Tales of the City

I was really looking forward to the updated version, as I have seen every episode as it originally aired on PBS. The story-line was great, it was awesome to see the original actors'actresses reprising their iconic roles. Then came "the twins". Absolutely not even needed to be a part of the series. Those characters ruined it for me. I understand that perhaps the creator wanted to include Millennials to introduce the series to a new generation, but OMG, the extreme stereotypes of our youth and their digital habits seem to have gone too far, and the outcome that was in the show was not only extremely annoying but downright ridiculous. And to think I was worried about the stereotypes of the LGBTQ community.

I was very excited about this new series on Netflix, where love is standing central. Love told in many ways... new love, family love, love for friends. There are quite a lot of characters passing by in a short time, but in some way you get easily connected to their stories and all lead actors try to bring as many depth to their characters as possible. It doesn't want to be pretentious, which I was afraid of. Tales of the City does deliver some great stories. This should be clearly a series which needs more story and episodes to give some characters more space to tell their story. But, it's all heart warming and just the sort of series what we need these days. If your heart isn't made of stone, I'm sure you will melt in a heartbeat.

I had alread red the Tales Of the City books at least the first 5 or so, and lived in the Bay Area in the early 80s when the books were being published to my then delight. So these remarks are from an oldie.

The Netflix 2019-extensions of the Tales Of the city saga is ten hours of uneven yet satisfying setup for perhaps another future generation of tales.

It's presented in the form of a whodunnit (whoisdoingit) plot with a some wrapping up of previous loose ends with new characters to carry it forward. Seems each episode has a different writer so the intensity varies between episodes. Superficially it's just the same old nonsense as the previous series, but this time with a slower pace and with current obsessions and topics. Mr Maupin makes a cameo as usual.

Nice that the Gene Compton's cafeteria event gets attention, no doubt will bring that to international attention.

My initial reaction was distaste at episodes-1 and 2. I wanted to dislike this effort out of imaginary respect for the old characters. I did not immediately like the new younger characters until later in the series.

Despite the dodgy timeline (Michael Tolliver is portrayed as 54 when 64 might be more consistent with the books ) and the initial difficulty of accepting the new younger characters, it won me over. Some scenes dragged however. Episode-3 dinner scene was intense, as was a young character rifling though an older character's 80s address book with most names crossed out, a familiar agony for my generation.

Nice musical background too.

In short schmatltzy magical soap for millennials and nostalgic oldies.

I live in San Francisco, I read all the books, and loved the original P.B.S. series. I'm definitely in the target audience. There are parts of the series that they get right and enjoy. From a nostalgic point of view, it's fun and delightful seeing the original actors: Olympia Dukakis and Laura Linney playing Mrs Madrigal and MaryAnne Singleton. Murray Bartlett and Ellen Page are welcome additions and fit right in to the cast as Michael Tolliver and Shauna. Armistead Maupin's story has always had a whimsical "alternative, somewhat idealized reality " that you have to somewhat suspend reality to be on board for both the books and the television series. The new writers have maintained this tone which has it's pros and cons. The pros are: it's cute and whimsical. Gay men also enjoy it for being able to see men actually doing more than kissing. The P. C. sex scenes of all genders are plentiful throughout the episodes. The overall story lines seem slow and very drawn out over the 10 episodes. I'm an attempt to please everyone, particularly a younger maybe more progressive crowd, there's the young kids storyline with the trans and gender fluid kids. A 2 hour movie would have moved the story along in a more smooth and succinct way, instead of "way to many " conversations about people and past events. (The worst stereotypes of the daytime soaps when fans complain about the snails pace of stories). If you're stuck home with the flu or it's bad weather outside, it's not a bad way to pass the time. If you want an entertaining well written, cohesive plot drive show with characters you're invested in, try something like "Schitts Creek ". I was really disappointed with this one!

I'm two episodes in, I'm quite enjoying it, but the flaws are glaringly obvious. I'll start with the biggest one and that is the supposed gap in decades that has occurred. I would have much preferred that it was set in the 90s or early 2000s, with the first series being set in the 70s this just doesn't add up for me. I'm finding it hard to move past it and very distracting.

The second flaw is the constant nods and winks to the younger generation and references to Instagram etc. There was an annoying pause in the flower shop when a customer paid for his purchase using his phone. This approach, which I think is intentional, is incredibly obnoxious.

Aside from these criticisms, I'm still a fan of the original material, and I am hopeful it settles down. Laura Linney rocks