‘Looking’ Back: Episode 1, ‘Looking For Now’

  • There's been a lot of talk about diversity of the cast (including in the comments on our review). I hadn't mentioned the cast's diversity in the review, because I didn't find it particularly remarkable. The representation is broader than some have speculated (this is not an egregiously all-white cast), but the series also hasn't yet really dove into any worthwhile conversation about diversity, either. The faces may be different here, but, so far, the experiences (from a diversity standpoint) feel the same.
  • It's particularly interesting to see how Agustín (Frankie J. Alvarez)'s story will pan out, given how there's been so much hoopla about gay relationships either destroying the concept of monogamy, or embracing it.
  • We're particularly fond of Lauren Weedman, who plays Dom (Murray Bartlett)'s roommate. You may recognize her for her work as Horny Patty on HBO's canceled series Hung. She's got a great way of calling the guys out on their nonsense (like she does in the premiere episode with Dom's Facebook stalking), and she continues to give the guys much-needed reality checks in future episodes.
  • There were three short sexual situations in tonight's episode — Patrick (Jonathan Groff)'s attempt at cruising, Agustín's morning sex and the three-way with the guy with the Dolly tattoo — none of which got particularly racy. Some folks have been disappointed with the lack of skin, but it feels more like a stylistic decision, rather than an aversion to gay sex. Would more explicit scenes have added to our understanding of the characters or story?

We're only one episode in of Looking's short first season, but there's already a lot to discuss. Were you happy with the premiere? Will you keep watching? Do you see yourselves in these characters?

Let us know in the comments.

'Looking' airs Sundays at 10:30 p.m. Eastern on HBO.


  1. Francis says

    I didn’t love it but I liked it overall and ready for more next week. It did come off a bit QAF but with some differences also. The characters were a bit awkward and rough around the edges, which isn’t a bad thing. Definitely not your typical cookie cutter gay show. I’ll wait for more episodes before really judging.

  2. shanestud says

    It’s just a hipper version of “Queer As Folk”. sex, sex. cruising, hook-ups, ageism, casual sex, threesomes. We seem not to have evolved much in 2014 and gay men are still trapped in the seventies….pass the lube, ecstasy and poppers and point me to the nearest bath house.

  3. Ny Larson says

    Well acted, well filmed, written and produced, but it seemed like they were jamming all this information in as if it was only going to last 4 episodes. People spoke quicky, constantly overlapping each other, then it jumped from place to place and story to story without staying around long enough to get the feel of what was going on. The camera seemed to be constantly moving and jump cutting around as well. And just as I started to get interested in one story or character, another story line popped in. We meet one character, they discuss moving in together, then they are in a three way, which just seemed to pop out of nowhere. And I may be getting jaded, but was there a scrap of originality here? I felt like I had seen all this before and I didn’t really feel much affection for any of the characters. The date scene was painfully realistic and I squirmed. But I have seen it many times before in the same way. I will continue to watch and see how it pans out, but I was a bit underwhelmed.

  4. Talisman says

    Knowing that the series is in the hands of the same person behind Weekend makes me a bit nervous for the show. While I enjoyed how the relationship in Weekend unfolded, I was not very happy with the portrayal of drug use in the movie – where using hard drugs was portrayed almost as routine and unremarkable among the leads. If “Looking” follows a similar trajectory, I’m not sure I’ll stick around.

    However, there is something compelling about these characters, and it will stick around for a few more episodes to see if the show finds its legs.

  5. says

    Didn’t love. Will try again. Agree that Groff having at least superficial-relationship troubles is a stretch. That blind date of his would not have blown him off. I just get bored with tons of sex meaning “honest.” But I wish it well and hope it improves for me. I loved Groff’s performance, effortless and charming.

  6. Mike says

    I liked it a lot. Very authentic, which is pretty rare on TV. The date scene? We’ve all been on that date. As many of the reviews have said, it’s very easy to relate to these characters.

  7. Macguffin54 says

    I don’t find it hard to believe that Groff would have trouble finding a date. It happens to everyone, and he’s nobody special. Don’t get why people are so nuts over him. But even if I did, NO ONE is immune to relationship droughts.

  8. Critifur says

    I loved it, I relate to it, and the characters. I know these people, I am these people. I like the show stylistically, and I am happy that the “Weekend” like production has been toned down. I appreciate that the show is both sex positive, and the drug use does not bother me in the least, whereas the drugging, drinking, sexing and horrible relationships in QAF was constantly cringe inducing. I am in.

  9. scooternva says

    @NY Larson, yeah, I think it’s partly a function of the fact the show is only 22 minutes long. @Talisman, I don’t know what planet you live on but causal pot use isn’t even just a “gay” thing, and it’s not nearly as bad as all the drinking that’s depicted in TV and movies.

    I wasn’t wowed by tonight’s episode, but I didn’t hate it either. I will definitely be back next week.

  10. will says

    It’s understated and fairly fresh, but the writing is very mediocre, almost perfunctory. There’s an easygoing mellow feeling, the actors seem comfortable and bounce off each other well, but nothing to take to the roof and shout about yet. The three leads are a bit on the dullish side, but I hope the show finds its stride and the dialogue doesn’t feel quite so empty. I loved “Weekend” and was expecting a stronger vision.

  11. TRH says

    Well of course I’ll continue to watch and see how it develops–you have to give these things a chance. It’s not like any other network has any gay-themed shows on currently–kudos to HBO.

    But without Groff I think I would have been bored pretty quickly. His character reminds me of Michael Tolliver from ‘Tales of the City’. Both adorable.

    And what’s with the reappearance of the 1970s facial hair? I couldn’t tell some of the guys apart they looked so similar. What’s next, the return of ‘Honcho’ magazine?

  12. will says

    It’s odd watching a threesome and not being titilated or aroused. I guess a rule of thumb is when the characters are not interesting, their sex is not interesting.

  13. Profe Sancho Panza says

    First episodes are really tricky to pull off, and lots of very good shows started out with pilots worse than this. Good cast, understated writing, and I liked how they sometimes let us connect the psychological dots instead of doing it for us.

    It took me a minute to recognize “Scotty” with the Dolly Parton tattoo as the high school kid from Were the World Mine – how they *do* grow up!

  14. Pt says

    Very unimpressed. I didn’t laugh, I never felt engaged, and it had the un-sexiest sex scenes ever. I kept trying to figure out what year it was set in, even though there was a cell phone in the first scene. The trailer was decent, they should have those guys do the show. I just kept thinking, when is this going to be over… Not a good sign on a half hour show. I’ll give it a try another week or so.

  15. stevetalbert says

    The date scene was very realistic. Some people have a checklist and they don’t waste time. Happens in NYC and Chicago too. There are a lot of choices and they move on if it doesn’t click. But many straight people in their 40s and 50s recently widowed or divorce are the same.

    But the guy had him meet him at a straight bar, and he’s a doctor. Many have that same personality.

  16. Leonard says

    >. I hadn’t mentioned the cast’s diversity in the review, because I didn’t find it particularly remarkable.

    What the hell is that supposed to mean? 😕

    The diversity isn’t remarkable, or it isn’t a remarkable discussion to have?

  17. JLH says

    I liked it. A longer pilot episode would have helped with character development. It did grab my attention and I will be back. It does feel like the SFO I know and the characters are people I can relate to, at least initially. At this stage in our development as a community there are plenty of Gen-X’ers who are, for lack of a better phrase, old married couples, facing a society that is changing very quickly. It will be interesting to see how they include guys from 35-50 in future. episodes.

  18. Andy says

    “Ugh! It did not perfectly represent the imperfect reality that is my existence. Therefore it is highly suspect of quality and completely irrelevant…

    Except, that imperfection in a way does relate to me and OH MY GOD I LOVE IT! I JUST LOVE IT! In fact, I loved it back before it even aired because it’s just so close to my life.

    But then it jumped the shark with the totally unbelievable part. That’s not my real life at all. I can’t believe people are still watching that thing. I’ve already moved on to the next thing which is so unlike me personally that I’m now a trendsetter.”

  19. jason says

    It was just very boring with a ton of exposition instead of interesting dialogue. I don’t want to spend time with these people. And can we talk about how absurdly light skinned the people who are supposed to be “diverse” are in this show.

  20. Icebloo says


    1. Why are all the men skinny and ugly ?

    2. Why are they all so badly dressed ?

    3. Young men don’t tuck in their shirts like they do on this show – older guys raised in the 80’s do that. It’s just not realistic.

    4. Why do they all look like they haven’t had a shower in months ?

    5. Why do they have to make all gay men appear to be into casual sex with strangers in parks or having threesomes ?

    6. Why do they look like 70’s porn stars ? – again, this is not a realistic portrayal of gay men today.

    7. I am assuming the guy who wrote this is either straight or a gay man in his 50’s.

  21. Mike in the Tundra says

    I wasn’t impressed. I will give it a chance, but mostly to see Murray Bartlett. Some of the situations had me thinking, “Been there, done that,” but much of it just left me cold. I think beginning with the park scene put me in a bad frame of mind. These furtive meetings in parks and restrooms are part of an era when many, many were closeted. It’s for the Larry Craigs of the world, not a young, handsome, out man.

  22. mattman says

    I kind of loved it – and as a gay man of a certain age, I have to say that there is nothing so wonderful and wistful as seeing that the opportunities for sex is always there….and how that plays out dependent on ones stage in life and insecurity. Nice and complex.

  23. Nat says

    The problem afflicting Looking is the same problem that afflicts Girls: they are shows that purport to capture the essence of a particular subset of the population, yet many within that population find nothing identifiable. Both shows are merely refined versions of stories that have been played out for quite some time. The pedigree is there, but there isn’t a trace of originality or depth.

  24. Nat says

    “It’s particularly interesting to see how Agustín (Frankie J. Alvarez)’s story will pan out, given how there’s been so much hoopla about gay relationships either destroying the concept of monogamy, or embracing it.”

    I’m having trouble understanding why a topic that has been beaten to death over the past few years requires further examination.

  25. Pete says

    This show looked like it was made back in the 90’s or I dare say, the 80’s. Ho hum, I thought as I watched it. So many scenes were unrealistic. Not one I am going to watch again.

  26. daws says

    I definitely don’t agree with all the negative to lukewarm responses. I loved it. Jonathan Groff is an adorable and charming lead and the rest of the cast is great. Loved the bus scene with Groff and the door man.

  27. Rowan says

    LMAO, typical middle of the road gay guy who has never been anywhere near a creative city or creative people in his life. There is no way in h*ll that you are under 30.

    You insulted the director saying he must be 50 but I think YOU must be. In what day and age that a guy under the age of 40 does not know what hipsters look like? Are you insane?

    Therein lies the problem with the goldfish gay community. You think YOUR existence is the ONLY existence. It’s the same crap I experienced w the black community-you HAD to be religous, dress a certain way and only like cheesy r&b/hip hop music. It took a while but finally we are starting to see that the black hipster or geeky intellectual exists.

    You have issues. You are clearly someone who relates to something like Will & Grace. This is NOT Will & Grace.

    It’s like watching Girls and whining that it’s not like Sex in the City or Gossip Girl.

    Get a grip. We need more diversity. Gay hipsters exist.

    I dress like this. Most of my male gay friends have beards w long hair, wear skinny jeans, have 70’s cars and listen to alt rock or folk music. We exist.

    Looking should’ve marketed this show honestly like Girls did but I guess because gay shows are so few and far in between, they played it like it would be some basic mainstream gay show with cheap predictable laughs and scenarios.

  28. Bigun says

    I am still LOOKING…..Hmmmmmm
    I was bored…
    The pilot didn’t really catch my attention.
    As a 10 year SF resident, who knows a lot of very different types of people, I could not relate to ANY of these characters.

    What is with the bad clothes? Nobody dresses like that in SF…the stylist must have shopped at Goodwill.

    Do these guys shower or even own a razer?
    The 70’s porn hair and clothing isn’t realistic. The average SF person is not park trolling for sex, or having 3-ways at work.

    No way these guys could even afford SF rents….get real!

    I guess I will check out the next show and see if it gets any better.

  29. Andy G. says

    I’ve lived in San Francisco since 1984 and it rang true to my experience, or at least the memories of my youth. Particularly enjoyed the opening scene in the park. “People still do that?” Patrick marveled later in the episode. Yes Patrick, because even in the internet age, men still have cocks.

  30. jersey says

    I was impressed with J Groff, I’d only ever seen him in Glee and thought he did a good job last night. As a gay man of a certain age I found pornstache’s storyline very cliched. I don’t care how hot you think you are (or actually are) by the time you reach 40 you’ve been turned down enough times to handle rejection. And why do they give these guys such weird quirky jobs, every guy I know has a normal boring job, dentist or financal planner or technical writer or biochemist. But I did like the show.

  31. Cory says

    I really liked it, but then again I loved Weekend and it def had the same feel. I think some of these comment are thinking way too much into the realism of this show if they think all aspects at all times need to reflect everyone at every moment. You’re just not gonna have a good time if you go into any show thinking this.

    There were traits that I identified with each of the characters and there were traits I didn’t. These characters also need time to develope and the actors need time to flesh them out…. .Just like any show.

    I enjoyed it, and given the critics response to the four episodes they’ve viewed. I think I’ll enjoy this.

    My only criticism is the very short run of the episode which someone else pointed out. These episodes seem like they’d be better suited for an hour than 29 minutes, especially given the creator’s style.

    Also can we stop with the comparison to Girls as I don’t find them really comparable. This was definitely comparable to Weekend though as it fits it to almost a T.

  32. deco says

    DULL. DULL. DULL. The writing was just there. Nothing memorable. Thinking of the show just before it Girls – you can’t say that those characters in the pilot didn’t leave an impression. Seemed unusually safe for HBO including language.

  33. narishkeit says

    I give it a strong ‘B’. Alot of folks seem to be saying it is unrealistic that J. Groff wouldn’t have a hard time finding dates. Uh duh, he sorta had 3 in one episode. It is about these men trying to find something deeper, not sex. All 3 men are looking for this. It looks promising.

  34. Robert Rhea says

    This show is going to get analyzed more than DNA. For me, it comes down to a simple set of questions: Was it watchable, would I watch it again, and would it become my first choice to watch?

    Yes, Yes, and No.

    First off – Its only a half hour and that is really disappointing. The story telling is so low key that you have to take time to get to know these guys and their situations. This one episode was like a fleeting moment of eye contact with someone you find interesting.

    Second, This is not a comedy. I didn’t expect a sitcom like Will & Grace or the Big Bang Theory, but there was not a really memorable funny moment. It was more like gay angst-edy. There were moments to make you smile, but that was about it.

    At the end of the day, it was unremarkable and unmemorable. I don’t watch a lot of TV, but right now this is not a show that I would care if I missed. I might watch it if nothing else was on or for background noise. Its not “Must See TV”.

    Out of the three characters – Jonathan Groff oozed that boyish awkward charm in every scene. That kind of invited me in, I wouldn’t mind seeing more of him. Dom, I saw shades of Michael Tolliver in him (if I didn’t have a ton of ToTC books to tell me what happened to Michael), and I wouldn’t mind learning more about him. As for Agustin? At this point I could care less about him.

    I contrast this with QaF, at the end of its first episode you knew exactly who these characters were and you were either excited to see more of them or you loathed them. Whether you liked them or not you were already invested in them in some way. Looking seems to be missing that.

  35. Wavin' Dave says

    I’ve seen the first 4 episodes (friends in low places.) In my opinion it manages to be the sum of, and less than, its few predecessors: TALES OF THE CITY, QUEER AS FOLK, SEX IN THE CITY. There is eye-candy, yes, but the narrative just seems to amble, or unravel. I’m old and tired, so maybe I don’t get 25 minutes of ennui as entertainment, but, hey, visibility is visibility. C+.

  36. will says

    It isn’t necessary the characters look and act like you or your friends or get themselves into situations you can “relate to” to be art or even good. I watched “Looking” in CA at 7:30pm and later watched the new episode of “Downton Abbey”. Nobody on “Downton” looks or acts like any friend I know, but I still enjoyed it. All that’s required of a decent television show is that it capture your attention. This show did do that, but there seems to be a hollowness in the core. This doesn’t feel like a show (yet) that is going to take outrageous chances and reach beyond its limited set-up. Right now it’s like a short story whose prose is good but not touched by anything great. This’ll sound pretentious but I was hoping (and ready) for a show with genius. Andrew Haigh went places nobody else did in “Weekend”. I wanted to be astonished by an artist’s vision. I wanted more than just good craftsmanship.

  37. Andrew says

    I thought it was funny and charming, and as someone who’s lived in the City for a long time, totally believable and realistic. Were certain situations condensed/heightened for dramatic purposes? Sure. Overall, though, I appreciated the low-key tone and the overall feel.

    To the people saying “no one dresses like that” and “no one looks like that”…well, you’ve clearly not been here recently.

  38. C.J. says

    I have a feeling this is going to do quite well. Jonathan Groff is just one hell of a great actor! The rest of the cast is wondeful too! I am expecting this will get better as the season progresses.

  39. BrokebackBob says

    The series is crippled from the start by being 1/2 hour long. What can you do well on the tube other than an infomercial about getting rid of zits in 1/2 an hour?
    The comparisons to Queer as Folk are inane, Queer as Folk spanned an enormous number of issues and types of people and events over 5 years of superb writing and excellent acting.

  40. Rick says

    I used to watch QAF way back when and often would get turned off by the relentless stereotypes that were portrayed. Now, so many years later, with the progress the gay community has made relative to acceptance and gay rights “Looking” seemed to play right back into not putting our best foot forward. There’s so much more involved in being gay than cruising in the bushes and/or threesomes.

  41. Jim says

    Loved it. Groundbreaking in that it’s so matter of factly gay, all the creators and most of the cast is out, and it doesn’t feel like a primer on gay life for straight people. Groff is adorable and believable, the fact that he doesn’t know what to do about dating has nothing to do with his great looks. I liked the casting of the other guys and the Latino he meets on the MUNI was really sexy. I liked that when they went to a bachelor party for 2 guys getting married, that’s what it was – a bachelor party. (“A a bachelor party should be one man and one stripper.”) Disappointment: Matt Wilkas, who played the blind date doctor, has a great body and didn’t take his shirt off. I can tell I’m going to totally be into this. Hopefully some conservatives will get mad at it, make a stink, and it will bring in more viewers.

  42. Zlick says

    I more Yawn score. Of course, you can’t judge a show by its pilot or, for that matter, any successful renewed show for its entire first season.

    But really really really YAWN. I confess I did not like Weekend and also rated it Yawn, so maybe I just don’t like the showrunner’s style. But as for Looking so far, I hope they figure out the difference between realism in entertainment, and total boringness with is not at all entertaining.

  43. crispy says

    “There’s so much more involved in being gay than cruising in the bushes and/or threesomes.”

    You mean like going on a first date, asking someone to move in with you, creating art, going to work, hanging out with your friends, arguing with your roommate, meeting someone for the first time, feeling inadequate, going to a bachelor party…….. all of which happened in the first episode.

    Yet you only saw the stuff you don’t like about being gay. Strange that.

  44. James michael Buckley says

    I don’t get it. Except for HBO going for the gay audience. I don’t think we Gays are ever going to be portrayed as we ‘are ‘ cause we are not portray-able.

  45. Keith says

    My husband and I live in San Francisco, and were very underwhelmed by the pilot episode. Not representative of the diversity of the community in The City, and seems more L.A. than San Francisco…especially the pick up scene on Muni. We’ve agreed to watch the season to support HBO’s efforts to be more LGBT inclusive, and hope that the stories and characters get better as the season progresses. Keeping our fingers crossed that it gets better.

  46. Warner says

    I’m sorry, but I failed to see what was new or different from every other story of a group of gay men dealing with relationships or finding a trick or both. Maybe I missed the point of it. San Francisco (the city I live in) itself is such a small slice of the “gay” existence, but it is a telling reflection of how like much of what is produced about gay men is typical, boring, unchallenging, and uninteresting.

    Speaking of diversity, I love how the creators said they have “an African-American character, two Latino characters, and one Asian character like they were filling a quota. Also, the “latino” character who works at the door of Esta Noche (of course) having a hard time pronouncing “Oncology” speaks to a stereotypical notion of what and who Latinos are: undereducated perhaps? To go further into this stereotype, Groff explaining to his “older” friend that he doesn’t go for that “type,” feels like when he allows himself to go “slumming” to meet the Latino guy he will find some happiness not found in the would-be professional white doctors and Ivy-Leaguers he thinks he wants. But an undereducated Latino door guy at a bar is exactly what he needs to set himself “free” from the ivory tower.

    Now on to the other issue of African-American representation. The threesome appeared initiated by the Latino artist where is boyfriend (the not-obviously must be mixed black boyfriend) seemed to have less power in the dynamic even if they all eventually went along with the menage. The brief follow-up scene between them suggested he was not so much on board, and that maybe having other sex partners is not what he really is into. His boyfriend of course laughed it away and said something to the effect of “it will all work out.” As a non-person of color, I was offended. Of course they could have been both white or latino or black going through the same thing. But they weren’t. And interestingly we would NEVER see two latinos or black gay men together and represented in a vehicle like this.

    Gay people are so starved and excited to see images and stories of ourselves, and it is disappointing to many who read between the lines, see beyond the beards, mustaches, tight jeans, bulges, and abs to what is really being promoted. What’s being promoted to me is the same perpetual state of not moving our community forward, keeping the status quo of racial and gender non-diversity, and hyping stories of gay men that have been told TO DEATH. I won’t be a faithful watcher to images and stories I have constantly seen since Will & Grace!

  47. Ron says

    Very unimpressed. I will give it another shot but a show really needs to grab you from the first episode and this one failed miserably for me. The best part of the episode for me was the song by The 2 Bears at the end credits.

  48. woodroad34d says

    I watched it with an 80 y/o man last night, who was aghast that everyone looked so dirty and grubby…I tried to explain that SF has more that style than LA with it’s muscle twinks and pretty boys. Still if diversity is what’s being looked for, what about adding a black or hispanic or asian preppy to the crowd as a counterpoint. And as someone said, the look is extremely 1970’s with the joint smoking, beards, lumberjack looks. Is SF really that stuck in that period? I somewhat expected to see The Cockettes show up in a scene or two with Sylvester singing “Mighty Real”.

  49. crispy says

    @Warner: Hilariously ironic comment. You scold the creators of the show for filling a “diversity quota” and then immediately follow that with a lengthy breakdown of the diverse characters on the show. It’s clear why the creators felt they needed to point out the ethnicities of their characters… because anti-intellectuals like you have demanded it of them.

    You also fail to mention that the reason Raul Castillo’s character is working the door of a bar is to pay for school. How dare they perpetuate that awful stereotype of Hispanic men trying to pay for an education. Furthermore, what’s so bad about working in the service industry? It sounds like you’re the one with the hangup there.

    People like you came to this show with a preconceived notion, and you’re going to see what you want to see. Bitterness is not an attractive quality.

  50. MickyFlip says

    Honestly, I wasn’t in the best of moods when it came on. But will give another chance. I did like the character development. Albeit, it started off slow but that’s only way to get a gist of the characterization. The setting was fantastic. I loved how they incorporated San Fran as it’s own character which gave depth to the surroundings.

    The one thing I did have an issue is with the Pot smoking. Look, I love pot. I used to smoke incessantly. However, times change. Not to mention I work for a corporate conglomerate which literally ties into your life whether you want it or not. Times they force you to make changes within yourself. (That’s what they do. And before anyone starts going off about corporate establishments. Let’s face it. HBO is a corporate establishment. But unlike my corporate entity, they’re probably more relaxed around certain things. Like pot use.) I love the characters but come on! Do I really have to be subjected to have to see them partake in enjoying themselves whilst I’m forced to live a ‘normal’ life and suffer??

    That’s my only major beef. Other than that, it seems promising. And I will give it another chance.

  51. Rex says

    Boring.Same old same old. Tawdry, superficial, retro stereotyping. Even setting it in SF was old news. Nothing contemporary or meaningful here. There’s more to gay life than gay sex. If we want the straight world to take us seriously, and if we want to be role models for gay youth, then get off this BOYS IN THE BAND merry-go-round!

  52. crispy says

    ” If we want the straight world to take us seriously”

    UGH. An emphatic no. HBO programming should not be responsible for spreading a positive gay message. It should tell a good story, warts and all.

    And for the tenth time today, if you watched “Looking” and all you saw was gay sex despite all the other scenes, then it sounds like you are the one with some sort of issue that needs to be worked out.

  53. Mario says

    The first episode touched on a lot of familiar topics that my gay friends and I have experienced. I love the fact that San Francisco is going to be a protagonist. In my 20’s I always wanted to move there as I thought that would be the only place I could be myself, I would be accepted. This is going to turn out to be another one of those series, that my friends and I will watch together. Very excited to see where “Looking” takes us.

  54. Chris says

    Meh…these characters aren’t people in my own gay world, I don’t know anyone IRL like them, nor would I want to know guys like them. Maybe it’s the town/area I live in, but just did not relate to it. Will not be watching episode two.

  55. Ken says

    I found it boring, but disagree with the poster who thought Jonathan would have no trouble finding a date. The show is set in SF, and he has an LA look, so of course he will have trouble finding a date!

  56. NealB says

    They should have pumped up the end of the pilot more. First episodes should end with a bang. Problem is, they didn’t define the guy Groff met on the bus enough after the date. He needed to be a surprise, something exceptional. I didn’t see it in his character. So they ended with Groff going to see him again and it wasn’t much of an ending. If I were them, I’d pull that episode, re-work it, pump up the ending and it would be a hit. Not much trouble to fix it, just get that one character…the guy he met on the bus…right? Why didn’t they give that guy a story to tell?

  57. JLEE says

    Hairy guys who look a bit smelly… Jonathan G’s character isn’t really believable as a hapless guy who can’t find a date, and who happens to have hipster friends…
    and why in a town that is comprised mostly of asians do we see so little of them.

    The show’s characters also seemed a little smelly looking. Am I the only one who thought so?

  58. RLW says

    Unremarkable and dull. If the first episode is aimed at pulling in an audience, it failed. I’ll watch another episode to see if the characters get some personality. If not then that’s it for mo.

  59. distinguetraces says

    The unhurried pace and casual tone made the first half hour feel a little slight — I think the pilot would have made a stronger impression if we’d had a whole hour to settle into.

    That said, I’m really optimistic. Yes, the leads are white, but even in the first half hour we’ve started edging toward the city’s social divisions: not just race but class (of course the two are linked together).

    I think that given time this is a show that will be able to provide a far more fleshed out sense of a city — a WHOLE city — than the New York shows it’s being compared to.

  60. Adam Dunn says

    Didn’t like the casual drug use in Weekend and didn’t like it here. Are there gay people who don’t use drugs? Where are they depicted?
    I liked the ending and the Japanese friend. Porn stash is the cliche trying to hold on to his youth and look 17 when he’s 45 and the couple, I didn’t care about them at all.

  61. Steve says

    I’m still missing my Tovey fix, but I enjoyed the honest feel of the show, was glad for the absence of a music track, and appreciated that the characters rode mass transit — as do my friends who live in San Fran (there’s simply nowhere to park a car unless you’re a millionaire). I’m happy for Jonathan Groff: his film “C.O.G.” deserved more notice, but this show will nudge his star higher. Kudos to director Andrew Haigh.

  62. slippy says

    We really liked it .This is the world of the young urban hipster. It looks and “smells” authentic to me -in a city where the average apt rents for $3,000 per month and a basic 2 bed room condo costs $850,000 +++++( too much to worry about clothes and stuff) and most are too busy with other things (coding,gaming, working out sexing,classes , hanging out having fun,walking the dogs,etc) to worry about spit polish grooming-it’s spot on. The only scene that I questioned was on the MUNI Metro — they had available seats -no way especially on the N-Judah Line ….

  63. Distingue Traces says


    LOL they also shouldn’t have been on MUNI at all, since Richie was going to Esta Noche and Patrick was going to El Rio.

    They would have been on a Daly City BART, getting off at 16th St and 24th st respectivel.

  64. Distingue Traces says

    The Zeta Cartel? Please. Not in SF.

    Your concerns are valid, but this is Northern California, the land of the summer fogs. We grow the best sensemilla on the continent.

    No one is going to pay some sorry-ass gangster for any depressing dried-out blood-weed that isn’t even from here.

  65. Snow White says

    I sat down to watch this with the other 7 members of my polyamorous relationship and was disgusted at how vanilla it was. None of it represented my reality or any of the LGBT people I know. Where was the sustainable living in a forest? Where was the sex with people of restricted growth? Why was nobody drugged and then raped by a member of royalty?

    I’m sorry but it all felt so very 2013. Like that’s where I was then, but now I’ve completely moved on. Are gay people still living in San Francisco even? And I’ve been there and never even seen a subway, so that’s completely invented and unrealistic!

    Oh, and it’s too short. I was just enjoying hating it, then it ended.

  66. Dr.Theopolis says

    Sadly disappointed by the first episode.

    I saw the three-way tryst coming a mile away and the clumsy, “you want to see my new tatoo?” – which then needed to be touched in order to be ‘seen’ – I felt the scene set-up and writing was beneath all the creative talent involved. I mean, is that all we are: sex obsessed and non-monogamous? Granted, straight people stray and cheat – but when was the last time you saw a straight threesome on any show? Let alone, on a pilot episode where we have not come to know/love the characters yet and understand the choices they make.

    I agree with POIROT’s assessment that it’s just Queer as Folk 2.0 – albeit a less noisy version.

  67. rebarb says

    Why didn’t they use their best co-star…San Francisco? San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in America! Let’s see more of it. Other than that I enjoyed the first episode. I thought the characters were well written, and throughly likable. The direction and production were first-rate. I’m looking forward to the next episode.

  68. crispy says

    “I mean, is that all we are: sex obsessed and non-monogamous?”

    At this point, I’m just going to start telling people who only saw sex on this show that they are idiots. There was so much more going on than sex… but if that’s all you saw, you’re the one with the problem that needs to be addressed. See your therapist.

    As for the threeway, let’s not pretend that doesn’t actually happen in gay circles, particularly among men in their twenties. I have numerous friends in monogamous relationships, but just as many who have the occasional threeway. Not to mention, it couldn’t have been more apparent foreshadowing that this was going to be a problem in their relationship, just like it is for some couples in real life. Try paying attention next time.


  69. Marc says

    Bravo! After one episode, I’m hooked! It’s almost scarily real in its honest depiction of gay life, but I can’t help but fall in love. Lauren Weedman is spectacular as the friend, true comic gold. And the men are marvelous. Can’t wait for episode #2!

  70. Queerasfcuk says

    Maybe it’s its familiarity that made me want to turn it off. It’s fluffy, but what gay program isn’t? It does feel like an accuate portrayal of life here in San Francisco if not a specific slice of it. I probably won’t be watchin it more because all my friends are just like them.

  71. crispy says

    Good riddance, Warner. Happy we won’t be seeing your negative attitude and inability to actually comprehend the show in the recap thread next week.

    Enjoy your Real Housewives.

  72. EJB says

    I flat out loved it. There were so many perfect, genuine moments – I particularly adored when Paddy said to Dom, “I could have said ‘no’ to you.” Dom retorts, “But you didn’t,” and there’s so much loaded into their facial expressions – a sweet, affectionate smile on Groff’s part, and a cocky look from Bartlett. Very tender and funny. Great acting that executes subtle writing.

  73. Mark says

    I think too many people today require being overwhelmed or immediately blown away or they’re not impressed. Like Weekend, this show seems powerfully real but in a more subtle way. Not everyone may enjoy or get that, especially for jaded set. I recommended Weekend to a younger friend and he ended up scanning it to get to the sex scene. Most people today seem to have the attention span of a two-year old on a sugar high so I can see how this show might also seem “boring”.

Leave A Reply