Home
| Search
| Now Playing
| News
| My Movies
| Games
| Boards
| Help
| US Movie Showtimes
| Top 250
| Register
| Recommendations
| Widgets
Box Office
| Index
| Trailers
| Jobs
|
IMDbPro.com - Free Trial
| IMDb Resume
Copyright © 1990-2008
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
Watch it at Amazon
Buy it at AmazonMore at IMDb Pro Discuss in Boards Add to My Movies Update Data
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votestv scheduleAwards & Reviews
user commentsexternal reviewsnewsgroup reviewsawardsuser ratingsrecommendationsmessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsAmazon.com summarymemorable quotesFun Stuff
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
merchandising linksbox office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specslaserdisc detailsDVD detailsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsIMDb user comments for
"Gossip Girl" (2007) More at IMDb Pro »
164 out of 287 people found the following comment useful :-
A "signature show" that showcases lack of talent and viewership, 4 March 2008
Author: Vernon T. Weiss from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
So CW has just renewed Gossip Girl, hyping it as one of its "signature show".
That action begs for the question "are they insane?" to be asked.
Gossip Girl is a really bad show, based on a flimsy premise that may have been enough to support a movie, but is just obnoxious as a series.
Predictably, audiences have decided to stay away from Gossip Girl in droves, which indirectly led to CW firing a bunch of its staffers.
But where is the justice, I ask, when the staffers are fired and the bad actors, producers and writers that brought Gossip Girl to the screen are rewarded by one more season of being paid to make more low-rated drivel? It just boggles the mind... in a big way.
148 out of 260 people found the following comment useful :-
Josh Schwartz might be a one-trick pony, 8 October 2007
Author: TheWinterSolstice from US
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Josh Schwartz, the brains behind "The OC" (which I loved even when it went south in the 3rd season) seems to be in Orson Welles territory: one great achievement, and the rest - just a rehash of that one great success. Gossip Girl has all of his bad mannerisms without any of the wit and warmth of The OC, not to mention that all the OC characters appear in this show, only with different names. The 17-year old kids all look 25, the parents look 30, all the bad people are rich, all the poor people are good, the poor dad is a socialist and a saint (like Sandy Cohen) who's idea of parenting is being buddies with his two children, Serena is the beauty with the golden heart (like Marissa Cooper), Dan is witty and chivalrous (imagine Ryan Atwood and Seth Cohen in one body), Blair just wants to be loved (like the early Taylor) etc etc. The kids drink alcohol while their parents are around, they smoke pot in public places, almost everybody wakes up with a hangover, and in every episode there is an event where everybody dresses up and somebody gets punched. All the rich parents are cold, unloving, and conniving, and the most "touching" scene occurs between two 15-year olds (Dan's sister and Serena's brother) who act like seasoned 35-year olds - kind of like Joey and Dawson all over again. I'm sure that Mr. Schwartz feels like he is exposing the dark underbelly of the rich and ritzy in New York, but the kids seem to be having so much fun going to school with hangovers that I think his message is getting lost among the 3500$ dresses, the bottles of champagne, and the limousines. This show, with it's poor acting, poor script, poor characters, and the borderline-noxious smart-alecky voice-over of Kirsten Bell (Veronica Mars) should be put out of its predictable misery; hopefully sooner than later.
178 out of 330 people found the following comment useful :-
completely too hyped up., 5 March 2008
Author: PshYeah5 from United States
I've read these books since the summer before my eighth grade year. and I'm now a freshman. I love the books. and the TV show. is NOTHING like them. the characters yes. but some complete changes. its the whole family time TV thing. in the books Nate does drugs. on the show. nope. in the books Eric is Serena's older brother partying off at college. but in the show he is her younger brother and he tried to commit suicide? and jenny got together with Nate..not sure if thats gonna happen yet..but it might not. and there was never ANYTHING in the books going on between Blair and chuck. the show is completely messing up Cecily Von Ziegesar's series.
218 out of 410 people found the following comment useful :-
The Real Buzz on Gossip Girl: Avoid!, 14 January 2008
Author: (jeromeprince) from United States
I just read an article in the press that said how much Gossip Girl had "buzz".
It's just too bad it doesn't have an audience...
And the reason it doesn't have an audience is because all that "buzz" is completely made up by the CW.
Most people I know laugh at the mere mention of Gossip Girl (and you have to admit it's a pretty bad title!) The show itself is terrible. It is clearly aimed at people who think Paris Hilton is someone worth spending time learning about. Apparently, there's a lot fewer such people than the CW thought.
Maybe next time they'll make a show aimed at people who can't stand tabloid reporting. There's a lot more of us than the CW seems to think!
228 out of 431 people found the following comment useful :-
the show vs. the book, 9 November 2007
Author: oca29 from Guatemala
I confess i did expected it to be similar to the book and was very disappointed at first, but after the first couple episodes I resigned my self and enjoyed the new drama. I think that for all the books fans at first it'll be tragic but u just need to stop thinking and comparing it to the book and it can actually be quite a fun way to kill and hour. I do think though that this guy, don't know his name, is trying to make this story look like the OC-NY but that's because i think he must have read the first couple pages of a book and copied the names, he really messed it up, jenny is nothing like she's described in the book, chuck! he's the worst i think, and Dan and jenny's father, makes me sick! But as u start thinking that this is not the same story, it's just based on their names, you'll be fine
308 out of 591 people found the following comment useful :-
Won't Last too Long..., 19 September 2007
Author: tarickelbaba from Canada
After watching the first ten minutes of Gossip Girl, I knew that it was going to be an OC remake. Having never read the books, I was unsure what to expect, but was still interested none the less. There was zero character development and the acting wasn't that great either. My girlfriend, who is an advocate of the popular novel, believed the show couldn't have been more inaccurate. I told myself I was finished watching when more and more characters were introduced and other story lines/backgrounds were thrown in without explanation. Those who have not read the books might have a hard time understanding what is what and who is who. Maybe the novel's millions of fans can keep the ratings up, but I just don't see it being enough. Hopefully it picks up after the pilot. Otherwise, RIP Gossip Girl.
164 out of 304 people found the following comment useful :-
TV for the easily entertained, 28 March 2008
Author: stephenm-18 from United Kingdom
Admittedly I only watch this type of thing with my girlfriend and I know shows like this aren't meant to be high art - but even as chewing gum TV this show fails miserably.
I can only imagine that the writers of this show hold their intended audience in utter contempt:- The characters are lazily sketched, the plot is improbable, the script bears absolutely no relation to the way real people talk - I know this is a show about the super rich American teenagers so it'd never going to plumb the depths of the human soul but even so you can almost hear the crank turning as the plot develops.
Some very crude and laboured cultural references paired with almost universally mechanical acting serve only to highlight the lack of quality writing in this show when compared to much better "teen shows".
In short this is dumb TV. The situations in which the protagonists find themselves in, make the similarly puerile "Veronica Mars" seem like gritty, hard-boiled realism. Watching the first episode of this was in fact the longest hour of my life.
It's like "Cruel Intentions" on heavy prescription pain killers.
I could actually feel my IQ dropping as one laboured, heavy-handed and obvious scene played into the next like so much paint drying.
216 out of 408 people found the following comment useful :-
The Buzz on Gossip Girl: Dead on Arrival, 22 January 2008
Author: marcuskent from United States
There are two camps when it comes to Gossip Girl: The CW Marketing Department and its PR adjuncts think it's great and have anointed it with the "all-important" "Buzz".
The audience think this is a brain-dead show that they don't have time to watch or talk about.
As you can see, it's hard to decide if this show is a hit or not.
This show has everything going for it... except an audience.
It could be because it's vacuous and insulting to even its target audience, because it's yet another Hollywood product that took a book as its basis and proceeded to wring all life out of the original...
Or it could be because it's just plain bad.
The CW strikes out yet again.
254 out of 484 people found the following comment useful :-
Bland, Empty, Boring..., 13 December 2007
Author: terry from United States
These are some of the epithets that come to mind when one thinks of "Gossip Girl".
Hyped up as the "next great hope" for the CW, this show has disappeared in the ratings like pretty much everything on its network.
The reason? It's all about quality, or the lack thereof in the case of "Gossip Girl".
When you aim a show at a really small slice of the population, you'd better hit with all cylinder, but "Gossip Girl" doesn't. It sputters with bad, boring scripts, unconvincing attempts at humor and of course ,that staple of the WB (now CW) a bunch of empty-eyes young actors hired for the way their headshot looks rather than for their acting ability.
The result is a show that's DOA and has done nothing to help the CW.
225 out of 427 people found the following comment useful :-
Yet Another Bad CW Show, 19 December 2007
Author: Anti Hipster from United States
The CW never learns.
It keeps on putting those bad shows that are supposedly aimed at young people but somehow manage to talk down to them and alienate them.
Gossip Girl is no different.
Launched with much fanfare (kind of like Veronica Mars another CW never-do-well) it fails to deliver on almost every level.
It tries so hard to be hip it just comes across as tired and clichéd. And did I mention it also comes across as insulting? Having a smart-aleck voice-over does not a good show make. Come to think of it, neither is having a bunch of dead-eyes models in the cast (another CW specialty) Don't bother.
Add another comment
Related Links