Reply to Heated Rivalry (Crave/HBO-Max)

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Heated Rivalry (Crave/HBO-Max)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I honestly don’t care how the show would’ve been received (or not) if it didn’t have smut. The fact is, it has smut and we like it. And that’s not something women need to apologize, justify, or explain. Newsflash: women like sex. Many women even watch porn. Gasp! Get over it.[/quote]

Exactly. Not sure why posters are trying to insist the sex wasn’t a big part of what made it popular, or that it wasn’t central to the show, or that it isn’t smutty. It is all of the above and nothing wrong with that.

Tierney did an interview where he talked about how the show was written around sex as the sex was used for communication, to build intimacy, to show vulnerability / honesty and was the core of the relationship between the two leads. People who don’t get why the sex was needed in the show and so central to it missed out on 90% of the show! [/quote]

Yes, I saw Tierney say that for him, physical chemistry is a necessary prerequisite to emotional chemistry, and imo, I think that’s the way it is for most people. So the sex is super important. But it isn’t the most important thing.[/quote]

A lot of men need sex to bond emotionally and women need emotional bonding to want sex. It was written by a woman for women so she made sure to wind that emotional bonding in so that women would want the sex.

These novels that are adapted are romance / smut novels. The main audience is middle aged women who are reading it for the smut. Harlequin romance novels aren't literary classics!

There are hundreds of thousands of comments online by women about how arousing the sex scenes were for them and comments on the bodies of the two leads. A lot of women are very into the smut aspect. The fact that the acting / directing / producing / lighting  / editing was so well done made it far more watchable but at the end of the day it is just a really well made adaptation of a hockey smut Harlequin romance novel. There is going to be sex in season 2 as well - it is based on another of her books that is already written and it is the same genre - hockey smut.[/quote]
you seem to be working overtime to prove a smut point. people can like it for different reasons [/quote]

I also like it for all kinds of reasons but the idea that the smut / sex / physical intimacy is irrelevant to the show is just nonsense. Pretty much everyone involved in the show has talked about the sex as the foundation of the entire show!

Yes - the great casting of new actors (who are real people with imperfect looks) who did an amazing job, great directing and giving freedom to the actors to make it their own, the two leads hitting it off so well as friends off screen, the lighting, the videography, the producing, the editing, the musical score, the simplicity all were critical to the success but none of that would have been noticed if it wasn't a smutty romance.

[/quote]
Why so angry? Not sure what your definition of smut is but plenty of people could love this series because of the reasons already stated and done without the extended sex scenes. I don't know why you're hell bent to insist otherwise. It's obvious it's found its audience - whoever they may be and for whatever reasons.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics