Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Queer As Folk reboot ordered to series at Peacock, will be set in New Orleans

So it will be full of the BIPOC Trans!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15210 hours ago

the only thing wrong with the other series is that I never bought PIttsburgh as this big gay city

by Anonymousreply 1Last Thursday at 9:06 AM

YAAAAAS! KWEEN AS FOLK!

by Anonymousreply 2Last Thursday at 9:07 AM

This should work out well for them.

by Anonymousreply 3Last Thursday at 9:07 AM

Sad. No imagination whatsoever.

by Anonymousreply 4Last Thursday at 9:13 AM

Then they better update the story lines.

by Anonymousreply 5Last Thursday at 9:19 AM

It will have to be an ALL trans cast. No TERFs, no gays.

by Anonymousreply 6Last Thursday at 10:03 AM

Sort of interesting that the Deadline article totally dissed the US version, just giving it a single line in passing, and featuring photos of UK cast and focusing on the UK version.

It's unclear if the show will have anything to do with the original version other than the title.

Given that the original QAF, which was on-air in the early 00s, reflected a gay world that had not existed for 10 or 20 years at that point, it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

One positive note is that the US version featured a wide range of masculinity/effeminacy that mirrored reality.

by Anonymousreply 7Last Thursday at 10:08 AM

I actually think that its a rights issue, and that they have the rights to reboot the UK version of the show only (and not use any characters created for the US version).

by Anonymousreply 8Last Thursday at 10:11 AM

Can't wait to see how many straight actors they cast in this.

by Anonymousreply 9Last Thursday at 10:13 AM

What does "queer as folk" even mean?

by Anonymousreply 10Last Thursday at 10:16 AM

"Given that the original QAF, which was on-air in the early 00s, reflected a gay world that had not existed for 10 or 20 years at that point"

What the hell are you talking about? That series was extremely accurate - a time capsule of the gay world in the late 90's and early 2000's. Outside of the Pittsburgh location, which was a weird choice, there wasn't hardly anything out of place.

I re-watched the whole 5 seasons last June during Covid and it was a much better show than people give it credit for. I used to criticize it a lot at the time as well - but watching it altogether, it was much better than I remembered.

by Anonymousreply 11Last Thursday at 10:17 AM

It used to mean we live regular lives despite being labeled a “queer”. We’re no different than regular folk. That meaning is lost today.

by Anonymousreply 12Last Thursday at 10:19 AM

Remember when Lee Pace botched his coming out and he had to come out as queer?

LOL!

by Anonymousreply 13Last Thursday at 10:21 AM

R12 - no - it's a British phrase. It's not about gay people at all. It means there's nothing stranger than people.

by Anonymousreply 14Last Thursday at 10:21 AM

I never got adoration for Brian... didn’t think he was the least bit attractive.

by Anonymousreply 15Last Thursday at 10:21 AM

[quote]no - it's a British phrase. It's not about gay people at all. It means there's nothing stranger than people.

Isn’t this basically what I implied?

by Anonymousreply 16Last Thursday at 10:22 AM

Wasn't 'Looking' supposed to be an updated QAF? LGBT audiences always reject these shows.

by Anonymousreply 17Last Thursday at 10:23 AM

I loved the American version of Queer as Folk.

by Anonymousreply 18Last Thursday at 10:24 AM

Gale Harold was extremely beautiful. Chris Potter was pretty hot too. The other guys, not so much.

by Anonymousreply 19Last Thursday at 10:25 AM

Thanks op. I’ll be sure to avoid it all costs.

by Anonymousreply 20Last Thursday at 10:25 AM

R16 - no because it's not about queer people at all. It's not remotely about how queer people live regular lives. That's not where the phrase comes from.

by Anonymousreply 21Last Thursday at 10:26 AM

Will there be an oriental cast member?

by Anonymousreply 22Last Thursday at 10:26 AM

The original Northern English phrase was “There’s nowt as queer as folk” meaning indeed nothing is stranger than people and their many quirks etc. Russell T Davis thought he was being very clever using it as a title. It was known amongst my friends as Queer as Fuck in the U.K.

This reboot is pointless without any of the original characters.

by Anonymousreply 23Last Thursday at 10:26 AM

That makes sense about the rights R8

And R11, that world of mega gay clubs was long gone by the 00s.

IIRC, the US creators even admitted they were basing it on their single days in the 80s

And yes, Gale Harold was indeed beautiful

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 24Last Thursday at 10:27 AM

The US original was also softcore porn.

There were all these fairly hot softcore sex scenes that had nothing to do with the actual plot--more like "and now we cut to Brian getting a blow job in an alley and once we see the O-face, it's back to the bickering lesbians"

by Anonymousreply 25Last Thursday at 10:29 AM

R23 - no, you may be projecting about what Guiliani did to the gay nightlife in NYC in the 90's, but there were still large gay dance clubs in the early 2000's in many cities. I went to them and did the drugs and was up all night.

They were gone within 10 years - but they were still around in 2000. Who knew they wouldn't exist by the next decade?

by Anonymousreply 26Last Thursday at 10:34 AM

[quote]Isn’t this basically what I implied?

No, but thanks for playing.

by Anonymousreply 27Last Thursday at 10:39 AM

[quote]No, but thanks for playing.

Yaaas kween.

by Anonymousreply 28Last Thursday at 10:40 AM

[quote] the only thing wrong with the other series is that I never bought PIttsburgh as this big gay city

The whole point of both the UK and the US version was that gays live in other, smaller, cities than London or New York and moderately attractive people, played by guys like Gale Harold and Aiden Gillen, could be A-Gays with their own entourage holding court in gay clubs being fabulously, and unapologetically, gay.

by Anonymousreply 29Last Thursday at 10:43 AM

I remember wanking to Charlie Hunnam in the true original British QAF, they should cast another hot twink blonde for nostalgia's sake and so I can wank to them.

by Anonymousreply 30Last Thursday at 10:44 AM

Given that the premise of the show and the inciting incident that starts it is a 30 year old hooking up with a 16 year old kid, I wonder what they're thinking.

Don't get me wrong, at 16 I would have been all over Stuart or Brian. But, with all the hoopla these days, I can't imagine the twitter outrage it would cause today.

Not to mention that Nathan grows up to become Charlie Hunnam.

by Anonymousreply 31Last Thursday at 10:44 AM

For further reference, the twink blonde from the American QAF was not hot. We want a Hunnam vibe not a Down's Syndrome vibe.

by Anonymousreply 32Last Thursday at 10:45 AM

I was at a party with Randy Harrison before Queer as Folk, he was so cute. I watched for him.

by Anonymousreply 33Last Thursday at 10:45 AM

Stephen Dunn directed the acclaimed gay movie Closet Monster starring DL fave Connor Jessup:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 34Last Thursday at 10:45 AM

It was nothing but stereotypes, bad acting, and hate speech 20 years ago and it is even worse now.

MANcott Peacock.

by Anonymousreply 35Last Thursday at 10:52 AM

R34 If Connor wasn't already starring in Locke & Key, he'd probably be a good fit for the show. Maybe with Miles too.

by Anonymousreply 36Last Thursday at 10:58 AM

Gale Harold "moderately attractive"? Are you kidding. The man was stunning. He could have had anyone he wanted, anywhere at any time.

by Anonymousreply 37Last Thursday at 10:59 AM

Can’t we have a gay show without any of the following:

-top-down attempts to normalize or legitimize hate speech either in the title or the dialogue

-tr-ns-ANYTHING

-that horrific amusical untz-untz noise

-wypipo

-non-Jews

-open “relationships”

-idiotic pop culture references

by Anonymousreply 38Last Thursday at 10:59 AM

R38 have you been drinking?

by Anonymousreply 39Last Thursday at 11:01 AM

I just wish there will be a hot cast

by Anonymousreply 40Last Thursday at 11:02 AM

R37 - 99% of the time when you ask posters who claim someone like Gale Harold was only "moderately attractive" who they think is hot, the answer is Danny DeVito or "I only like bears" or similar.

A lid for every pot, I guess

by Anonymousreply 41Last Thursday at 11:04 AM

Before I heard of this, I signed up for Peacock premium (they have a special - $10 for four months.) So maybe I'll check it out.

by Anonymousreply 42Last Thursday at 11:06 AM

I wanted Uncle Vic inside me quite deeply.

by Anonymousreply 43Last Thursday at 11:06 AM

Aren't they going to have to massively tone it down to put it on Peacock?

by Anonymousreply 44Last Thursday at 11:08 AM

I loved Cagney, or was it Lacey?

by Anonymousreply 45Last Thursday at 11:11 AM

Even the name of the show is hate speech.

MANcott Peacock!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46Last Thursday at 11:17 AM

For karma, they should cast Meg Foster as nuDebbie.

by Anonymousreply 47Last Thursday at 11:18 AM

They should cancel it and burn every episode of every version of this vile piece of hate speech.

Is there a Peacock tier that allows me to watch the new [italic]Punky Brewster[/italic] reboot but absolutely nothing else?

by Anonymousreply 48Last Thursday at 11:21 AM

[quote]The Peacock series will be set in New Orleans and will follow a diverse group of friends whose lives are transformed in the aftermath of a tragedy.

The tragedy in question: a gender queer trans masc non binary being called Mx Alex goes to a fancy restaurant and the waiting staff don't ask them their pronouns.

Mx Alex is so upset they leave the restaurant in a daze and doesn't see the a dildo being thrown in anger by a trans women of color called FiveOneTen (or Vix to her clients) who has been evicted from her apartment. FiveOneTen was throwing the dildo at her white cishet TERF landlady Karen but the dildo hits Mx Alex on the back of the head and they lose their balance and fall under the wheels of The Rainbow Bus, a Winnebago that goes from town to town performing low cost top surgery, being driven by Dick Turpin, a trans man from Ohio.

Other characters include Miss Keith, a fabulous gay lawyer who sues stores with segregated bathrooms and Noni Chang Rodders, a Vietnamese lesbian desperate to break into the world of lesbian drag.

by Anonymousreply 49Last Thursday at 11:27 AM

Elvis shot TVs over better shows than this.

by Anonymousreply 50Last Thursday at 11:31 AM

"Non-Binary, Gender-Nonconforming as Folx."

by Anonymousreply 51Last Thursday at 11:38 AM

Kweer as Other

by Anonymousreply 52Last Thursday at 11:51 AM

Say gay or say nothing.

by Anonymousreply 53Last Thursday at 12:08 PM

Nobody on either version of this wretched television show was the least bit sexy.

This show set gays back 50 years, now you want to go back another 50?

by Anonymousreply 54Last Thursday at 12:15 PM

[quote]Aren't they going to have to massively tone it down to put it on Peacock?

No. Even Disney+ has R-rated content, and Peacock's biggest-profile original series to date – "Brave New World" – was a pretty hard R in terms of language & violence (but unfortunately sucked).

by Anonymousreply 55Last Thursday at 12:27 PM

Fingers crossed it'll be watchable.

by Anonymousreply 56Last Thursday at 12:33 PM

The original wasn’t, why would this version be?

by Anonymousreply 57Last Thursday at 12:39 PM

[quote]I actually think that its a rights issue, and that they have the rights to reboot the UK version of the show only (and not use any characters created for the US version).

Correct. Showtime owns the rights for the US version, and it's owned by one of NBC's main competitors, Viacom/CBS. (If they had a legit bitch-in-charge at Paramount+ (the network formerly known as CBS All Access), they could likely reboot the American version to compete against the Peacock show.) I'm guessing Russell T Davies still owns IP rights for the title, but nothing else relative to the American reboot (which seems to have zero commonality with the Pittsburgh iteration).

Aftermath of a tragedy in New Orleans ... gee, could it be a hurricane? (Or I guess it could be Phil, the UK version's Ted, who - unlike Ted, who had the same basic storyline - died from an accidental OD after a trick convinced him to try heroin. Does neo-Phil's NOLA counterpart "bring everyone back together"? Or will they go in a more modern direction and have Phil be a trans man who's murdered by Louisiana rednecks? (a la Matthew Shepard)

Btw I'll just hazard a guess that the only reason they're setting – and presumably shooting – it in New Orleans is because the state reinstated its production credits for Hollywood, after losing billions in business to Atlanta over the past decade after eliminating most of the subsidies.

by Anonymousreply 58Last Thursday at 12:42 PM

[quote]"Non-Binary, Gender-Nonconforming as Folx."

[quote]What It Must Be Titled

Even if it isn't the title, it will be the show's focus.

by Anonymousreply 59Last Thursday at 12:44 PM

We need a gay black family sitcom where a black man is married to a black man and all of their children are black.

by Anonymousreply 60Last Thursday at 12:51 PM

I cant wait for all the 'gay' men lusting after the 'gay' FTM/ transmasc character.

by Anonymousreply 61Last Thursday at 1:06 PM

Just for this, I want Punky and Cherie to get married.

by Anonymousreply 62Last Thursday at 2:06 PM

What are you talking about r29?

Manchester is the second biggest city in England and had a big gay nightlife. It made complete sense for the UK version.

However Pittsburgh is not a city with a huge gay nightlife. So it did not make sense as the setting of the US version. It should have been Chicago as a logical American counterpoint.

Did you watch the show? It was gay guys who are part of a big gay club circuit, you need a setting that has that.

by Anonymousreply 63Last Thursday at 2:15 PM

[quote] No. Even Disney+ has R-rated content,

That is why Disney switched Love, Victor to Hulu. It's all about market branding where Disney+ remains more kids friendly. And Star Wars, of course.

by Anonymousreply 64Last Thursday at 2:15 PM

Disney+ does not have any R rated content r55.

by Anonymousreply 65Last Thursday at 2:17 PM

[quote] However Pittsburgh is not a city with a huge gay nightlife. So it did not make sense as the setting of the US version.

[italic]Mr. Belvedere[/italic] was set there. I would rather watch that.

by Anonymousreply 66Last Thursday at 2:17 PM

[quote] What are you talking about [R29]?

[quote] Manchester is the second biggest city in England and had a big gay nightlife. It made complete sense for the UK version.

Maybe nowadays. The UK show was aired in the late 90s.

Link leads to the 2001 consensus which has Manchester at #9.

[quote] Did you watch the show?

I sure hope you're pretty, luv.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 67Last Thursday at 2:21 PM

Sorry, the show aired in the late 90s.

by Anonymousreply 68Last Thursday at 2:22 PM

Matt Battaglia was the hottest thing to appear in the US version.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 69Last Thursday at 2:23 PM

Fucking Google images, here it is^^:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 70Last Thursday at 2:24 PM

The British Q as F was way too cutesy with all that awful talking to the camera and a charisma free lead. Give me the US version and the great Gale Harold any day.

by Anonymousreply 71Last Thursday at 2:34 PM

I’d rather just look at porn so I can skip the terrible acting and writing.

Poor Sharon Gless. I was never more embarrassed for an actress who can act since Katherine Helmond followed up [italic]Soap[/italic] with a vastly inferior sitcom that inexplicably ran twice as long.

by Anonymousreply 72Last Thursday at 2:39 PM

We have not addressed the other thing about QAF, which as DLers, we are well aware of:

The show had a huge female fan base many of whom were rather intense about their love for the show.

Okay, they were batshit crazy.

And as recently as two or three years ago were here on DL creating multiple threads each week, the gist of which seemed to be that Harold, who is both straight and around 50 at this point, had been conducting a secret love affair with Harrison over the past 15 years, despite the fact that they lived on different coasts and rarely saw each other.

Or something like that

by Anonymousreply 73Last Thursday at 2:41 PM

The Fraus made the US show a success. "The Gays" either loved it or hated it (it doesn't represent MEEEEE! My life isn't like that! Kill it, kill it with fire!). For me, it was the first TV show where I noticed the "shipping" phenomena where female fans were convinced that Gale Harold and Randy Harrison are an item in real life.

by Anonymousreply 74Last Thursday at 2:58 PM

Some of you self-haters really should be ashamed of yourself for pretending that this offensive stereotypical crap hasn't had a negative effect on gay culture, sexuality, and identity.

by Anonymousreply 75Last Thursday at 3:02 PM

Do we really need a THIRD version of this show? The only good one was the first can’t we all just rewatch it when we miss it?

by Anonymousreply 76Last Thursday at 3:03 PM

Because that's time I could be spending actually having sex, R76.

by Anonymousreply 77Last Thursday at 3:04 PM

Is the new L Word still around?

by Anonymousreply 78Last Thursday at 4:07 PM

Stephen Dunn's Closet Monster starring Connor Jessup:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 79Last Thursday at 9:39 PM

This guy wants to be cast on the show

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 80Last Thursday at 10:03 PM

Robert Gant was the hottest guy on this show. Alas, I think he's straight IRL. What a waste.

by Anonymousreply 81Last Thursday at 10:18 PM

R81 Wiki tells me he came out as gay in 2002.

by Anonymousreply 82Last Thursday at 11:24 PM

Is Dean Armstrong, the Canadian actor who played Ted’s tragic love Blake Wyzecki, out as gay?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 83Last Friday at 4:05 AM

Well, you know it'll be full of woke trannies mouthing off whatever.

You may get a token gay male appear every 10 minutes or so, but no more

by Anonymousreply 84Last Friday at 4:10 AM

Will this or the wokester GOSSIP GIRL reboot be worse?

by Anonymousreply 85Last Friday at 4:29 AM

Is one of the men going to give birth? Otherwise it isn’t woke enough! The child needs to be a different race too. Otherwise they can’t have an episode showing the struggle as a white FTM raising a black child in a sewer.

by Anonymousreply 86Last Friday at 4:29 AM

These shows at times do tend to paint all gay men with the same brush. Then you have people like my mother watch because she earnestly wants to learn more about “my culture”, which then prompts her to ask if me and my partner of 8 years get regularly AIDS tested. No, ma, contrary to what you watch, we’re actually monogamous like you and dad.

by Anonymousreply 87Last Friday at 4:39 AM

I would watch the fuck out of that show R49

by Anonymousreply 88Last Friday at 4:48 AM

The OG show (both US and UK versions) deserves props though for finally showing gay men as sexual and masculine-- Stuart and Brian were both "straight acting" (for lack of a better term) and sexually aggressive in a way that we'd only seen straight men portrayed before.

And much as we (rightfully) mock the "fraus" who fell head over heels in love with the show and "shipped" the actors a la R73/R74, they also became advocates for gay rights.

by Anonymousreply 89Last Friday at 5:26 AM

Is this the show where the man goes up in the man?

by Anonymousreply 90Last Friday at 5:27 AM

Which, R89, also translated to “promiscuous“ for a lot of people.

by Anonymousreply 91Last Friday at 5:30 AM

Will there be fisting?

by Anonymousreply 92Last Friday at 5:38 AM

[quote] Manchester is the second biggest city in England

It’s Birmingham, you whore!

by Anonymousreply 93Last Friday at 5:48 AM

R15 Brian Kinney is a horrid personality. Cold, acerbic, manipulative, passive-aggressive, and bone-selfish. He lacks decent ethics, and can never admit he’s wrong without upending everyone else’s reality and leaving a trail of destruction. He reads as borderline-autistic and narcisstic, to me.

Stuart, his counterpart of the U.K. QAF, differs greatly in that he actually has detectable emotional affect and range, and despite his hedonism and tendency to self-serve is a morally-conflicted person who often comes down on the side of good.

by Anonymousreply 94Last Friday at 5:49 AM

^^^meant to type ‘sociopathic’ not ‘autistic’, sorry

by Anonymousreply 95Last Friday at 5:50 AM

Can we give the incessant blather about it being too "woke" a rest. It's not getting more interesting the more times you say it.

by Anonymousreply 96Last Friday at 6:30 AM

That's the difference between Davies, who tried to create more complex characters and the two men who ran the US show, who created a soap opera with overly broad characters

by Anonymousreply 97Last Friday at 6:43 AM

R97 was for R94

by Anonymousreply 98Last Friday at 6:43 AM

R97 - yeah well, easier to do when there were only 10 episodes in the UK version. Try writing 83 and see if you can sustain the same quality.

The problem most people had with QAF was that it laid out gay culture in all aspects, good and bad. Most people who had problems with the show really just wanted to have it portray gay people as being normal people with loves and passions and problems like everyone else. Except that isn't very interesting.

I recall there being some cringe moments where I thought - shit, is this what straight people are going to think ALL GAY people are like? That really was the basis for a lot of the hate.

by Anonymousreply 99Last Friday at 6:51 AM

There will be only one white, biological gay man in the cast.

by Anonymousreply 100Last Friday at 7:02 AM

[quote]I recall there being some cringe moments where I thought - shit, is this what straight people are going to think ALL GAY people are like? That really was the basis for a lot of the hate.

[italic]The 700 Club[/italic] couldn't have done a better job demonizing gay people.

by Anonymousreply 101Last Friday at 8:42 AM

[quote]Most people who had problems with the show really just wanted to have it portray gay people as being normal people with loves and passions and problems like everyone else. Except that isn't very interesting.

Actually, it is interesting. The writers of this show are just lazy self-loathing hacks who are rich and white enough to be shielded from the real-world consequences of these deeply offensive stereotypes. 99% of gays are not so lucky.

by Anonymousreply 102Last Friday at 8:44 AM

The brit version somehow managed to make the already over the top annoying Michael character even more annoying. Stuart was hot tho.

by Anonymousreply 103Last Friday at 8:50 AM

[quote]yeah well, easier to do when there were only 10 episodes in the UK version. Try writing 83 and see if you can sustain the same quality.

Which is EXACTLY why you should never try and stretch a thin concept over 83 episodes.

by Anonymousreply 104Last Friday at 8:54 AM

You just know this will be POSE 2.0 and it will be overly preachy regarding trans rights and nonbinary bullshit. Meanwhile, any gay men(most likely the token white male) side characters will have a subplot in which they'll be overly promiscuous, sex obsessed followed by STI/HIV and have it be a tragedy.

by Anonymousreply 105Last Friday at 9:02 AM

What was so offensive about the American version, besides the fact that it was a bit trashy? It showed different aspects of the gay community, from the hedonistic (Brian), to the monogamy/family-minded (Michael), to the average Joe (Ted), to the twink (Justin), to the proudly femme (Emmett), to the non-loathing Poz (Ben). There was something for everyone. Like it or not, hedonism and promiscuity are a pretty big part of gay urban culture.

by Anonymousreply 106Last Friday at 9:06 AM

Why do I have a feeling this will be 99 % trans and 1 % gay? If they have one gay men have sex or fall in love with a trans man with a snatch I swear I'm gonna puke. As if gay men are attracted to vage.

by Anonymousreply 107Last Friday at 9:07 AM

Will Jameela Jamil play herself? Will Jameela Jamil's cishet boyfriend play himself?

by Anonymousreply 108Last Friday at 9:10 AM

Director Stephen Dunn is friends with Connor & Miles!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 109Last Friday at 9:12 AM

I wish our trans-hating freaks would find another thread to post in.

by Anonymousreply 110Last Friday at 9:25 AM

R83, Dean Armstrong is straight (or so he says).

by Anonymousreply 111Last Friday at 9:34 AM

R110 Says the mentally ill tranny. Goodbye. You and your ilk are not welcome here. This is a site for GAY MEN. That means biological men who are attracted to biological men. Trans men are not men. Trans men are women. Gay men are not attracted to trans men.

by Anonymousreply 112Last Friday at 9:39 AM

r112 I know there's no reason to even address you because your screeching small dicked little heels are so dug into the dirt about this, but being a gay man doesn't mean you have to hate trans people, or be nasty to them, or do anything but embrace them as fellow people in this world just trying to figure out this nightmare world. All you want to do is make people feel terrible and have a worse time and for that you deserve a swift kick in the wee little nards. You're pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 113Last Friday at 9:44 AM

R113 - I always suspect that people like R112 are extremely effeminate and frequently wonder if they'd have been happier in life as women and/or have a parent who has said as much to them.

I can't fathom any other reason why they should harbor so much visceral hate towards such a small and powerless subset of people, other than that there's something personal about it.

by Anonymousreply 114Last Friday at 9:50 AM

I wonder if this is being rebooted because “It’s A Sin” was successful?

by Anonymousreply 115Last Friday at 9:52 AM

R114 are you trans?

by Anonymousreply 116Last Friday at 9:53 AM

R100 Of course there will. Because everyone hates gay men these days. Oops, I meant to say everyone hates white gay men. Despite the fact that white gay men are the reason LGBTs even have rights today.

by Anonymousreply 117Last Friday at 9:53 AM

And they'll probably keep the same title, even though that expression is NEVER used anywhere in America -- not in Pittsburgh, not in New Orleans, nowhere.

by Anonymousreply 118Last Friday at 9:54 AM

R115 How can it even be compared to It's a sin? IAS was about gay men. This will for sure be about trannies.

by Anonymousreply 119Last Friday at 9:54 AM

[quote] It used to mean we live regular lives despite being labeled a “queer”. We’re no different than regular folk. That meaning is lost today.

Should have been Queer as Folks then.

by Anonymousreply 120Last Friday at 9:58 AM

[quote] Why do I have a feeling this will be 99 % trans and 1 % gay? If they have one gay men have sex or fall in love with a trans man with a snatch I swear I'm gonna puke. As if gay men are attracted to vage.

It definitely will as it exists today. There’s no way around it. They did it in Shameless too.

by Anonymousreply 121Last Friday at 9:59 AM

R121 But gay men are attracted to dick, not vage. Trans men are "men" with a vage. It's not realistic to have a gay man have sex with a woman, and trans men are women.

by Anonymousreply 122Last Friday at 10:01 AM

[quote] These shows at times do tend to paint all gay men with the same brush. Then you have people like my mother watch because she earnestly wants to learn more about “my culture”, which then prompts her to ask if me and my partner of 8 years get regularly AIDS tested. No, ma, contrary to what you watch, we’re actually monogamous like you and dad.

Explain to her what PrEP is. Who gets HIV anymore? Even those that do don’t die from it. How boring.

by Anonymousreply 123Last Friday at 10:02 AM

They better make sure the twins is actually cute this time. How come UK gets to be featured in London but the US version has to be based on third tier cities like Pittsburg(?) and New Orleans? Why not Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, Austin’s, Houston, Chicago, Miami, DC, Boston, or Denver?

I’d actually really like to see it in DC for some reason.

by Anonymousreply 124Last Friday at 10:03 AM

^ twink

by Anonymousreply 125Last Friday at 10:04 AM

[quote]It used to mean we live regular lives despite being labeled a “queer”. We’re no different than regular folk. That meaning is lost today.

Sorry, that's incorrect. I looked it up (again), and the title QUEER AS FOLK comes from the old expression "there's nowt so queer as folk" (i.e., "there's nothing so strange as people"). It's used in the U.K. to emphasize that people sometimes behave in a very strange way. So the title relies on the double meaning of the word "queer," which means either "gay (as in homosexual)" or "strange, unusual, odd."

by Anonymousreply 126Last Friday at 10:08 AM

I got a kick out of when the US version made fun of the name with the meta-series [italic]Gay as Blazes,[/italic] which was hailed as a source of role models for respectable gay men.

by Anonymousreply 127Last Friday at 10:13 AM

The UK version did not take place in London r124, it was in Manchester.

by Anonymousreply 128Last Friday at 10:25 AM

Well duh of course they'll keep the title, that's the only selling point right now. Otherwise this wouldn't be a news story being reported on right now, it would just be some gay show somebody we don't know anything about was working on that had no actors attached. It being a new Queer as Folk is literally all of the news.

by Anonymousreply 129Last Friday at 11:07 AM

R126 exactly. I think the punny implication is that the main characters of U.K. QAF are a bit unusual—but not because they’re gay. Consider: Stuart the 29-year old playboy (hardly anyone’s father of the year) becoming a surrogate father; his best friend Vince, a Dr. Who fanatic and extremely awkward man, struggling with moving on from his dead-end job and his suffocating mother to create a fulfilling adult life (which given his social impairments he would have found equally difficult were he hetero); and their twinky new associate Nathan, a misfit at school outwardly championing powerfully idealistic notions about love that conflict with that of his peer group. The three end up in a dynamic that is weird and ambiguous to say the least; all a little bit in love with each other, but also resentful and exasperated, and sometimes feeling more like family than friends or lovers. The fact that they’re everyday gay blokes is the most normal thing about all of them.

by Anonymousreply 130Last Friday at 1:47 PM

If I remember correctly, Nathan was 15 when he hooked up with Stuart and Stuart was 12 when he had sex for the first time (with his gym teacher?). If they keep these storylines, I would like to see the Twitter reactions.

by Anonymousreply 131Last Saturday at 7:37 AM

Yes in the UK version he was 15, in the American version they aged him up to 17 so it was a little less sketchy.

by Anonymousreply 132Last Saturday at 7:40 AM

Having not read the thread I'm assuming DL hates this with the white-passion of a thousand burning suns? Or is it another anti-trans thread?

by Anonymousreply 133Last Saturday at 7:40 AM

As long as there's hot man candy and plenty of full frontal nudity in this reboot, I'll give it a try.

by Anonymousreply 134Last Saturday at 9:05 AM

Kweens as Folx.

by Anonymousreply 135Last Saturday at 9:07 AM

[quote] I got a kick out of when the US version made fun of the name with the meta-series Gay as Blazes, which was hailed as a source of role models for respectable gay men.

So they set up a strawman to attack their critics’ valid points. More lazy writing. Hacks, hacks, HACKS!

by Anonymousreply 136Last Saturday at 9:28 AM

Both actually R133

by Anonymousreply 137Last Saturday at 9:31 AM

I'll need to see dong.

by Anonymousreply 138Last Saturday at 11:25 AM

Can they all be vampires?

by Anonymousreply 139Last Saturday at 11:33 AM

Will it be as earnestly dull as the Netflix Tales of the City? Because that stank.

by Anonymousreply 140Last Saturday at 12:08 PM

I didn't hate the new Tales of the City. Thought I would, but didn't.

by Anonymousreply 141Last Saturday at 1:08 PM

Non-dong will be on display. Maybe an engorged clitoris if you are lucky, R138.

by Anonymousreply 142Last Saturday at 2:20 PM

Neo-dong.

by Anonymousreply 143Last Saturday at 2:22 PM

Faux-dong? Verifictia of propcock?

by Anonymousreply 144Last Saturday at 2:46 PM

[quote]Will there be an oriental cast member?

Kane!

by Anonymousreply 145Last Monday at 7:26 AM

Will the Asian get beaten by Yas Kweens?

by Anonymousreply 146Last Monday at 7:27 AM

If they followed the trend of We Are Who We Are and Generation then it will featured mostly average and ugly looking cast. And plot will be revolves more about gender expression and actual sexuality.

by Anonymousreply 14716 hours ago

[quote]However Pittsburgh is not a city with a huge gay nightlife. So it did not make sense as the setting of the US version. It should have been Chicago as a logical American counterpoint.

Ironically it was filmed entirely in Toronto (even on location on weekdays in popular nightclubs) so it's not like the location of the shoot drove the choice of city in the story line.

by Anonymousreply 14814 hours ago

R131 We just had an Amazon show toss a baby around till then dropped the baby on the frowned killing him. I think the world the regurgitation of QAF’s pedo storyline.

by Anonymousreply 14914 hours ago

We're cutting off r149.

by Anonymousreply 15012 hours ago

Yeah can r149 translate that into English.

by Anonymousreply 15112 hours ago

R8 & R58 It is indeed a rights issue. Ron Cowen & Daniel Lipman (the Executive Producers of the Showtime US Version of QAF) have talked about why a reunion or reboot of the US version was very difficult: I can't seem to find the interview now but it was on YouTube.

So, Showtime (owned by CBS) owns the rights to the US QAF but NOT the rights to the QAF property itself. Basically, Showtime made a licensing agreement (think of it as a lease) with Channel 4 in the UK to be able to produce QAF content for the US, they never outright bought the rights to QAF. This is why if you watch episodes of the US QAF you'll see the Channel 4 logo in the credits of every episode.

At some point after US QAF went off the air, that agreement expired and while Showtime owns the rights for it's own show, it can no longer produce any NEW material related to QAF without first reaching an agreement with Russell T. Davis (Davis bought/or was granted the overall rights to QAF sometime after 2010s). Similarly Davis can not produce a version of QAF that featured any of the Showtime characters without reaching a deal with Showtime. I've always got the impression that Davis did not like the US version and would be unlikely to want to do anything based on the original US version.

by Anonymousreply 15210 hours ago
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!