DISQUS

Jill · 1 year ago

Skins is brilliant!

WHarrisBullzEye · 1 year ago

Two episodes into "90210," it's becoming painfully apparent that the adults are going to be better written than the kids...but maybe that's not a bad thing.

As a friend from my youth said, "I agree that the ‘old’ characters were better written. If they are smart, they will keep it that way to hold on to the older audience. One of these days, the networks are going to realize that the advertising audience has ‘aged.’ Kids don’t buy anything anymore - they just steal it off the internet - so why not cater to the MTV crazed 80’s couch potatoes? We’ve got money to burn.”

But with that said, I don't know how long I'M going to stay interested. If I'm going to have a guilty-pleasure series, I'd rather it be "Gossip Girl" or "Dirty Sexy Money." And, besides, given that the "90210" revival came courtesy of Rob Thomas ("Veronica Mars") and is executive-produced by guys who worked on "Life As We Know It" and "Freaks and Geeks," it shouldn't even BE a guilty pleasure. It should be a legitimate pleasure...and it just isn't, frankly.

Malchus · 1 year ago

I couldn't agree with you more, Will. I've watched three eps. of "90210" and can't stomach it anymore. I'll stick with Peter Krause and co. for my guilty pleasures. That didn't come out right.

Have you seen "Skins"? I'm interested in your opinion.

WHarrisBullzEye · 1 year ago

I'm embarrassed to admit that your column is the first I've heard of "Skins." But as a critic, I'm totally deflecting the blame from myself over to BBC America, who never sent me a press release or a screener. I will, however, certainly be checking it out post-haste, based on your rave...

Malchus · 1 year ago

Very smooth deflection.

LuRew · 1 year ago

I watched the premiere of '90210' v.2 out of nostalgic curiousity and while it's not like I had high expectations, I expected it to at least be 2 hours of mindless fun. But no. It was just 'meh.' In fact, you know it's bad when the best scene is with the 'grandmas' - Jessica Walters and Linda Gray. At least they had personalities.

After reading so much about it, I was excited to see BBC America pick up 'Skins' - and unlike '90210' it totally doesn't disappoint. Sex (girl on boy, boy on boy, teacher on student....), drugs, anorexia, abandonment,...it's got it all but without feeling like they're just trying to push the hot teen buttons. The kids seem real and none of them are all good or all evil - they're just kids from different races, classes, and backgrounds coping with real life issues. It's like an R-rated 'Degrassi.'

Malchus · 1 year ago

I thought of "Degrassi" (a Canadian show), too.

Ted · 1 year ago

Whenever the new 90210 had a scene with Kelly, Brenda, or even Kelly's mom, I was completely interested. But the new cast and the story lines are just so generic that I completely lost track of the new characters and wondered if I had ADD or something.

I haven't heard of "Skins" either, but I do have BBC America, so I'll definitely check it out.

DwDunphy · 1 year ago

I dunno. The whole notion of rich teenagers having sex as a TV series tentpole has worn thin. Plus, is it just me or would I bother with Gossip Girl if, suddenly, a deranged acolyte among them started getting a little Columbine?

I might, I might.

soozi · 9 months ago

great article but the bbc DOES NOT produce Skins. The credit for that belongs soley at the door of E4 an off shoot of uk comercial broadcaste Channel 4. The bbc has nothing to do with Skins. BBC america buys in shows from all the british networks not just those made by the bbc themselves.

Kate · 8 months ago

you fools, skins wasn't produced by the bbc.

are you just assuming that the bbc is the only broadcasting channel we have?