Hi, this is the first time I've posted here so please forgive any mistakes ...
I was just wondering; in the UK original, the focus of the series was the Brian/Michael relationship, and they were the ones who ended up together. So, did Cowlip originally intend that in the US version, and did they just go with the Brian/Justin pairing because they realised how hot the chemistry between Gale and Randy was?
Does anybody know?
I was just wondering; in the UK original, the focus of the series was the Brian/Michael relationship, and they were the ones who ended up together. So, did Cowlip originally intend that in the US version, and did they just go with the Brian/Justin pairing because they realised how hot the chemistry between Gale and Randy was?
Does anybody know?
no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 03:09 am (UTC)Cowlip had cameras and writers, if they wanted us to feel like Brian and Justin were still together they could have conveyed that instead of feeding us "it's only time" and fading Justin away like he never existed. I mean seriously how dumb do they think we are?
no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 03:20 am (UTC)I don't have anything to add to the discussion because I basically agree that Cowlip fucked with the fans in a truly evil hissy-fit drama queen manner, but the way you worded this made me lol!!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 03:59 am (UTC)We're just idiots. What do we know?
no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 07:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 10:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 02:20 pm (UTC)They lost every bit of credibility with me when they allowed the characters to harp on Brian for having Stockwell as a client for all of season 3, but still allowed Ben and Melanie to become the new Philip and Tannis at the GLC for seasons 4 and 5, the same GLC that endorsed Stockwell. The hypocrisy is mind numbing.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 02:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 02:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 03:16 pm (UTC)Silly
I'm joking, please don't take that seriously.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 03:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-16 03:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-26 08:01 am (UTC)I hope you don't mind this comment:
Groups like the GLC are really important in the gay community and in society in general. They might contain some bad eggs from time to time, but that doesn't mean they should be written off. The better the membership the better the organisation, so I have no problem with Mel and Ben becoming more prominent.
I don't even blame Philip and Tannis very much. They were just a bit dumb, naive and timid, and it was quite justified for the other characters to criticise Brian for supporting Stockwell. He was in the wrong, and didn't have stupidity, naivity and timidity as excuses.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-26 07:09 pm (UTC)Brian took Stockwell on for profit, for his company, and for his future. While it wasn't the most ethical thing he could have done, he did it and it wasn't because he wanted what Stockwell was selling or the life that Stockwell was promising and that is the BIG difference between the two.
So Ben judging Brian in front of everyone at the diner, in front of his family, and questioning Brian's ethics, over Stockwell, while taking up the mantel for the same organization that endorsed him is hypocritical.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-30 04:37 pm (UTC)IDK - maybe I have the wrong idea. Maybe volunteer organisations don't mean much in the U.S. I thought they did, and they certainly do where I come from.
I actually can't remember the Ben scene you refer to, but there is no doubt Brian was unethical initially with regards to Stockwell. Ben was generally pretty tolerant of Brian and Michael's sometimes unhealthy devotion to him. He mostly bit his tongue where Brian was concerned. If he slipped up occasionally, I don't blame him. I wouldn't have been anywhere near as tolerant (I'm a Brian lover BTW, but he is a seriously flawed character - that is part of his charm).