipped to a button) noses, and faces that don't remind me of 6 other people, and I like her sort of Lady Edith hair style in "Fleabag." She's slim and appears tall, so she can wear lots of different styles and look great. I could easily see her in something set in the early "Downton Abbey"-ish years, wearing the beaded shift dresses, long gloves and fascinators, or in something set in later years, playing a Boho ex-pat in Paris or the South of France during the 30s or WWII.

IFC channel aired the first two episodes and I could barely get through them. How does anyone think this is good, much less funny? Phoebe and Olivia are beyond annoying in this.

That thing looks cancerous.

It does seem very British. The poshness is the biggest turn off. Tired of watching spoiled rich kids. Enough with nepotism. Bring the revolution.

R93 thanks, it’s a Ralph&Russo suit and she’s auctioning it for Australian bushfire relief.

Had no interest in watching it. More so because people kept asking if I had.

But given the amount of comments in this thread about how unattractive they all are I might take a look as I’m so fucking tired of American shows in which everyone is good looking ( in the US way ) but all look pretty well the same and are all utterly devoid of charisma.

R94 you seem to have missed the point.

Maybe she's not ugly but she makes unappealing, unflattering facial expressions. I suppose that's part of her character?

Yes, OP, you're the only one. Now, having admitted you're a lowbrow idiot, please climb on the top of the nearest mountain, sit there and wait to die so that you can be eaten by carnivorous animals and make something useful out of yourself for once in your sad life.

This show appears to be a favorite of ugly and fat fraus who fantasize about bedding hot men despite being ugly and fat.

Her looks don't affect me either way but I've seen both seasons and most of the characters are unpleasant selfish people I would never want to be around. Including the lead.

I did rather enjoy the first season of Killing Eve though. The second was something of a disappointment and that was after Waller-Bridge left as showrunner.

R105, fraus have never heard of this show. It's not exactly American Idol

Auctioning off a maternity tuxedo. Sure.

R86, she doesn't have a double chin and Fleabag's not portrayed as someone who's insanely gorgeous, just someone who's attractive enough to get it on with men in her own age group. And she is.

Seriously, your denial about this makes me wonder if you know any straight men.

Or to put it in British terms--does anyone think Camilla Parker-Bowles was prettier than Diana? But we all know which woman Charles preferred.

R86, I have to agree it sounds like you don't know many straight men.

I think it's incel MRA male-to-trans who hate her for being tall, big boned, not a caricature of femininity and still obviously, undeniably female. And she's wildly successful and created a female character who gets laid when she wants to. She's everything the right wing / transgenda hate in a women.

I love the show and Phoebe.

Fleabag? More like shitbag

R112, I'm not sure why you feel the need to bash trans people in a thread that isn't about them at all. Or link them to right wingers, when the right is passing laws to discriminate against them

[quote] she doesn't have a double chin

R110, the way she cackles - she does have a double-chin. As someone already noted above, she’s a regular-looking person but she has very cringy facial expressions even when she’s off-camera. And the poster above trying to describe her as some kind of "aristocratic-look" painting is hilarious - she has a double-barrelled surname but she looks more like some simple frau from the Midwest.

[quote] Fleabag's not portrayed as someone who's insanely gorgeous, just someone who's attractive enough to get it on with men in her own age group. And she is. Seriously, your denial about this makes me wonder if you know any straight men. Or to put it in British terms--does anyone think Camilla Parker-Bowles was prettier than Diana? But we all know which woman Charles preferred.

You’re arguing with yourself, R110 (and that goes for you too, R111). “Your denial of this makes me we wonder if you” lack reading comprehension or know how to follow threads. No one said she’s too ugly for sex with FELLOW mediocre- or ugly-looking people - but that she’s too MATRON-like to be a ‘magnet’ for BEAUTIFUL, FIT straight guys. And those are the only straight guys that DL cares about - not the Seth Rogens and Steve Buscemis of this world. Could Fleabag pull a Gerard Depardieu or Philip Seymour Hoffman? Sure. Could she pull a Jensen Ackles? Highly unlikely.

Or to put it in trans-Atlantic terms: she might be a draw for the funny-looking (British) Chris Evans, but unlikely for the handsome, fit (American) Chris Evans.

Also, the ugly crackpot millionaire Charles Mountbatten-Windsor is your example of a normal British straight guy??? Seriously? Everyone knows he has MOMMY PROBLEMS (because he’s a spoiled “Royal”). Diana Spencer refused to coddle him (as she was a mentally unstable NUTJOB herself), so he went and fucked his wetnurse-type Parker-Bowles (who tucks him into bed). For pete’s sake, Charles TALKS to his plants and told reporters his plants talk back to him! He said that he lies prostrated for hours on the ground in his garden-greenhouse in order to avoid talking with his neighbours who might be passing by, lol. He’s a delicate-flower CRACKPOT.

I don’t get Fleabag either. All that mugging to camera is arch and smug. She is unbearably arch and smug in all interviews and acceptance speeches. Just not funny. But she's a good writer if Killing Eve is anything to go by. So glad she doesn’t appear in it and proper actors do.

[quote] a female character who gets laid when she wants to.

Off-topic, but getting "laid" is not a prize in itself. Almost everyone (male or female) can get a DICK shoved into them 365 days a year - as long as you're willing to lower your standards. E.g. Lens Dunham can get fucked every night - as long as she's willing to sometimes take it up the ass from 50-y.o. men or guys with stinky breath who never shower or clean their balls. A dweebish guy who looks like Woody Allen can also stick his cock into a human orifice 365 days a year - as long as he's willing to sometimes close his eyes and settle for some huge-schnozzled girl or guy with cystic acne all over their face.

[quote] I am actually surprised that American audiences have taken to it, as it's super British in it's humour.

Well whoopty fuckimg do.

After all, the nation that gave us Benny Hill is deals with humour exquisitely difficult to understand.

R117 American Chris Evans is dating (or used to date) Jenny Slate IRL (and I remember that only because of DL griping about him being too hot for her). Is it another case of DL to impose some celebrities’ standards of dating?

^ It reminds me of the whole ‘No way Lena Dunham’s character in Girls could pull someone as hot as Adam Driver’ argument when Adam Driver does in fact look borderline malformed.

Breaking the fourth wall has been done to death; it's lazy writing at this point. Let the joke land - don't rely on pulling a face to the audience to get a laugh.

R121, wiki says the following about Evans and Slate: "she began dating her Gifted co-star Chris Evans in 2016. After an off and on relationship lasting a few months... ". So with an "on-off "relationship" lasting a few months" - how exactly do you know they were even fucking? It seems Evans liked Slate more as a person than as a potential sex partner. In their interviews, they basically friend-zoned each other. Evans' brother described Slater not as his brother's girlfriend, but as their "favorite Jew". Wow, what a compliment, eyeroll. Evans almost never complimented her beauty and hardly showed any physical affection for her. But with his other (more beautiful) dates (like Minka Kelly) he seemed far more sexually interested.

I think what drew Evans and Slater together was more this: Slater said "we grew up about a half hour away from each other".

*Slate, that is

R124 I never claimed that I knew if they fucked and sure as hell I didn’t consult wiki to check who Chris Evans was dating and when. The only place where I ever read about his dating history is here on DL, and it was exactly ‘can’t believe he’s dating her, she’s soo ugly’ hissing. Here’s an example, although I think that what I read was an earlier thread (can’t find it now).

The point is, straight men date/fuck/marry all kinds of women, and DL will always find something to complain about: either they are ugly or they are beards (which was said about Minka Kelly btw).

No, the point is that DL doesn't give a heck about simply "straight guys" (half of which have "faces for the radio") - DL cares about "BEAUTIFUL straight guys" - that's an important qualifier. DL doesn't care about the Mike Myers of this world. If a meh-looking "straight guy" like Jack Black hits on you - who cares, nothing to write home about. There's an ocean of difference between simply "straight men" (which includes the DESPERADO uggos and the mediocre ones) VS. "beautiful straight men".

And the vast majority of "beautiful straight guys" prefer to chase beautiful females for sex. There are some exceptions but they're RARE. That's just how the world works, it's a predominant tendency. I've managed an A&F store in London - the vast majority of the hot male models ("greeters") had more or less stunning girlfriends. A rare few had funny-looking girls - who were either rich daddy's girls (free Zone 1 real estate for the guys who were gold-diggers) or acted like total doormats for their more beautiful male partners and kept looking the other way whenever their hot boyfriends "heard nature's call" and hit on the more stunning girls at parties. But NONE of them settled for a Lena Dunham or a big-nosed, Gorbachev-moled Fleabag.

As for Kelly - well, if she were a beard then so was Slate.

*half of whom

I feel like I’m pointing the obvious, but of course A&F model types would go for equally good looking girls, since they only have functioning first signal system and visual stimuli is all they get. And of course an A&F store greeter would be the pinnacle of their careers since it is unlikely that they have much going on upstairs. It is doubtful that PWB has her sights set on A&F greeter kind of guys though, considering that she’s currently dating an Oscar-winning playwright.

R123, I think the reason Fleabag is so refreshing is that the breaking fourth was has been done to death. Unlike most, the program asks what the breaking is about--what it means. That allows it to wring a few changes on the convention (notably with the therapist and the priest.) And ultimately the main character decides to stop breaking the fourth wall.

The overused convention actually goes somewhere in this iteration.

What is an A and F greeter? Whatever it is, it doesn’t sound rich or smart. Those things are factors, too. Only very young vapid people care only about looks, which have a short shelf life.

Do people here really think that meetings for sexual compulsives are packed with extremely attractive people who look like they've just walked out of a Hollywood casting? Maybe on some show like "Nip/Tuck" but not in real world. The character of Fleabag was a portrayal of a very fucked up woman going against her better judgment at every turn and using sex as a temporary upper. Have you never met people like her in real life? Both in real life and on the show, she comes from a well-to-do family and, at least on the surface, is more of a "girlfriend material" than some chavvy bleached blonde slapper in a mini skirt. A lot of straight guys (if you happen to know any) are really turned on by sexually direct and aggressive women, as much as they don't like to admit it. If a girl openly tells them that she's up for anal, they are not going to say: "Hmmm, she is not exactly a supermodel level, so I'm going to take a pass since I'm waiting for that elusive call from Giselle Bundchen"

I love how this thread has devolved into a debate over how ugly this woman is and how unrealistic it is for her to nab hot straight men. Whoever said this sounds like trolls from other sites is on crack. This stuff is the lifeblood of DL!

The thread devolved into this when the delusional fraus started talking their usual nonsense: ‘My pussy juice is [/italic]irresistible[/italic]! Straight guys are so simple! Straight guys will eat out any girl!’. All you Tumblrinas need to put down your 50 Shades fanfic and take a cold shower: the mediocre & fug ones will - the hot ones (the only ones that matter on this site ;) have better options and tend to gravitate more towards the pretty females.

If straight guys had been automatic, BLIND sex-robots - then there wouldn’t be any lonely women in this world. But there are. Many. Weeping into their pillows and asking their 4 cats: “Why doesn’t he notice me? Why???? Why is he with that pretty cheerleader???”. Because any straight guy who’s at least moderately handsome has his standards. The ugly, old and ‘meh’ ones have no or few standards - they’ll be happy with anything that rolls their way. But many girls don’t want the fug ones - they want the hotter ones. But the hot ones know they can do better. Ah, the irony.

[quote] What is an A and F greeter? Whatever it is, it doesn’t sound rich or smart. Those things are factors, too.

R132, the debate was about sexual desirability. Not marriage. People marry for all kinds of practical reasons (including convenience) - but they fuck for sexual appeal and beauty.

[quote] Only very young vapid people care only about looks, which have a short shelf life.

Sure, which is why so many highly intelligent OLD famous men (philosophers, statesmen, etc) chased after young pretty girls and youths, right?

“Brains & soul” can have a short “shelf-life” too, btw. You might marry someone *thinking* they’re smart and a loyal “soulmate” - and later it can turn out that person is actually a secret moron and a cheat :). Another person’s “brain and soul” aren’t exactly transparent and can equally be a short-lived mirage. Which is why divorce rates are through the roof.

[R133] Is right. Don’t any of you know average horny straight women? If they are direct they get the dick. Sorry, but I’ve seen it with my own eyes. The men would prefer someone prettier but they take what they can get at that lonely hour. This is not to say that two kids and a white picket fence are anywhere in the cards.

[quote] Do people here really think that meetings for sexual compulsives are packed with extremely attractive people who look like they've just walked out of a Hollywood casting? Maybe on some show like "Nip/Tuck" but not in real world. The character of Fleabag …

The character of Fleabag is a Londoner, R133. In London, yes, most clubs have a fair number of very attractive young people. Because this is how many clubs, especially London ones, operate: they try to get beautiful girls in, which like honey attracts all the straight guys (both the fuglies and the handsome ones).

The secret policy for A&F model-employees was as follows: popular clubs like Maddox, etc gave the pretty store-assistant girls (and even the handsome store-assistant guys) free invites (free bottles of drinks, free tables (which are quite expensive in London), free entry - no door-fee and an exclusive right to skip the long queue outside the club). Obviously all the girls and guys would go - because why turn down a free drink at popular clubs.

[quote] A lot of straight guys (if you happen to know any) are really turned on by sexually direct and aggressive women, as much as they don't like to admit it. If a girl openly tells them that she's up for anal…

Uh-huh. And that’s why all it takes for e.g. Melissa McCarthy to bag a hot guy is some “direct sexual aggression” and an offer of "anal", eh? And the whole club is going to drop everything and follow her like the Pied Piper, right? :)

And why would a straight girl come up to a guy and offer up “anal”? The vast majority of straight females don’t seem to enjoy or even want anal - they don’t have a prostate, the anal canal is not an erogenous zone for them. So this offer generally means the female agrees to do something to her detriment just to convince a guy to touch her (which reeks of desperation).

The one nuance is that a significant number of straight guys do seem to get off at humiliating and half-abusing their sex partners. Which is a scenario truthfully somewhat explored in Lena Dunham’s “Girls” (I give Lens credit for that). So, sure, if Dunham comes up to a guy outside her league & promises to be his servile doormat and obedient cumdump sex-slave: “You can spit at me, slap me, hit me across the face with your dick - and I’ll just purr and scream how “big and strong you are” in return” - I bet most of the club would agree to gang-bang Dunham. As long as you’re willing to pathetically humiliate yourself for a straight guy’s ego - sure, he might agree to shove his cock down your throat. Not necessarily because he’s attracted to you, but b/c it’s a power-trip & ego-boost for himself. But as Lens noted: such a desperate approach can leave one humiliated and gutted afterwards (because someone used you not as a human sex partner, i.e. without caring if you have a good time - but basically as a nameless orifice, a generic “hole” for their Saturday cumdump).

As for Giselle - Hollywood and the Fashion World do not have a monopoly on beautiful people. In fact, there are quite many very pretty girls dispersed everywhere - in schools, in universities, in shops, in restaurants, in offices.

r134 you sound drunk. The trolls were all in the first part of the thread.

My question to the "attractive straight men only want attractive partners" ranter is...do you really think all the guys on the show were even all that attractive?? There were a couple who were maybe above average, but mostly they seemed like fairly appropriately matched one or two night stands for Fleabag. The most attractive one literally only fucked her because he was obsessed with small breasts.

R141, that was NOT the point of contention, read the thread. It was this eyeroll-inducing Frauishness upthread:

[quote] in REAL-LIFE terms, she'd had NO PROBLEM shagging A LOT of men!

[quote] And MOST MEN won’t turn down ANY girl who’s offering it up. Sometimes EVEN if she’s butt-ugly!

These fraus are delusional. They got so high and emboldened watching this silly show that they now think “most men” are clinically blind and get obediently rock-hard at the mere whiff of their 4-day pussy cottage cheese. And you actually support my point. The type that Fleabags generally pull are mostly either fellow mediocres or fuglies.

PWB descends from landed gentry so her snobbery is not all in her head. She's obnoxious, full of her own undeserved hype and unfunny. The British Lena Dunham.

R142, You really can't stand the idea of this tall woman who's not perfectly beautiful managing crappy one-night stands. Because to most women that's what they are--crappy one-night stands. This might be your idea of heaven, but it's not that of most women, so that limits the pool right there.

And, yeah, not sure why you think Fleabag's shagging gorgeous men. She's not.

Candace Bushnell, of all people, has an interesting chapter about men and their relationships with not-beautiful girls in the original Sex and the City. The guys talk about why they do it--less pressure to perform, the girls are more open sexually and more interesting as people--but, at the same tie, they keep the relationships on the down-low. Read it and learn. There's more to straight relationships than who goes shopping at some store.

[quote] Read it and learn.

R144, you really lack reading comprehension skills and you can’t even follow threads. You didn’t understand what the debate was about and instead just proclamated into a vacuum.

“Most men won’t turn down ANY girl” - THAT was the point of contention. Since you’re ok with that post and disagreeing with mine - you are delusional, dear.

And the only thing to “learn” from Candace Bushnell is how to become rich by peddling cheap fantasies to desperate Fraus. Look at her protagonist Carrie - total desperate doormat to her rich boyfriend. He kept pushing her around like stale leftovers, left her at the altar, etc - and she’s still begging for his cum and stroking his ego by calling him “Mr Big”. How “romantic” and “empowering”, lol.

[quote] an interesting chapter about men and their relationships with not-beautiful girls in the original Sex and the City. The guys talk about why they do it--less pressure to perform

Suuure, because straight guys spend their weekends biting their nails & clutching their pearls about how they “perform”, LOL. They don’t give a heck! In fact, most straight guys have OVER-inflated egos - they think they’re the best thing since sliced bread :). And many females seem to foolishly enable them in this - because they admit they FAKE-moan: “oh, you’re so big! you’re so good!”. With those kinds of (unctuous, servile) platitudes falling their way since college - of course many straight guys think they’re walking Sex Gods.

[quote] the girls are more open sexually

And why do you think beautiful girls are ‘less’ “open sexually”? You think pretty females are 'more' frigid? Don’t make me laugh. What you meant is probably this: less beautiful girls tend to be more desperate and are therefore more willing to agree to anything to SERVE the guy. Anal? Sure! Double-penetration? Sure! Fucking bareback without a condom? Sure!

This is the same reason why many European guys like fucking Asian girls - not necessarily because they find Asians so much more “beautiful” or "sexually desirable" than Italians or Swedes, but because many Asian females act like total SUBSERVIENT sex-slaves for a white straight guy and are willing to do things they might not even personally like, just to pander to the white guy & convince him to stay.

R145&R146 and the rest (over 20) of your replies in the thread: you clearly have no idea what the debate is about

[quote] There’s a scene where the main character (can’t even be bothered to remember her name)

It shows that you haven’t even watched the series in question, otherwise you would have known that the main character does NOT have a name, and neither do most of other characters (the father, the stepmother, the priest, etc).

Wannabe Hall Monitress @ R147 has no idea how DL threads work: posters upthread started screeching about "MRAs" and how straight guys are lapdogs for "any" female pussy-juice and other banal Frau-fantasy talking points. I was debating with THEM. So that IS the sub-debate. Any post in a thread is open to debate. You're replying to me and I was replying to THEM. No one's making you take part in this - if you don't like it, reply to the OP instead.

And I did watch Season 2 while I was ironing. Because it was hailed as 'better' than Season 1. Except it was an Emo self-pity cringefest. Punchlines like "Hair is Everything!" are just trite and not funny. I supposed she might have been named in Season 1 but I couldn't stomach watching another season of this self-indulgent posh mess.

R148 nice try, but in your very first comment on this thread you said

[quote] There’s a scene where the main character (can’t even be bothered to remember her name) waitresses at an event and drinks all the champagne left in glasses after multiple guests drank from it.

She was relegated to waitressing at the sexhibition by her stepmother, and it happened in the final episode of season one, so apparently you watched season one as well. Although it seems likely that you suffer from some kind of visual perception skills impairment, otherwise you would have noticed that in the scene that you referenced she doesn’t drink the leftover champagne but pours it from the bottle!

And clearly your reading comprehension skills are affected as well, since nobody besides you tried to argue that Fleabag is shagging ‘gorgeous’ men - everyone else was pointing out she’s promiscuous and uses sex with random guys to fill the void in her empty heart (to use her own words). You, on the other hand, for some reason invoked your multiple straight female friends (most likely, imaginary) ”throwing themselves at guys only to be ignored,” attacked PWB’s looks, said she could never get someone as hot as Chris Evans - and when it was pointed out that Evans used to date quite homely Jenny Slate, you started foaming at the mouth but continued to argue with voices in your head.

Waller-Bridge Fangurl @ R149, not only can you not read or follow threads - but now you also lack MEMORY skills and LOGIC skills :). Ok, let’s go through your bizarre rant:

[quote] Although it seems likely that you suffer from some kind of visual perception skills impairment, otherwise you would have noticed that in the scene that you referenced she doesn’t drink the leftover champagne but pours it from the bottle!

NO, she does NOT. Do you have a black hole / sieve for a memory? Ca. 12 minutes into the episode (I checked again), Olivia Coleman’s stepmom character hands Fleabag a tray of USED, half-emptied champagne flutes. Fleabag takes the guests’ glasses, goes into the back room and IMMEDIATELY DOWNS the left-overs. Then she tops them up, drinks some more and goes back into the main reception and later starts throwing glasses on the floor like a spoiled teenager throwing an infantile tantrum - expecting the ‘less posh’ waiting staff to clean up her mess. I can’t find a free video link, but here’s a recap from a fan site:

[quote] “Flea's reached her breaking point, really good-looking rebound guy just dumped her BEFORE her ex and new girlfriend could see, having to stare at a likeness of her dad's erect genitilia, her sister acting weird: she takes that tray of glasses into the back and drinks them all, one after the other.”

[quote] She was relegated to waitressing … final episode of season one, so apparently you WATCHED season ONE as well.

Your logic skills are abysmal. I did NOT watch Season 1 - I watched Season 2 and caught re-hash promos & glimpses of the preceding episode (which included the champagne tantrum scene).

[quote] clearly your reading comprehension skills are affected as well, since nobody besides you tried to argue that Fleabag is shagging ‘gorgeous’ men

*Facepalm* Where did *I* “argue that Fleabag is shagging gorgeous men”, crazy fangurl @ R149? Show me. Go on, show me. In one of my very first comments I wrote: “Lol. The ugly and mediocre men will. The beautiful and rich men won’t.” But of course this simple statement is apparently too complex for your sieve-brain to understand or remember.

[quote] everyone else was pointing out … You, on the other hand … attacked PWB’s looks

Saying that she is a “regular-looking” female who has cringy facial expressions - is “attacking” PWB now? You really are a “special”, easily-triggered snowflake, R149. Btw, quit pretending to be a mouth-piece for “everyone” here - there were plenty who called Waller-Bridge “ugly” on this thread, and I wasn't the one who wrote she's "fug".

[quote] said she could never get someone as hot as Chris Evans - and when it was pointed out that Evans used to date quite homely Jenny Slate

PWB is dating a gap-toothed, half-balding guy who is 15 years older than her. Trend as old as time - most females in La La Land settle for guys at least a decade older than them. So, no, she could not get Chris Evans. And Evans never called Slate his “girlfriend” or even short-term partner - the fact that they went on a few DATES says what exactly? I went on a few dates with people who I thought were "nice and all" but who I realised I didn’t really find that sexually attractive - and so nothing came of it, we friend-zoned each other. And that's apparently what happened with Evans and Slate. But of course the desperate fangurls on Tumblr and the Daily Fail immediately started spinning fanfics about them, as if they had some kind of "torrid love affair" - there's ZERO proof their few dates amounted to this, and even Evans doesn't talk about Slate that way, but more as a really good "nice" friend and fellow Massachusetts person.

R150, Why don't you read the SATC chapter if you want to know the wheres and whys of how those guys act? It's in there and you could stand to learn a few things.

Though you're so caught up in your fantasy about how straight relations work that I doubt much will get in there. But that's okay, straight people will continue to do their thing and you'll continue to make clueless remarks.

r151 you realize that Sex and the City book was a fictional novel, correct?

Jesus Christ, 152 replies and counting?

I'm sorry but you bitches sound jeaaaaaaalous.

R152, No, it was actually a compilation of columns that Bushnell wrote for The Observer. They were popular, in part, because readers liked to try and figure who the various people were. Mr. Big, for example, was the publisher of Vogue.

Bushnell's not a good novelist, which is probably one of the reasons SATC was her one big book.

r154 yes. They were fictionalized accounts.

R150, anyone who tells people to “learn things” about straight guys from Candace freakin’ Bushnell or any “interviews” that she conducted needs to have their head checked.

Ironically, even Bushnell herself doesn’t seem to understand straight guys or straight relationships. Her personal life is a mess. She immediately jumped into a marriage only 8 WEEKS after meeting someone (gee, what could go wrong!). Now she’s in her 60s, jaded, predictably divorced after her husband cheated on her with a girl 30 years younger than her, regrets not having kids, complains that she finds Tinder & modern dating & modern NYC life disappointing, and admits she was “full of herself” when younger. Gee, what a seminal ‘fountain of wisdom’, eyeroll.

As for the "interviews", the extent of them seems as follows. Vice: "Bushnell [got] a room full of finance and media and marketing and fashion guys together to talk about THREESOMES, and female executives from each of New York’s power industries to discuss how to get married after 40. This was echoed in the beginnings of the show in “on the street” interviews with strangers speaking to the camera". Wow, what a great method - let's get a room of generally alpha-type, coke-head Manhattanite executives all together and let them brag in front of each other about their real or made-up threesomes for kudos points. Pffft.

^R151, that is

R150, The discussion about threesomes is a different column, not the one where two guys, anonymously, talk about sleeping with women they don't think of as beautiful. Bushnell's own mess of a personal life has nothing to do with the original point--which is whether Phoebe W-B is attractive enough to play a promiscuous woman who sleeps with men in her own age group.

She is--you seem to be the only one who can't deal with that. But that's okay--if you need to believe you know all there is to know from working as a store clerk, so be it.

[quote] the original point--which is whether Phoebe W-B is attractive enough to play a promiscuous woman who sleeps with men in her own age group … you seem to be the only one who can't deal with that.

Your strawmanning is becoming [italic]pathetic[/italic], R158. Or maybe you’re just chronically dense. That was never the “original point” - it wasn’t the OP’s original point, and it wasn’t even the original point of the sub-debate that I replied to. It’s an “original point” only in your delirious brain. THIS was the “original point” that I replied to with my second comment:

[quote] “And most men won’t turn down ANY girl who’s offering it up. Sometimes EVEN if she’s BUTT-UGLY.”

But of course me saying that that’s ridiculous and that straight guys are not as BLIND and hard-of-hearing as you think, and that the cackling, big-moled Fleabags of this world are usually only ‘sexually attractive’ for the mediocres and the fuglies (who DL does NOT give a heck about) - triggered and upset a lot of fat fraus here, with their “my unwashed, loose pussy is wanted by MOST men” on this Earth, Twilight-type fantasies.

And here you are, ignoring the original point of the sub-debate, and just repeating your own “PWB-fangurl” platitudes in an echo-chamber: that ‘PWB looks soooo aristocratic!’ (lol, sure, Jan - she grimaces like a typical Midwestern frau) and that ‘PWB is attractive enough to sleep with “men in her own age group” ‘. What kind of ridiculous substitute-strawman argument is this? “Men in her own age group” is such a hilarious cop-out and illogical break from the debate. If a Fleabag-type finds e.g. 2 mediocre or even UGLY guys (out of her entire “own age group”) who agree to touch her - that does NOT support the original claim that “most men” want to fuck her.

Even a dweebish guy who looks like Woody Allen (minus the wealth & status) is ‘attractive enough’ to sleep with people “in his own age group” - because there will always be someone (but usually ugly or mediocre-looking) who will drop trousers for him. The original point of debate was whether ‘men in general want to screw a Fleabag-type’s vulva’. And my reply was - excluding generally the handsome and athletic ones who are actually of interest to DL. “But you can’t seem to deal with that”, lol.

[quote] The discussion about threesomes is a different column, not the one where 2 guys, anonymously, talk about sleeping with women they don't think of as beautiful. Bushnell's own mess of a personal life has nothing to do with the original point … you need to believe you know all there is to know from working as a store clerk, so be it.

Lol, 2 guys representing what exactly, R158. Did she go interview coke-sniffing Manhattan execs again who might be ugly and short themselves and therefore are paranoid about their “performance”? Wow, such an empirically rigorous approach clearly makes Bushnell an expert , lol. Sure, my years managing a whole store of guys and supervising them on their nights out (not who they philosophise they might stick their cocks in, but the type of girls they can actually be seen chasing and drooling over) is clearly inferior to Bushnell’s “wisdom”, lol.

And Bushnell didn’t seem to “learn” anything from her eyeroll-inducing columns herself. So her personal life [italic]is[/italic] relevant - why should I “learn” from her if she doesn’t even seem to understand anything herself.

R159 You are tedious. What does Chris Evans have to do then with your opinion that attractive STRAIGHT men wouldn’t be interested in fucking Fleabag? Why bring him up?

Does Fleabag's pussy stink?

R161, for the same reason people upthread sporadically brought up Margot Robbie, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, Candace Bushnell, Lena Dunham, Sarah Jessica Parker, Adam Driver and blah blah blah. For comparisons.

And you’re the one making people “tedious”. Because you ask silly questions and fail to grasp basic conversation - over and over, making people repeat themselves for you.

Chris Evans (as a physical type) was brought up as a wakeup call to the fantasising fraus on this thread: they guys who agree to fuck “any girl” are the British Chris Evans types, not guys who look like the US Chris Evans. So saying eyeroll-inducing things like “MOST MEN will fuck any girl” like blind poodles is just facepalm-worthy. If that were true, Lens Dunham and PWB could just waltz into any club, bend over presenting hole and leave with “most” of the guys marathon-running after them like headless chickens tripping over themselves (as if they were the LAST 2 surviving females on the planet and the guys had absolutely no other prettier females in the world to choose from).

R143, a British Lena Dunham is a perfect description for her. I knew she was from a weak off family and that didn’t bother me but I lost all respect for her when I nd out that she Kickstartered the original Fleabag play.

Nothing about the show is particularly groundbreaking or original, it’s just funny and she’s a good writer.

She is the product of the middle class closed shop at the BBC Comedy Department. People are given opportunities because of who they know, and get training and development to produce their own shows, usually beginning on radio. They then move on to TV, and are hyped up even if they are totally unfunny, because of the money already invested in their careers. BBC comedy is mostly dire.

Given that most DLers tastes run to 70s and 80s sitcoms like Golden Girls, Fleabag is definitely not something I'd recommend for them. I thought it was very funny, but would be shocked if many DLers liked it

As for Bushnell, have you all ever read any of her original SATC columns? They were so sad, she was hanging out with all these people she clearly couldn't stand and the only reason she seemed to want to hang out with them was because they were rich. Or rich-ish, TBH.

It would have been one thing if they were family members or people she needed to socialize with for work, but the overall vibe was just that she was pathetic and the easy solution to her great unhappiness was to find different friends, people she actually, you know, liked.

R165, like there isn't a ton of nepotism everywhere else

R166, I think you really hit what was missing for me in the TV show. The columns were very funny and very sad. I thought Bushnell was a sophisicated writer who made herself an unreliable narrator.

Later it became clear that she was just lacking in self-knowledge.

The season where Carrie fucked the married Big and tried to keep thinking of herself as a "nice" person, facing the cold anger of the woman whose marriage she destroyed, came close in tone to the original. That was compelling and exciting to watch. Then they went back to fun and games and so I never had to watch it again.

I thought Bushnell was a terrible writer, but she did capture the 90s pretty accurately. The beginning of women saying, oh screw it, I’m just going out to get laid, and men being more open about just wanting sex and nothing more.

R165, that makes perfect sense. It seems like Brit tv personalities are “selected” by some unseen committee and then almost “allowed” to succeed. The last few years of rampant nepotism and cronyism have killed a lot of opportunities that should have gone to more deserving people, looking at you, Brooklyn Decker and Chet Haze.

Nope. Got through half an ep and was done.

R168, Yep, Bushnell started out trying to seem edgy and aware as a columnist, which is why I brought up one of her early columns, but she, herself, bought into more of it than she admitted. She both wanted to make it as a writer and marry money. She then had the financial success and did that "Oh, crap, I'm over 40" marriage to a ballet dancer. If you can't marry money, marry hot, I guess.

Never could stand the television show. There was something sort of real and raw in some of the columns, but the television show seemed to veer between wish-fulfillment and humiliating the main characters.

As for PWB--she seems a lot more disciplined than Lena Dunham and more talented than Bushnell. She doesn't have to write herself into every script. I think she's closer to Rachel Bloom. Both are solid performers who have the chops to continuing working behind-the-scenes long-term.

Agree with both of you R171 and R168, but what I never got--and I re-read the columns once I was older too--was why she felt that she had to hang out with such shallow losers especially when it became clear that she had nothing but contempt for them. It was like she couldn't figure out how to meet people if they didn't hang out at Soho House or whatever trendy club/bar she was heading out to. And the reality is that the vast majority of the people she was looking to meet avoid places like that.

The Observer had a similar male columnist a few years back, some Jewish ad guy, (forget his name) who also hung out with rich toffs on the UES whom he really did not seem to like but felt compelled to pal around with.

In both cases, it seemed like the easy solution was "so don't hang out with them. Make new friends you actually like."

r172 they're writers, they do things for experiences. Clearly she saw a goldmine of material for her writing.

It was way more than that though R173

She was very invested in these people, it wasn't like she just went to a party for the experience and wrote about it.

R172, Because she was a social climber. Was smart enough to know that there are issues with that, but not smart enough to really step back from that. She's not a liberal and I don't get the sense that she was very interested in people who weren't fellow strivers or already-arriveds.

People criticized SATC for being very white, but that's actually a pretty accurate portrayal of that milieu at that time. You could now throw in some rich Indians and East Asians.

I loved it and started the first thread in DL about it. It’s about how one feels in different situations in response to things contemporary life throws at you, and in response to one’s memories. The part haunts while the present batters.

Was discussing Fleabag today with some people from London, who said they didn’t expect anyone from outside the UK to appreciate it as it portrays typical British neuroticism and dysfunctional family dynamics (case in point: the BRF). Juicy bit: one of them is friends with someone who went to school with PWB and says that Fleabag is largely autobiographical (although obviously exaggerated), and that Phoebe used to have a relationship with a much older vicar when in high school.

BRF?

British Royal Family, R178

r177 I'm not sure the British Royal Family is "typical British neuroticism and dysfunctional family dynamics". In fact they are atypical, given that they are incredibly wealthy and powerful.

R177, not surprised, somehow. A female friend of mine said her sex life in her 20s was uncomfortably similar to Fleabag's--I don't know that you'd write and portray that particular kind of character as your big breakthrough gambit unless you had some sort of connection to it.

Talked into my remote, said Fleabag, Amazon came up and said watch episode 1 and I ended up watching all 6 episodes and laughed out loud with each of the six episodes. Go to IMBD a to look at stuff on it and realize I had just watched Season 2. Damn, there was no mention which season, I assumed it started with 1, thanks Amazon.

You don't miss much by starting with S2. I started with S2 because I'm an Andrew Scott fan and thought the series was so wonderful, that I knocked out S1 in one go.

Waller-Bridge started this as a one-woman stage show for herself. She was talked into doing one season (and who would refuse because the money and publicity were excellent). Season 1 runs very close to the stage show. It was well received and she was asked to do Season2. She really didn't want to do a Season 2, but agreed and decided to write an ending that would close the door and not give room for a Season 3. She kept control of the character and didn't allow the producers to dictate to her what the show should be.

I loved it!

R182 here, started watching season 1 after all of 2 and it's like two different shows. Quirky but very dry and very little laughs where two was genuinely the funniest thing I have seen in years.

She's one funny looking broad.

Why are people saying that? I think she is lovely.

What a relief. I thought I was alone in this.

I am just now streaming this. What a let-down. It must be the unfunniest sitcom ever, which is surprising, because I love Brit comedies, and there have been some brilliant ones in the past. The character is really, on this show and in real life, the English Lena Dunham, though nowhere as gross and unattractive. She's a generic type of English woman, looks-wise. Big horsey teeth. I fast-forward the constant sex scenes, no desire to see that at all.

Are you streaming season 1 or season 2? Try season 2, it’s more appealing to general tastes.

[quote] ultimately the main character decides to stop breaking the fourth wall.

Which scene was this, out of interest? Anyone got a link?

R192 She does it every last episode of each series.

R192 she does it in the last 10 seconds or so of the second season.

Season 1 is a less annoying version of Girls. With a less annoying Lens.

Season 2 is glorious.

She does get some hot guys. Harry, and the guy who almost cries from joy because he fucked her in the ass.

This past weekend Amazon Prime (and some service in the UK) had a film of the original stage show. $5 was the rental fee and it was a covid-19 fundraiser.

Very interesting to see its start as a play.

Shitbag

I watched all of S1 in one go, and have started on S2. That shit-talking priest is very off-putting.

I’d rather watch a sparrow devour a big pile of cow flop!

just got through the whole series, and my opinion s even lower than before. The "love affair" with the rogue Catholic priest was especially vile, as was the character of the American brother-in-law. Not a likable character in the lot, although Fleabag was less obnoxious in S2.

What a weird set of criteria.

Not a likeable character? This is a comedy, so who cares? Most comedies are about people doing things that are unacceptable on some level. Actually, all drama is. You write off all of Greek drama, most of Shakespeare, all Restoration Comedy, Gilbert and Sullivan, Wilde, etc if that is a standard.

And you had the priest, who is one of the few portraits any television program has given of a genuinely good person who is not namby-pamby, but truly concerned about the welfare of others and his relationship with god. Instead of being held up for ridicule, Fleabag makes virtue interesting and engaging.

R200 would have a heart attack if he watched It Is Always Sunny in Philiadelphia.

Quite aside from any other criteria, a comedy is supposed to be funny.

I think you put you finger on why the show has been so successful, R203.

It is just plain funny.

And the humor seems to cut across demographics.

I have been surprised what a weird variety of people I have heard repeating the best jokes over the last year. It is not my kind of show either, but there just are not that many shows that make you laugh out loud--so I had to watch to the end.

I have a good sense of humour and have even written comedy but did not find a single clever or amusing thing in this. Share one?

So, did anyone watch the broadcast version of the stage play? Is it worth it/interesting enough to spend $5?

The show is trash done by smart people. That's why it's genius and critically acclaimed.

Personally I liked Chewing Gum better. But then the leading character was more likable.

I think if "clever" is your idea of comedy, then this is not for you. This is not about one-liners and "cleverness" .

I think the stepmother's portrait session (with the main character turned away) was very funny because it so perfectly encapsulated the relationships between the three characters.

But if you are looking for "cleverness" I can see how you might not find that funny.

Has the word "clever" been used anywhere outside children's literature since the 1940s?

I love how people talk about how subtle British humour is and that no one else will get it.

Anyway, I like Fleabag, but expected to fall in love with it. The Phoebe Waller-Bridge Is A Genius PR got me and I shouldn't have believed it.

I binged Better Things with Pamela Adlon over Easter and it is everyone I expected to Fleabag to be in terms of the traumas and the messiness and the joys of women's lives. But Adlon doesn't get the genius narrative which is very unfair.

Ha 210! You just named two of my favorite shows.

Fleabag was the best thing I have watched since Mad Men and The Comeback Season 2 in 2014. And the finale, is the best finale of any show I have ever seen (including SFU)

Better Things and Ozark round that out.

Better Things is so completely special- There is no show like it, and it definitely deserves the acclaim that Fleabag got. A truly beautiful show that exudes LOVE. I am not afraid to say it. Pamela Adlon has really done a wonderful job.

Can someone suggest something I would like since Fleabag wasn't my cup of tea? As an example of my tastes, I am finding The Windsors hilarious. But maybe you have to be English to understand it?

From the Wiki page (haven’t seen the show, and the description does not really make it sound alluring): “Better Things is an American comedy-drama television series created by Pamela Adlon and Louis C.K. for FX, starring Adlon as a divorced actress who raises her three daughters on her own. FX gave a 10-episode order on August 7, 2015. The series premiered on September 8, 2016.“

Fleabag: “A dry-witted woman, known only as Fleabag, has no filter as she navigates life and love in London while trying to cope with tragedy. The angry, grief-riddled woman tries to heal while rejecting anyone who tries to help her, but Fleabag continues to keep up her bravado through it all. Comic actress Phoebe Waller-Bridge stars as the titular character on the series, which is based on Waller-Bridge's 2013 one-woman show of the same name.”

Apparently, Better Things is about a Hollywood actress braving single motherhood. Fleabag is about a single childless Londoner coping with the loss of her mother, guilt over the death of her best friend, and deterioration of all other significant relationships in her life. And your point, R210, is... how dare those women not go through the same “traumas and the messiness and the joys in their lives,” or what?

r211 agreed! For me, the Fleabag finale really elevated the whole series. A lot of shows will do a magic realism bit such as with the fox and the fourth wall and almost always fail, but it was carefully crafted. As for 6FU, the finale was indeed great (or at least the last scene with That Song!). It was so brilliant that it made up for how the series lurched from good to great to mediocre to downright awful (I'm looking at you, Lili Taylor) and back again in successive episodes in the last 3 seasons.

[quote]Apparently, Better Things is about a Hollywood actress braving single motherhood.

Nope, r213, but if you choose to base your conclusions on Wiki synopses you get what you deserve. The main character is a voiceover artist and TV day player, there's no "braving" at all and her single motherhood is only significant insofar as she doesn't have a husband with whom to co-parent (or that she has to mother) and she has to take responsibility for everything herself.

I actually only started watching Better Things where I came across an episode set at a Joe Walsh concert of all places where Celia Imrie played her mother and Lucy Davis her best friend. Those bits of casting tickled me.

[quote]And your point, [R210], is... how dare those women not go through the same “traumas and the messiness and the joys in their lives,” or what?

Eh? Talk about projecting. I guess you didn't read the bit where I said I liked Fleabag. It is like Bridget Jones meets the better bits of Girls. On the whole, Bridget Jones was comfort food and Girls didn't delve into the heart of the human psyche, for me anyway, and neither does Fleabag. Fleabag was a lot more sitcomish and farcical rather than character cased than I expected, partially because the main character is the ultimate Cool Girl(™ Gone Girl) who never really looks foolish or makes us doubt she'll turn out all right. Her response to trauma is Filling The Void Of Guilt With Inappropriate Sex and Self-Indulgence, which as far as flaws go, could be a hell of a lot worse and additionally serve to make her look desirable.

[quote] I binged Better Things with Pamela Adlon over Easter and it is everyone I expected to Fleabag to be in terms of the traumas and the messiness and the joys of women's lives.

These are your words, R210/R214. From your description, Pamela Adlon’s character in Better Things still couldn’t be more different from Fleabag; indeed, it seems that the only thing they have in common is that they are both women. Why else would you expect them to have the same traumas etc?

^It’s like saying “I liked Fleabag, but then I watched Little Women, and it is everything I expected Fleabag to be in terms of traumas and messiness and joys of women’s lives.”

[quote]Why else would you expect them to have the same traumas etc?

But I didn't say that, r216. I said that the response I had to Better Things is the response that everyone else in the entire world had, and that I expected to have but didn't, to Fleabag.

R218 Maybe you should reread R210 as it’s not what it says, and besides, I highly doubt that “everyone in the entire world” watched Better Things, or Fleabag for that matter, and had the same response to it.

Oh, I get it r219. You’re an Aspie.

Quality insult, R220.