What TV legacy will Girls leave?

Mr Trick

Mr Trick

Scooby
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Messages
18,076
Age
46
Location
London, UK
Lena Dunham’s Girls: the show that turned TV upside down

A nice little piece from last week Guardian guide to make you think.

So Lena Dunham's show enters its sixth and final season (though a movie is promised).

For those who have seen it (I still haven't),
1. What sort of legacy do you think the show will leave?

2. Is it really the new Sex and the City?

3. Do you consider it a positive or negative portrayal of women?
 
ILLYRIAN
ILLYRIAN
Umm yeah, who is she?
I've not seen this show. I've also not seen Sex and the City, but that show is in pop culture, so I know the basics. I've no idea what Girls is, I heard it's just girls in New York complaining about their lives. I just know Lena Dunham has been mentioned a lot in the media, and even in Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life. I don't really get the references though. I don't know. I have no interest in watching this, whereas I am curious about Sex and the City. So I hope it doesn't leave any kind of legacy.
 
nightshade
nightshade
no legacy with me either, not even heard of it before this thread!
I watched the first couple of eps, but it wasn't for me. But the people who love it, really love it, so I am sure it will have an impact. Lena Dunham certainly seems to know how to court controversy, so more power to her. I'm more of the Sex & The City generation, that show had major impact, at least on me 🙂
 
I've not seen it yet either. I do worry that it takes the sex angle of the show a bit too far. Its good to represent female sexuality (lets face it, it is so under represented on TV and films), but sometimes it feels like that is what the show is about too much. I think sometimes the message is that, that's what the female experience should be solely about. At times it feels like they are trying to shock just for the sake of it. But then again maybe Dunham is the female Woody Allen who knows😀
 
It's a more realistic take of being a young woman in a big city (not that I know what living in a big city is like!) but I find it more relatable than Sex and the City was, because to be honest I had no idea where Carrie et al got all their money from to live in these big apartments and spend thousands on shoes. Girls just seems to be more grounded. I've seen all the seasons apart from the latest one, and I think it works better because the characters are actually on the most part selfish, slightly immoral, egotistical and obnoxious but you still root for them in the end. None of them are all sweetness and light. They all have these massive issues. They're all totally insecure and really, they're not women, they are girls.
 
Athena said:
It's a more realistic take of being a young woman in a big city (not that I know what living in a big city is like!) but I find it more relatable than Sex and the City was, because to be honest I had no idea where Carrie et al got all their money from to live in these big apartments and spend thousands on shoes. Girls just seems to be more grounded. I've seen all the seasons apart from the latest one, and I think it works better because the characters are actually on the most part selfish, slightly immoral, egotistical and obnoxious but you still root for them in the end. None of them are all sweetness and light. They all have these massive issues. They're all totally insecure and really, they're not women, they are girls.
Click to expand...

Well you've sold me on it from that description😀 That is what I am it would be like.

I share you cynicism about SATC. To me the characters are just to smug and glamorous to really strike a cord with me. The first couple of seasons were quite good, after that it lost its wit and became too big for its boots IMO.😉
 
Other than being a show with 4 main female characters and being in NYC, I don't see the comparison to Sex and the City. One is more a coming of age story that focuses on current societal trends, while the other focuses on friendship and dating. Part of Sex and the City's legacy is the fashion and for the most part it isn't suppose to be something that is believable....it's a typical sitcom that you sorta have to suspend belief for to enjoy.

As much criticism as Dunham receives; I don't know that Girls will really be a fondly remembered show outside of people who are big fans of her.
 
brinkster130 said:
I don't know that Girls will really be a fondly remembered show outside of people who are big fans of her.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. It's not really a show I would recommend to someone, put it that way. Not that I think it's rubbish, I actually enjoy it, but it's so hard to describe it in a positive way, because almost all the characters are a-holes..... 🙄
 
Fuffy Baith
Fuffy Baith
Yep, you're not selling me on this. Lol
It's legacy will probably be a fan producing a similar show in a few years time. Other than that the wider world will forget. I saw a few minutes while my girlfriend was watching it, looked awful.

Lena Denham strikes me as thoroughly unpleasant. The details she's made public about her sister, who by all accounts is a private person, are inexcusable.
 
The Bronze said:
It's legacy will probably be a fan producing a similar show in a few years time. Other than that the wider world will forget. I saw a few minutes while my girlfriend was watching it, looked awful.

Lena Denham strikes me as thoroughly unpleasant. The details she's made public about her sister, who by all accounts is a private person, are inexcusable.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that for something to have a legacy it doesn't have to be a big massively watched show. If Girls does influence other shows like you say it might, then that could be it.

As for Denham? I don't know as much about her personal life as some of you, so can't comment on her too much. But yeah I think someone like Tina Fey is a much fresher and positive female voice.
 
I haven't seen this show, but did read the article which compares/contrasts itself extensively with Sex and the City, a show I did watch some episodes of. I personally didn't find anything particularly valuable in Sex and the City. Though it had its fun moments, it ultimately promoted a surprisingly vanilla view of sexuality, at least in the 8-12 eps I saw. It either treated anything other than the "basics" as a joke (to be done by their token nympho friend which I'm sure they'd have never let their main character do) or to dismiss (in at least one to even shame). This includes things like polyamory, swinging, and kinks. While the show can't be called Puritan by any means, it was still promoting a very narrow view of sexuality with firm boundaries on what was acceptable.

Though what I disliked most was how stupid they made women look while trying to do the opposite. My memories are vague because it's approaching 20 years since I saw it, but I do recall something about how they based who they decided to vote for on how cute a man is. And they were vain and shallow like the Cordettes, and I couldn't relate to the characters. So if Girls is anything like SATC then I won't have any interest in it, but I'm sure it will continue a long legacy that already exists.
 
thrasherpix said:
I haven't seen this show, but did read the article which compares/contrasts itself extensively with Sex and the City, a show I did watch some episodes of. I personally didn't find anything particularly valuable in Sex and the City. Though it had its fun moments, it ultimately promoted a surprisingly vanilla view of sexuality, at least in the 8-12 eps I saw. It either treated anything other than the "basics" as a joke (to be done by their token nympho friend which I'm sure they'd have never let their main character do) or to dismiss (in at least one to even shame). This includes things like polyamory, swinging, and kinks. While the show can't be called Puritan by any means, it was still promoting a very narrow view of sexuality with firm boundaries on what was acceptable.

Though what I disliked most was how stupid they made women look while trying to do the opposite. My memories are vague because it's approaching 20 years since I saw it, but I do recall something about how they based who they decided to vote for on how cute a man is, and just overall, they were vain and shallow like the Cordettes, and I couldn't relate to the characters. So if Girls is anything like SATC then I won't have any interest in it, but I'm sure it will continue a long legacy that already exists.
Click to expand...

I think you make some good points about SATC. I share much of your negativity towards it. From what I hear the movies takes those shallow parts to even greater extremes. Its like it just turned into one great promotion of capitalism sending the message that a woman's only function in life was to spend lots of money on clothes and shoes, and that would be all they need to make them happy.🙄
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom