Gossip Girl Vs. Other Teen Dramas
Posted Sep 13, 2007 @ 8:29 PM
Josh picked a bunch of unknowns with the exception of Peter Gallagher to cast the O.C. Chace Crawford is from Texas and is an unknown, much like Ben McKenzie was. Nate Archibald however is being pegged as some brooding rich kid. I don't think he'll quite take the heights of Ryan Atwood but it seems to me they are pegging him for a darker role. Obviously Nate in the book does have a big problem with drugs. It'll be interesting to see how that plays off and if he feels like he has to save Blair or Serena. Penn Badgley has done a series of failed shows on the CW network - he reminds me of Adam Brody (not in the humor department or Seth Cohen) but the fact that Adam had done a series of cameos for the WB network and just a couple of movies before he got cast for the show. Penn playing Dan I think is an ideal match and I'm most excited to see how that'll look on camera. Leighton Meester is obviously the Rachel Bilson of the show, playing Blair the total bitch much like Summer Roberts was and she's fairly unknown. Blake Lively - while she looks terrific on camera is not what I was expecting for Serena and I have to say she could possibly become the Mischa Barton of the show, for better or worse. Serena is being set up as the tragic hero, let's just hope she isn't quite as time consuming as Marissa Cooper was. Of course Serena is a much more developed and complex character then Marissa ever was, but the comparisons are there with her possibly falling for the wrong side of the tracks guy. Ed Westwick as Chuck hasn't really impressed me in the trailers much. It seems like Chuck is the sleazeball as in the books but I found his acting in the trailers not exactly what I imagined as Chuck would be.
The other characters I'm not really too sure about as well since to me they haven't really been developed enough - we'll have to see how they are on the show.
The obvious comparisons to the OC have already been set up. Rich kids with dark pasts. What will happen? I think however there are differences since they have the books to rely on and when you read the series you get a much different feel. However something to watch out for I think is Josh's tendency to burn out after one season. The first season of the O.C. was terrific going about a mile a minute with shows. Additionally he's got some promotion behind him on the CW since they are pretty much all over it. Much like FOX was with the OC season 1. It'll be interesting to see if the CW keeps up the promotion or if they back off if viewers do. I pray for Josh's sake that he doesn't get burned out because as a former O.C. junkie, it was hard to watch the show spin away from the original concept. I hope he's learned a few lessons from that and will take it with him here.
The problem I see this show is still the books being the main idea. People have already fallen in love with the books and this is the kind of series that can dictate the creativity. Will it hold viewers interest for more then a few episodes? I think if Josh starts doing the same things he did on the O.C. - people are going to get tired of it. There's only so much of the "foursome-sixsome" kind of lines that anyone can handle. i.e. the same love triangles repeated over and over. It seems so predictable. But the teen show always has an audience. I pray for the cast of GG that Josh doesn't get burned out as I said. Otherwise you can expect the show to die a quick death, in my opinion.
Posted Sep 13, 2007 @ 8:43 PM
Posted Sep 13, 2007 @ 8:51 PM
I think Josh is great at creating ensemble casts. I've gone and read the other thread in general about this entire show and the books. I feel like it'll be interesting for the first 8 or 9 episodes and then...Josh will throw in the "oliver" wrench and screw it up. I mean he's great at like big openings and big finishes. But anyone who has watched the OC for the entire series like I did, knows he lags in the middle and tends to just recycle storylines repeatedly.
I think it's going to be way interesting how many viewers from a show like One Tree Hill make the switch as well. I'm thinking the execs at the CW are banking on it so that One Tree Hill can make some "graceful" exit from the show and them not have the Everwood crisis they had at the network. The CW really needs GG to succeed as they have pissed off everyone with the cancellation of VM. It was a nice thing to offer Kristen Bell that as well - to be the voice of GG which I think she loans a sense of credibility to the show.
Overall I feel the show will succeed but teenagers are notoriously fickle and these books are incredibly popular. If he starts screwing with Nate/Blair too much - even if the book calls for it and focuses way too much on the Dan/Serena thing, I have a feeling people are going to be pissed off. As for me I never was this big Blair fan so I found her tantrums a little annoying.
This show is up against Private Practice on ABC and Criminal Minds on CBS. It's going to get butchered in the ratings. Poor Josh just can't escape Shonda Rhimes! For those that don't remember the OC was on against Grey's Anatomy and got slaughtered every week in ratings it's last season.
Posted Sep 13, 2007 @ 9:57 PM
I completely agree with what you're saying, and I'm sorry that I came off as "correcting" you. That's crappy and I apologize. Although I will say that my impression has always been that Josh was off doing development during S2 & 3, and the reason S4 was so awesome was that he came back, and the whole team decided to make it awesome as an apology for S3. I'm paraphrasing a bit, but I do hold S3 against Josh less than perhaps I should.
Although I guess that still doesn't explain Oliver. Loved him anyway.
Your point about alienating the built-in fanbase, I hadn't thought about that at all. That's pretty scary. The MM thread here is full of adults calling it a guilty pleasure, so I guess the buzz is that it's skewing young. Which is fine, but if all we're counting on to watch it are those young girl fans of the books, it could be crazy hard to walk that line. Obviously, my hope would be that it develop into a family-smart show that attracts across age brackets, like The OC -- though even The OC never really shed that teenage demo perception either, did they? -- and based on the talent and people involved, I see no reason it shouldn't.
Posted Sep 14, 2007 @ 4:29 PM
Posted Sep 14, 2007 @ 9:10 PM
I'm an "older" fan and it's definitely a guilty pleasure for me. But I hope he can develop the adults a little further. One thing that made the OC great was the development of adults having their own storylines. But the books have really not developed the adults except for Blair Waldorf's mom and dad. Serena's mom and dad are basically non-existent.
Posted Sep 14, 2007 @ 9:46 PM
I agree with you about not having faith in the network. However, the WB was responsible for DC and OTH. Personally, I don't see any reason in separating DC, OTH, and The O.C. because when it comes right down to it, they are all teen shows. I really wouldn't call them soaps, though, since it isn't daytime.
The thing is with the CW network behind it I don't have any faith in the network. They have proven time and time again that the protypical soap opera type of show they want is in the vein of Dawson's Creek/OTH.
Posted Sep 15, 2007 @ 6:42 AM
Edited by TWoP Bayliss, Sep 15, 2007 @ 1:35 PM.
Posted Sep 16, 2007 @ 6:10 PM
Hopefully, they don't cater to the younger audience and throw in insulting storylines...
I think the show will be written with an adult edge, just basing this on the first episode feel. I still think there will be some wildly outlandinsh storylines that a "typical" teen would never be involved with, but when you have a cast with a bunch of 20-somethings portraying 16/17 year olds, I think they at least try to give them more "adult" situations. Just be lucky we're not dealing with any Andrea Zuckerman's here.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 9:37 PM
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:01 PM
Wow, and I thought other shows actors looked too old for the part. I only saw about 10 minutes of thie pilot, but no way these people can pull off being in high school.
The girl playing Jenny is like 14, and was born in 1993. She was Cindy Lou or whatever in how Jim Carrey Stole Christmas.
Serena just turned 20 in real life, which means she was about 19 when she filmed the pilot. Blair is 21. The guy playing Nate is 22. Penn B. aka Dan was born in November 1986, which would make him just getting ready to turn 21. Chuck was born in 1987, making him 20. With the exception of Taylor Mormenson, everyone was born in 1985/1986/1987...which isn't too bad, as they are portraying characters who were probably born around 1989/1990/1991. Compare that to Gabrielle Carteris, who was born in 1961 but played a girl born around 1975, and the more recent example of Ben McKenzie, who was born in 1978 but played a boy who was born around 1987/1988.
All in all, we really don't have a single Andrea Zuckerman here. No one is even in their mid-20's yet, which the majority of both the O.C. cast and Veronica Mars were. Sure, they'd definitely look more in place as college upperclassmen as opposed to high school upperclassmen, but trust me...there's not a huge difference in how a 17 year old looks and how a 21-year old looks. Guys generally have more facial hair and are a little more developed, and that's it. We dress exactly the same otherwise.
Edited by MethodActor05, Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:41 PM.
Posted Sep 19, 2007 @ 11:47 PM
Posted Sep 20, 2007 @ 12:10 AM
Posted Sep 24, 2007 @ 4:44 PM
That felt like a very odd mix between the two (OC/VM) and I couldn't work it out - maybe that's because I haven't read the GG books, but it seemed quite weak and unsure of what it was offering.
I think it is probably worth watching and seeing if it gets into any sort of stride, but if one was to compare it to either the VM or OC pilot, then it's clear that no one actor/actress or plot line stands out to hook you in, and those were definite strengths displayed in both of those programmes.
Edited by legion, Sep 24, 2007 @ 4:48 PM.
Posted Sep 26, 2007 @ 9:33 AM
I kinda like the fact that it looks like Chuck is totally geting away with assaults on girls.
While the two attempted rapes in one episode was bothersome, and just a little bit unnecessary, I think it was interesting that these were attempts by a friend/acquaintance (I don't have stats on hand, but I believe it is far more common to be raped by someone you know than a random attack), that Chuck isn't immediately punished (because while I wish he were, I know that this is a little truer to life), and ... oh crap. i just remembered that Canada gets episodes one day before. Anyway, I thought the treatment was a little more realistic than what can be seen on TV/film (i.e. the cliché crying in the shower type scenes). Although, a friend often questions why there is a need to have rapes in teen dramas, if they really are necessary to the narrative. But that's one I'm undecided on (more realistic treatments versus having them at all).
On a different note, I really like the casting of Jenny and Eric. They look like young teenagers. The other actors, thankfully, aren't pushing 30, but it is good to see at least two actors look younger. It's one of the things you notice about the two Degrassi series versus various teen shows on American networks - age appropriate casting. I'm not sure why, but it's pretty standard practice to hire actors who are at least 20 to portray teenagers. BTW, having not read the books, how old are Serena/Blair/etc supposed to be?
Posted Sep 26, 2007 @ 11:09 PM
As long as Chuck remains an ass with no chance of redemption from the writers (which I'm doubting), then this show may actually stand out from the teen drama genre.
Although this show has done an even better job of making their minority characters irrelevant. They make Sam on Smallville look complex!
Posted Sep 27, 2007 @ 12:38 PM
Although this show has done an even better job of making their minority characters irrelevant. They make Sam on Smallville look complex!
Hee. Long live Pete! At least he had more lines and actually figured into the storylines of SV more. The two girls on this show are there mostly for decoration.
Posted Sep 27, 2007 @ 6:15 PM
Posted Sep 27, 2007 @ 8:25 PM
It does seem to be sort of a phenomena right now, kind of like a return to the days of the early 20th century when teenagers looked very mature, like full grown adults.
Posted Sep 28, 2007 @ 4:17 PM
Posted Sep 28, 2007 @ 5:06 PM
Posted Sep 30, 2007 @ 7:16 PM
Posted Oct 1, 2007 @ 9:42 AM
I think a crucial difference for me between GG and other teen dramas is the lack of preachiness, whether that's a good or bad thing...
I also appreciate the relative snappiness of the dialogue.
Posted Oct 3, 2007 @ 8:31 AM
Posted Oct 5, 2007 @ 8:18 PM
Posted Oct 5, 2007 @ 11:29 PM
I like the Degrassi series ten times better. This is more like observing the hyena compound at the zoo; fascinating in its own right but keep them far away from me.
I've tried to watch degrassi so many times and I cannot get passed the horrid acting, then when I juuuust start to, I get frustrated with the cheesy storylines. It's just so wanna-be deep when really it's trying too hard and it shows.
And I've already had my words about The OC. I'm still trying to figure out why it's held up with such high esteem. It had approximately one awesome season, imo. OC may have had "heart" or whatever but someone in another thread said this show is "heartless" which is why I think I'm liking it so much. It's kinda of like the bizarro world OC. Lots of bitchy characters, no friendship is sacred, no relationship "destined". I find that so much more fascinating.
Edited by shalia17, Oct 5, 2007 @ 11:30 PM.
Posted Oct 6, 2007 @ 2:04 PM
I honestly loved The OC but I am enjoying Gossip Girl more overall. The highs aren't as high as The OC but there isn't the acting low of Mischa Barton either.
Posted Oct 7, 2007 @ 12:53 AM
Gossip Girl needs to avoid becoming a show about a love triangle, which was ultimately The OC's biggest downfall. Brenda/Dylan/Kelly didn't heat up until the third season!