HBO Has Renewed Girls for Season 4, and Other Fun (and Awkward) Bits from the Show's TCA Panel

By Kaitlin Thomas

Jan 10, 2014


The ladies of Girls, along with executive producers Judd Apatow and Jenni Konner, appeared onstage at the Television Critics Association Winter Press Tour today to discuss the series' upcoming third season, which premieres this Sunday, January 12. But the biggest news to come out of the panel had nothing to do with Season 3, and everything to do with Season 4: The series has already been renewed for a fourth season and will begin filming it this spring. There's obviously no premiere date yet, but it's expected to air in early 2015.

However, just 'cause the renewal was the biggest piece of news doesn't mean it was the most exciting (or some might say awkward) thing to happen at the Girls panel. After a male journalist kicked off the customary Q&A session by essentially asking series creator and star Lena Dunham why she so frequently appears naked on the show (seriously, we're still on that?) Dunham said she felt it was a very realistic expression of what it's like to be alive.

But Apatow wouldn't let go of the question, and asked the journalist if he has a girlfriend and whether she likes him. Talk about uncomfortable. And the weirdness didn't end there; Konner was unable to concentrate throughout the rest of panel and had to ask for several questions to be repeated, because she said the first question had sent her down a "rage spiral" and she wasn't paying attention. 

Of course, the most surprising thing about all of this is not that it happened, but rather that people are still so hung up on Dunham's nudity on the show. We're heading into Season 3, people! It's a given! 

Anyway, there was still plenty more to talk about regarding the upcoming season, like the fact that we're going to see more character development from the men on the series. "Ray transforms, in a way, [and] love opens up Adam," Konner told the crowd. "We took the time this season to really spend some time with Adam, and with Ray, and you understand them better when you know more about them." 

And Jemima Kirke's character Jessa will embark on a journey of her own, with her character evolving much like people do in real life. Kirke pointed out that Jessa is always described as being the most sexually adventurous of the four women, but that she's least-often seen engaging in the act, and Kirk finds that very deliberate. "She's very sexually damaged," she said.


Girls Season 3 premieres this Sunday, January 12 at 10pm on HBO. Will you be tuning in?


  • Comments (35)
Add a Comment
In reply to :
  • StrawDog Jan 18, 2014

    That guy works for the Wrap! I read an article he wrote about the incident from his perspective. Not surprisingly, he comes off like a cock.

  • TVFangirl84 Jan 10, 2014

    Hell yes i am watching the new season!!!!

  • ElainePinto Jan 10, 2014

    I like Girls and I'm looking foward to this next season, specially because I didn't like Hannah's story on season 2 and I want to see how everything turns out.

    The question was just moronic. What an idiot.

  • DesolaKazeem Jan 10, 2014

    oh, Girls. Girls, girls, girls.

    The question of whether girls is actually really good or very terrible is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. It is simultaneously high quality stuff and absolute junk.

    I don't consider what I do hate watching because I don't think it's a bad quality show. It's actually quite good- it just tends to be awful too, if that makes any sense?

    The argument (still??) over Lena Dunham's nudity bores me. Like GoT, after about 2 episodes of the first season, I became very indifferent to it. Even the horror that was that mesh tank top thing in the coke episode didn't faze me, and I don't really see why it still affects people so much. I was not a fan of Hannah's whole Patrick Wilson arc, but then again, I hated pretty much all her storylines last season (the previously non existent OCD? Really?) and it had little, if anything to do with both their unnecessary nudity throughout the episode. There are so many things more off-putting on the show than Lena Dunham's body (which I don't really see why we need to comment on- it's not the huge tragedy some people make it out to be and it shouldn't be that much of a big deal). The characters' unlikeability is a big deal to me; you can't really have so many people that are all so off-putting, can you? The treatment of political, racial and feminist issues to me is dodgy at best, yet I somehow appreciate the show's (mostly failed) attempts to tackle them. I also think Adam Driver (although his character terrifies me) is just spectacular in his role and his writing is stellar. Jemima Kirke is also very good on the show, but I'm not so sure of the writing of her character.

    I just don't know. This has been said many times, but I guess Girls is something that will always get polarized views from people. I personally feel both opinions, although I lean more to 'it's actually quite bad' than 'it's really quite good'.

    I'm excitedly looking forward to next season. To me the biggest crime a tv show can commit in this age is not to be controversial or violent, but to be uneventful or boring. That is something Girls definitely isn't.

  • wudntulik2know Jan 10, 2014

    people are still so hung up on Dunham's nudity on the show. We're heading into Season 3, people! It's a given!

    That's because people are morons.

  • wudntulik2know Jan 10, 2014

    YAY!!!! You go, Girls. Love this show.

  • JayAtkinson Jan 10, 2014

    I always seem to be in the minority on this topic, but Lena Dunham is allowed to get as naked as she wants and as often as she wants on my TV screen. I personally find her unbelievably attractive.

  • RenaMoretti Jan 10, 2014

    You're not the only one. Lena Dunham is an untalented woman whose rich and connected family decided to buy her a career in Hollywood (not unlike the Gylenhaals).

    Girls is an awful show, and more importantly a flop nobody watches, but the press being showered with the best Pr money can buy treats that commercial and artistic failure as if it were popular.

    It exemplifies everything that's wrong in today's Dark Age of Television.

  • DesolaKazeem Jan 10, 2014

    Now hold on a minute there {Boyd Crowder voice}......
    I have some deep rooted issues with Girls, but it is most defiinitely NOT a flop no one watches; it's a big success for HBO (for reasons I only partly understand) and in fact it's been renewed for season 4 before season 3 even starts.
    And this isn't the Dark age of Television.

  • Ian281099 Jan 10, 2014

    Dark Age of Television, that's the first time I hear that. Can you explain why are we in the Dark Ages of television?

  • wudntulik2know Jan 10, 2014

    Girls is wonderful.

  • JayAtkinson Jan 10, 2014

    ...But thanks for sharing.

  • JayAtkinson Jan 10, 2014

    I couldn't disagree more.

  • RenaMoretti Jan 10, 2014

    This comment has been removed.

  • jack_checker Jan 10, 2014

    No, don't like the show. The story also the actresses. Don't get the whole fuzz about it.

  • RenaMoretti Jan 10, 2014

    Very few do. It has abysmal ratings.

  • Prsnl_Stylst Jan 10, 2014

    Yeah, it's totally tanking HBO. That's probably why they keep renewing it so fast.

    I can never understand why people comment on or review shows that they don't even like. Bored much?

  • jack_checker Jan 10, 2014

    So it's just allowed to cheer and clap along. Seems funny to me that the supporters/watchers of this show, can't work with criticism or questions baout this show. Bored hipster who think they are so much cooler/better than the rest of the world, especially NYC.

  • jack_checker Jan 11, 2014

    @JayAtkinson: Thanks for taking your time. My question is, that I don't get the fuzz about it and 2nd I didn't mention before why is it interesting to watch, I quit after the 3rd episode. And I wrote nothing about Lenas body, I don't even know who she is.

  • JayAtkinson Jan 11, 2014

    No, we can deal with criticism, hence why we are reading it and, without flipping out, offering counter arguments. It is not everyone's cup of tea, hence why we don't drive our opinions down people's throats and try to convert/prove them wrong. The bigger issue is the forum/comment critics who, when admitting to not liking the show, continue to merely seek out news story related to it, and jump on the bandwagon to trash it. Whilst simultaneously trying to do what us rational fans don't. I see no questions, from you or others, merely recycled negative comments over and over about Lena Dunham's body.

  • wudntulik2know Jan 10, 2014

    Do you like Duck Dynasty?

  • jack_checker Jan 10, 2014

    Sorry, no don't like racist homophobic bible junkies redneck teabaggers. Tried "Girls", DD I didn't even tried. So if this is your only argument, it' sad for you. Until now noone answered my question.

  • JayAtkinson Jan 10, 2014

    Why are you obsessed with ratings? Ratings don't equal quality.

  • ben45tpy Jan 10, 2014

    Can't wait.

  • smithinjapan Jan 10, 2014

    I was surprised by how great a show Girls can be, although the episodes often feel very short. I'm glad Adam is going to get a bit more focus in Season Three -- his character is so bizarre!

  • RenaMoretti Jan 10, 2014

    Most people don't think it's great (see the ratings).

    I think is a self-indulgent, poorly-written, produced and acted soft porn show (HBO loves its soft pron - it just bought the right to a french show about porn just so it can do another one - since the press calls it "edgy" HBO executives get genuflected in front of instead of being made fun of as they should...

  • ElainePinto Jan 10, 2014

    Soft porn? I don't think you even know what soft porn is. Some boobs showing are not soft porn.

  • smithinjapan Jan 10, 2014

    I don't call it porn, but I agree they show a lot of body parts and sex, but compare that to Cinemax! Anyway, while not my favourite show by any means, it is an interesting bit of television, and pretty much every single character is unique and very strong (in terms of keeping character).

  • See More Comments (1)