<p>I remember when Santana and Brittany “double” dated with Finn. I think they mentioned something along the lines that they make out while the guy watches.</p>
<p>Mark Salling will be back in Episode 6 according to [url=<a href=“http://www.tvfanatic.com/2010/10/where-was-puck-behind-mark-sallings-absence-from-glee/]this.[/url”>http://www.tvfanatic.com/2010/10/where-was-puck-behind-mark-sallings-absence-from-glee/]this.[/url</a>]</p>
<p>They have definitely hinted at Britney & Santana before. The episode that comes to mind is talking about sex and how it doesn’t equate to dating, to which Britney responded “if it did, Santana and I would be dating.”</p>
<p>Skipping back to favorite duets. My all time favorite Glee duet hands down is Defying Gravity by Lea Michele & Chris Colfer. It’s the only itunes song from the show I’ve ever purchased and love it!! It is so pure.</p>
<p>I wasn’t really trying to figure out if there were hints or not before. I was trying to say that today’s teens may be viewing that scene through a different frame of reference than their parents.</p>
<p>Has anyone seen the recent GQ photospread with some of the Glee cast??? (Rachel, Quinn and Finn) I haven’t seen it, but it has some people up in arms apparently. They are complaining about how it is inappropriate for characters from a “family show”. Family show?! I love Glee but generally don’t even have my 13 year old watch it with me. </p>
<p>In real life, I believe that Rachel and Quinn (can’t clearly/accurately remember their real life names) are 24 and Finn is 28. </p>
<p>I haven’t seen the pics, may not “approve”, but I don’t really care what they do on the side (for the most part) and just like the show!!!</p>
<p>(besides, even if people consider it a “family show”, would your 9 year old be reading GQ???)</p>
<p>abasket - the photos are online at GQ. They are no worse than other photos in magazines like GQ. I still do not consider Glee to be a "family’ show in the sense that I would not let young kids watch (if I had younger ones). </p>
<p>I don’t think there is anything wrong with the pictures myself.</p>
<p>The pictures are pretty racy, although in the world of GQ, perhaps not. I think part of the problem may stem from the ‘Naughty School Girl’ look, and that so many fans are ‘tweens’ that will possibly see the pictures available on GQs site on the internet. Cory Monteith stays fully clothed, but then it’s a magazine geared towards guys. Dianna Agron keeps her skirt on, although the pics are provocative. Lea Michele does go a step further, skimming down to her undies in these pics, including a full frontal ‘crotch shot’ which did surprise me, but again it is GQ. I wasn’t wild about the pictures, but no one made me look. I don’t have young kids. If I did and thought they might see them on the internet, I would make a point of explaining while these actors do play teens on TV, they are adults (the ladies 24, and Cory 28), and the pictures are consistent with what the magazine does each month. They were not exploited in any way.</p>
<p>I am not a prude, am not in any manner a conservative when it comes to matters of sexuality nor am offended or horrified by teenage or college age sexuality. I have a 21 year old daughter who was “that” high school musical theatre/chorus “geek” throughout high school, who has worked for years as a dancer for an entertainment company and who is now working professionally on stage. With that as a back drop, I found the GQ spread to be inappropriate and in poor taste for a variety of reasons. </p>
<p>First, who’s kidding whom. Glee is a show about high school students and is aimed and marketed in large measure to a high school and even junior high market. The images in the spread were intended to portray lascivious sexuality, come hither opportunities and a guy’s wet dream of a menage a trois. Hell, the only thing missing from Lea Michelle’s bra and panty “spread eagle” on the bench was a crotch wedgie with her panties. In another context I could care less about this and would not give it a second thought but here, with purpose and intent, the actors were in character as high school students and the photo shoot was intended to exploit the popularity of a program about high schoolers involved in performing arts. Let’s at least be honest about what the GQ spread was.</p>
<p>And that’s where it crosses the line for me. Even though GQ is an “adult men’s” magazine, in this day and age, there is no question that these images would spread all over the internet and be accessible to teenagers who would be drawn to it like moths to a flame. And the message sent to teens, who view these actors or their characters as role models or who aspire to the performing arts, is just plain wrong. It’s not as if this was a show like Spring Awakening (in which Lea Michelle was a principal) where teenage nudity and sexuality were contextually important and necessary components to the story being told and were thematically appropriate. Here, the semi-nudity and blatant sexuality were for no purpose other than to exploit the actors’ and show’s popularity to sell copy. What message does this send teens about values, self image, self esteem, their own sexuality and behaviors that are necessary to be popular and appealing to your peers. It provides a validation of behaviors that I suspect most parents would be less than pleased to see their own kids engage in. </p>
<p>And it is here that I think the actors abandoned a sense of responsibility as artists and their artistic integrity. Knowing that their characters in Glee and the show draw such a huge teen audience, what in the world were they thinking when they agreed to do the photo shoot in character. It would be one thing for them to appear as themselves but to do it in character presents a whole different dimension to the pictures and was irresponsible. They allowed their artistic success as their characters and their artistic work product (the show) to be exploited. And lest anyone question the exploitative nature of this, where were all the responsible adults that are supposed to be in these kids’ lives (and yes they are still kids on many levels), like agents and managers, who are suppose to provided career guidance - oh yeah, they were too busy counting the $$$ they would get in fees and commissions.</p>
<p>Well, tonight’s episode was about the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I didn’t like that a girl played Frankenfurter, otherwise, I thought they did a fun job with it. The changed some of the racier words to some of the songs but the jist and the melodies were great.</p>
<p>Can’t believe it…I’m visiting my Mom in upstate NY and the Cablevision dispute with Fox means I didn’t get to see it today! Fortunately H DVR’d it for when I get home…</p>
<p>Disclaimer, I don’t really watch the show but I found this interesting:</p>
<p>[Why</a> ‘Glee’ ain’t what it used to be - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2010/10/26/why_glee_aint_what_it_used_to_be/?p1=Upbox_links]Why”>http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2010/10/26/why_glee_aint_what_it_used_to_be/?p1=Upbox_links)</p>
<p>another cablevision victim…ugh they better get their act together or else i will have to switch to verizon. HEAR THAT, cablevision???</p>
<p>Loved, loved, loved tonight’s episode. I went to midnight showings of Rocky Horror when I was in high school, so I couldn’t help but sing along. D2 showed me the clip of “Time Warp” earlier in the week and the casting looked perfect, except I couldn’t figure out who was going to be Frankenfurter. Using Mercedes was a wonderful twist; I’d love to hear what Richard O’Brien (the original RiffRaff and the playwright) and Tim Curry thought of her take on “Sweet Transvestite”.</p>
<p>I’ve never watched Glee until tonight. Being a Rocky Horror fan, I had to see how they would handle it. They did a great job!</p>
<p>Let’s do the time warp again!</p>
<p>What I found interesting in tonight’s episode was the conversation between Sue and Will where he says it doesn’t matter that the play is racy because the kids have the Internet and Sue says something about how that doesn’t mean we have to lead them to it. I thought that was a great nod to the conversation swirling about the racier content of the show as it applies to kids.</p>
<p>ttparent, thanks for posting the link to the Boston Globe article. As much as I love watching Glee, I think I must agree with the writer of the article when he says that they have sacrificed character development and story-line for big-name “theme” shows. I hope they get back a bit more to the way it used to be…</p>
<p>The way it is now, it’s almost like watching a variety show that just happens to be set in something like a high school, with guest artists and/or themes for the week. I would probably still watch but not be all that invested in it…</p>
<p>^
churchmusicmom - I completely agree. The shows are (mostly) entertaining, but I would like to see some stories.</p>
<p>They need some balance. Frankly, the “character development” was never that great – mostly arranging and re-arranging cliches and ironic twists on cliches. I am never going to be terribly interested in the emotional lives of these characters. I want to see them sing and dance. But, yes, I do like a little bit of plot structure and narrative to hang the production numbers on, so it’s not just a variety show with an ensemble cast.</p>
<p>I definitely liked the ‘old’ days better, where there was a story plot and maybe just one big number per show. It’s too much singing now. Too much Streisand…and Rocky Horror…just wasn’t my cup of tea. I didn’t grow up with it, so I couldn’t relate at all…ended up switching to the Celtics/Heat Game because I was bored to tears. :(</p>