I have no inside information on the show. I'm just telling you what I know, based on experience, of being in the industry coming up on 20 years. Read my other post where I illustrate my points.

The Creator of almost every show is given an Executive Producer credit, if not every show. It doesn't mean they're doing real Executive Producer work. It would be pretty impossible for her not to be involved in producing the show, in some way, though. To me, it would be more meaningful if she had a regular Producer credit. Private joker might know a little bit more how that stuff breaks down, though.

if ootv leans towards this show, all I can say is wow.

it was ok but nothing special. and I have no problem with female oriented programming.

What's appealing about the show, to me, is that it is a realistic portrayal of dysfunction. There are a zillion of this type of show on right now, but nearly all of them aren't even the slightest bit realistic or believable. True dysfunction, in the way this story is appearing to be told, is just barely visible on the surface. Every other show makes it a constant, overt thing, while still upholding a family unit that shouldn't be able to function otherwise.

Even though I wouldn't classify it as a comedy, it could end up being a show that's talked about years from now (if it makes it), as being a show that built on the dysfunctional families/people genre, as opposed to the over the top caricature that almost all of these shows are (even though Married...with Children eventually became a super caricature, when it started, it was so fresh in the sea of the "everything's so great" sitcoms that didn't represent how I grew up at all). I think Girls is actually kind of depressing, when you step back from it, because no one on the show seems to have the faintest idea what a true happiness is, or has any real desires to attain anything. Hannah is the only one who looks like she's not staring at a dead end life, even though she has zero prospects at the moment.

One of the best, edgy comedies of the modern type that I saw in a long time was a show called Wonderfalls, that aired about 10 episodes on FOX (all 13 were available on DVD). It was so far ahead of its time that it couldn't make it. There was literally at least one thing per episode that my jaw was dropped wide open, as I couldn't believe it made it to network TV. Girls seems a lot more broad than that one, and HBO doesn't really give two s***s about ratings, as long as there is the potential for awards. So, as long as Dunham doesn't melt down over the eventual pressure she's going to face over this show, it could be in for a long run.

I liked it and laughed a fair bit. Wasn't exactly what I was hoping for but I can't imagine not watching it.

I like Hannah.

In terms of female oriented programming, it's definitely better than 2 broke girls.

That's a really horrible comparison, since the two shows aren't even remotely similar.

I will still watch it, as I saw all 6 eps of Bomb Girls. The dynamic and dysfunction ( which was well done) just needs a few more eps to create a baseline for the character interaction.

Nice to see Pete Scolari get another regular role.

Yeah, this is it exactly for me. I'm kind of tired of the old TV trope of having characters desperately try to appear likable for the audience instead of being more like real people. I don't think we're supposed to "like" any of the characters so far but we can still empathize with their situations and problems. And I'm guessing they'll naturally become more likable as the relationships between them progress.

It's not necessarily that we'll like them. It's that we actually will care about their outcomes. You don't have to like someone to be invested in their outcome, if that makes sense.

cres, agreed about Scolari.

Not that it matters for HBO, but the initial Girls ratings are in. It had a 0.4 in the 18-49 demo with 872,000 viewers. Those aren't great numbers, by any means, but they are significantly higher than the numbers I saw for Luck, and this show is certainly a lot cheaper than that one was. The reason I mention Luck is that it was renewed shortly after it first aired, or shortly before it first aired, I can't remember. Of course, the horse issue caused it to get canceled, after all, but that doesn't mean anything in regard to this.

Watched it last night. Thought it was okay and worth continuing. The How to Make It In American comparison seems apt.

I definitely laughed more than the average poster itt, but i can see it not appealing to a broad range of humor. Also felt legit bad for hanna during the scenes with her guy, so i guess i like her enough to care a little bit.

i saw the first episode. i think i'll keep watching it, but i know i will hate a lot of it. there's a fine line on a show like this between versimilitude and pandering - bored to death also toed that pandering line, but it didn't claim to be real at all, so i could forgive the pandering aspects.

i really have no idea how or why louie is being evoked wrt this show.

The reason Louie is being invoked is this:

Lena Dunham-Creator, Executive Producer, Writer, Director, Actor
Louis C.K.-Creator, Executive Producer, Writer, Director, Actor, Editor

This is abnormal, really really abnormal. There's no other reason it's being invoked.

i liked it, but seems a bit rough around the edges

loled hard a few times

Ouch:

Wow. That's pretty awesome.

Such a dumb criticism of the show imo.

It's this thing called "acting", maybe people have heard of it. And obviously this is the first time this kind of thing has ever happened in show business.

Yeah, but funny is funny.

Yeah, that is really funny, actually. Who invented the Canon 7D? Jody Lee Lipes?

What better people to inhabit the show than people who have had everything given to them, and now have to learn to make it on their own, once they're cut off, right? Isn't that part of the basic idea of the show?

lol, awesome.

I enjoyed the first episode, will def catch the rest of the season.

Still sad at no more How To Make It In America though.

That poster really misses the point. The first ep is all about the lead character struggling with her sense of privilege- if anything the actor's backgrounds aid in that.

This, but also this bizarre idea that being the daughter of Laurie Simmons makes you a lock to get an HBO show. Is there some HBO executive that is like oh we don't want to cast you ... wait your dad is the drummer in Bad Company/Brian Williams/David Mamet, you're hired! There are so many privileged children who try and make a movie with their parents money about 20-something existential ennui and Lena Dunham is one of the few people who actually succeeded.

I liked the pilot a lot more than I expected to. I think the complaints that the characters are entitled deluded brats is missing the whole point of the show, the show realizes they are entitled deluded brats and presumably it will be about their growth and maturity. There is a really tough balance between authenticity of dialogue and obnoxious name-dropping when they casually reference G-Chat or Sex and the City in conversation. In the pilot, I didn't mind it, but I could easily change my mind.

I really like The Big Lebowski, but it is tough to watch knowing Jeff Bridges got ahead due to nepotism.

I don't think it's a coincidence that this is the show where that argument finally comes up. People see a young woman making her own show and having all this success and instantly have a pathological need to try to discredit her accomplishments.