Will and Grace (and TV characters generally)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Does anyone like this?

I have to say I find it beyond bad, but that's not really what this thread is about. Is it fair to say that this is society's way of assimilating groups which are marginalised or discriminated against, ie write them up as wise but wacky characters and pitch them next to a regular "one of us" type figure? Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is kind of the same thing to me, gay people as cartoon or something. I find it a bit hard to take.

That said maybe it's a good way to remove peoples prejudices or to make the idea of homosexuality safer? Or does it simply cement stereotypes and hence make things worse?

Is it fair to also say the same thing happened in movies and TV with black people over the years?

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 09:48 (twenty-one years ago)

There's also the inescapable fact that making a programme about gay people is not a very now thing to do, surely ten years ago or hell 20 years ago would have been better, not to mention the fact that few sitcoms preceding W&G were without gay undercurrents, even if the characters were straight.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 09:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm so glad V's not online today, yesterday people were talking about stuff that annoyed me, today, Vicky would be venting all over the boards, she despises everything about W&G, I just ignore it, but it seems pretty lame.

― chris (chris), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 09:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Who's the regular figure? Will? Grace?

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 09:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Will & Grace isn't strictly about gay people per se but yeah - Jack is a cartoon and it's bemusing how much innuendo he engages in despite seemingly NEVER HAVING SEX EVER - FOR HE IS GAY AND THAT'S NOT ALLOWED...it's a very annoying show but then there's always at least one good line in it (same with Friends and whatever).

few sitcoms preceding W&G were without gay undercurrents, even if the characters were straight

that said if you look back to John Inman in Are You Being Served very little has changed or moved on which is surprising even in the realm of mainstream situation comedy, so traditionally rife as it is in homo-erotic innuendo, double-entendres and such. I'd go as far as to say that because homosexuality and the insinuation of is such a cornerstone of humour in Western countries that people are afraid to change the nature in which it is portrayed. I guess people will keep on finding it funny for a while longer yet but eventually perhaps this comedic effort will wear off? (tho I guess that would have to happen in tandem with the eradication of hostility towards homosexuals in society, replaced by tolerance/indifference and NO REACTION AT ALL)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 09:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with what you say towards the end, I just wonder particularly about whether this same trend occurred on a racial front in the 70s or 80s? The Cosbys? Fresh Prince? I don't know quite enough about the Cosbys to say really, apart from lame student impersonations which I rule at.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:00 (twenty-one years ago)

cf Lenny Henry in the b/w minstrels show

― Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:04 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a different situation because The Cosby Show and the Fresh Prince were really just about portraying black families as normal people in funny situations whilst indulging in all kinds of references considered part of a 'black culture' (see also Desmonds in the UK). this hasn't happened with gays i don't think as it strikes me a sitcom about a homosexual couple (perhaps married and with adopted kids) dealing with the obstacles in their lives whilst making the occasional reference to Judy Garland or whatever wouldn't go down quite so well - supposedly. a lot of people would be turned off believing that the show was just about 'gay people doing gay things' rather than ordinary people who just happen to be gay.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:08 (twenty-one years ago)

It just annoys me that virtually every single joke in W&G is about him being gay, as if that's inherently amusing in itself. I mean, I'm fairly sure as a show it doesn't appeal to homophobes but I can't imagine anyone finding it amusing other than in a self-satisfied "ooh, aren't we liberal" way. To be honest, I've always felt that even if the scriptwriter's intentions are good its kinda counterproductive.

The difference between W&G and the Cosby Show is that the Cosby Show wasn't full of lame gags about how hilarious it is to be black.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Not that I think W&G is at all culturally significant, mind. Does it get many viewers in the US? If so, WHY?! It's just plain unfunny.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:12 (twenty-one years ago)

the Cosby Show wasn't full of lame gags about how hilarious it is to be black

see i always got the impression that it WAS so i never watched it. having said that i adored Fresh Prince and i quite enjoyed Desmonds.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:13 (twenty-one years ago)

W&G is all about Karen.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Do you not think there's a sense of placing gay people or black people in a situation which seemed "white" to society, or straight to a society. In the fresh prince it's dad as lawyer living in large mansion with loads of money and a butler.

Or in the case of Will and Grace, placing a gay person in all sorts of straight situations, ie women coming on to him etc.

I guess this is dodgy ground a bit, maybe overestimating peoples prejudices but it's worth discussing all the same.

Would the Will and Grace writers argue that being gay is a big enough part of a gay person's life that yes they do encounter awkward situations which seem related to it every single day? I suppose it's a question of working on peoples prejudices to eliminate them, if you take their argument.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I do think it's culturally significant, in some sense. It's crossed a line at least.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:19 (twenty-one years ago)

And Jerry, how do you mean?

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but it's funny that you mention both the Cosbys and the Fresh Prince as both of these shows are about well-off black families.. I mean, look at the characters in the Fresh Prince; they are completely cartoonish and unrealistic (I mean, for gawd's sake consider Hilary and Carlton). And why has no one mentioned FAMILY MATTERS? I think W&G is pretty funny. What I find strange is that early 80's trend of sitcoms about senior citizens.. "Empty Nest", "The Golden Girls," etc. Can old people no longer be funny?

― Mandee (Jerrynipper), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:20 (twenty-one years ago)

putting people into unusual and farcical situations is the other cornerstone of situation comedy.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Can old people no longer be funny?
-- Mandee

good point - i think we had overkill in the 80s tho, so my answer is 'no' ;)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:22 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah from episode to episode but not as a premise for the entire series?

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:22 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah from episode to episode but not as a premise for the entire series?

that's the same thing really tho isn't it? MOST sitcoms work that way e.g. Last Of The Summer Wine, Friends, Coupling

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:23 (twenty-one years ago)

The worst is this atrocity on television in the states right now called "Everyone loves Raymond".. my parents adore it and made me watch it once and it was cringeworthy.

― Mandee (Jerrynipper), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Never mind W&G, the real nutso one is that one with Jasper Carrott and (is it) Meera Syall (?) and the disabled child in a mixed-race second-marriage. Who the fuck OK'd that? The voiceover is the most disturbing thing. It's like a cross between 2.4 Children, Goodness Gracious Me and Look Who's Talking.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think it's quite the same thing because when it's the premise for the series everything leads back to that. With Friends they're simply 6 people living in New York, and it's their own characters who make the situations work. I do think early Friends was ok, until the characters really did become cartoon, I don't think they were to begin with, maybe a bit dislikable.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:29 (twenty-one years ago)

And nwhile we're on the subject of Jasper Carrott, I reckon he plays an Orc in The Two Towers; the snivvling one 14 minutes in.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Why is cartoonish and unrealistic a bad thing, especially in a sitcom?

I suspect the huge gulf between US and UK sitcoms as genres in themselves plays a part here - US sitcoms are generally like soap operas with less bloodshed and more funny bits, where you're supposed to like and/or identify with the characters. The best UK sitcoms nearly always feature central characters who are one-dimensional and cartoonish and also obnoxious or pathetic or both (Only Fools and Horses is the exception here).

(xpost) God that Jasper Carrott thing is awful.

Would a comedy about a disfunctional black family in the projects be funny?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:31 (twenty-one years ago)

If it wouldn't then it shouldn't be a comedy.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:32 (twenty-one years ago)

cartoonish and unrealistic depictions of gay or black people could be concluded to be a bad thing, I mean I'm playing devils advocate here a bit, since my own gut feeling is that it is a mildly bad thing.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:33 (twenty-one years ago)

My saying that the characters on Fresh Prince are cartoonish and unrealistic was only in reference to the original post which mentioned how W&G made gay people look cartoonish.

― Mandee (Jerrynipper), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Would a comedy about a disfunctional black family in the projects be funny?

Eddie Murphy thought so. Did The PJs even get a second series tho? (it was animation tho so maybe don't count, but it wasn't actually that bad)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Ronan - what if said comedy was made by gay or black people, though? Where does something like Goodness Gracious Me fit into this?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I fucking hate Only Fools & Horses, always have. Dunno why.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:36 (twenty-one years ago)

there's a cartoonish character in many sitcoms too i think - a stooge. Victor Meldrew is a cartoon to an extent. as are Compo, Arkwright, Peggy (Hi-De-Hi), Del Boy, Basil and Manuel...all white and straight.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:37 (twenty-one years ago)

i disliked Goodness Gracious Me and The Real McCoy (forgotten 'all black' sketch show) precisely because they felt to me like contrived attempts to counter-balance. i just thought a better way to balance things would be to play down/ignore racial stereotypes altogether and try and do something with more 'universal' appeal like...dare i say....The Fast Show.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:39 (twenty-one years ago)

gay US sitcom = frazier

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:40 (twenty-one years ago)

eg you can closer to the topic by not making it THE TOPIC

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:40 (twenty-one years ago)

jtn = otm abt karen also: W&G is now abt its secondary characters and the kommikal purity of their self-obsession

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:42 (twenty-one years ago)

i've just realised my description of The Real McCoy makes it sound like a series of gags about the New Zealand rugby team

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I suppose if it's made by gay or black people (and to some extent cosbys and fresh prince are) then it's more difficult to make an accusation, because you then enter into an argument over who owns the right to find something iffy in this respect.

But I don't think it makes that much difference, we could also argue about who watches the programmes and who they're made for, but even that's a fairly difficult thing to get a handle on.

Mark S entirely otm about Frasier, and closer to the topic by not making it the topic, that's exactly what I was getting at with my "premise of an entire series" comments above.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:43 (twenty-one years ago)

also W&G is very extremely popular in the US - is't it the top-ranking sitcom currently?

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:44 (twenty-one years ago)

It's getting pushed massively on Irish TV, so I presumed it was really big here too.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:45 (twenty-one years ago)

sadly i hear this is true.

― Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I think to be honest this could be a way for certain sectors of society to get over prejudices, by adopting cuddly stereotypes instead of negative ones, but it's a bit stupid all the same isn't it?

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:47 (twenty-one years ago)

But GGM was all about showing universality of certain humour, especially with things deemed 'uniquely Asian' within and without. Example: the Competitive Mothers sketch. Obviously it ain't unique to Asians but friends with this background liked seeing their own paradoxes on screen (I've had it explained as both hyper-Punjabi and 'see, it's just like Woody Allen') and found it easier to show them as universal paradoxes as a result.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:48 (twenty-one years ago)

i just thought a better way to balance things would be to play down/ignore racial stereotypes altogether and try and do something with more 'universal' appeal like...dare i say....The Fast Show.

Steve, The Fast Show DOES have racial stereotypes - they're just WHITE racial stereotypes. Something like Ted and Ralph wouldn't work with black or Asian actors.

Equally, Father Ted is loaded with Irish racial stereotypes - what is the difference between this and Goodness Gracious Me, other than format and the quality of the jokes?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Suzy OTM.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:51 (twenty-one years ago)

haha I never thought of Father Ted as a version of this for Irish people, I guess we don't imagine ourselves projected into another country.

I'm not sure who I'm arguing with, if anyone at this point.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:52 (twenty-one years ago)

(tho' I'm not sure the characters in the Fast Show are very strong as racial stereotypes, white or otherwise, at least not as strongly built stereotypes as the gay man about town one in will and grace)

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:53 (twenty-one years ago)

gay => jack <=> fr jack <= irish

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:55 (twenty-one years ago)

oops some of my equation got magicked into html invisibility

gay -> jack :: fr jack <- irish

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Every single breath taken on Father Ted was some kind of comment about the Irish establishment FFS look who Ardal O'Hanlon's daddy is!

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Skipping 143 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

george jefferson was such a great character, he worked better on all in the family though

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

or EVERY TIME HE OPENS HIS MOTHS as i typed first time

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

'release the moths! let all of humanity feel my wrath!'

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

male companion

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I had forgotten all about

http://www.chrisstcyr.com/images/portfolio/interactive/benson.jpg

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:24 (twenty-one years ago)

thinking of the object of my affection (and by extension w&g/qaf) what i love about paul rudd's movie is the complications that people run into when they abondon essentalism. what i hate about w&g/qaf is that it is impossible to be properly gay, (qaf:drugs yes; aids no--w&g:fab dishes, no washing up--which is sitcoms, but can extend to sex) little own queer, the purpose it seems of these shows is normative, avoiding issues of performance, gender&sex roles, community, politcality, etc. (now in a v. special episode of w&g, will talks with sweet nostaliga concerning his college era act up partcipation)

― anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

hey yeah, the jeffersons. they moved on up. and they had the interracial neighbors and the smartass maid.

x-post: was there a discussion way back about spin-offs spawning spin-offs? Because All in the Family => Jeffersons => 227 is definitely one. or was that covered?

― Catty (Catty), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:37 (twenty-one years ago)

227 isn't actually a spinoff of the jeffersons

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Butler in 'Fresh Prince' -- was going to be played by Steven Fry, fact fans.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)

But: All in the Family => Maude => Good Times

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)

The situation drifts away hopefully in middle-class work based sitcoms wherw we should now be used to working in a multi-cultural setting and hence no claims of tokenism should be fostered. At which point we should be casting for the actors rather than type. Is there any reason why a work-shy mummy's boy office fall guy could not be whatever race the actor coming for the role is.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Has anybody brought up the Queer Eye Guys since the first post? No, didn't think so.
I don't think it's fair to call them cartoonish in the same way that Jack from W & G is, and not just because they're supposedly real people. What will be one of the longterm effects of that show on the str8 world is that it presents a variety of gay men. While some of them certainly are the campy diva of GOP nightmares, they are anything but uniform. Yes, they're all well-groomed, but that's the point of the show, right? But otherwise they're all far more distinct than, say, Charlie's Angels were.

I think something to remember too when dealing with how minorities are portrayed on TV, and especially sitcoms, is that 95% of the time it's demeaning to everybody. TV is by necessity exploitative.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Pete's post is u&k: but assumes quite a lot. I don't know enough about the working world, stats-wise, to tell you if race -- which is a word most HR units outlaw -- is an issue in recruitment any more.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:52 (twenty-one years ago)

qaf:drugs yes; aids no

er, are you saying nobody deals with AIDS on QAF u.s.? Because they totally do. Michael's uncle has it, his partner has it, at one point Fag Hag Momma makes a very significant point about what the reality of the disease is.
I think in the very first episode when Brian does Justin for the first time, I could practically smell the lube while watching it. QAF has always been very warts-and-all to me, and if there was any laissez-faire attitude towards AIDS on the show, I interpreted it as the shifting attitude of the community that AIDS has become something that's easier to live with. (And let's not even get into the whole gift-giving culture.... brrrr)

― Catty (Catty), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 16:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I took that to mean "drugs-are-good, AIDS-is-bad".

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know enough about the working world, stats-wise, to tell you if race -- which is a word most HR units outlaw -- is an issue in recruitment any more.

i can't see them eradicating 'Equal Opportunities Monitoring' forms in future - the problem with those things is that it delivers equality only in paranoia ("I might not get this job because I'm a white male")

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Equal opportunities monitoring forms are there for monitoring purposes. They are necessarily confidential and have nothing to do with the actual recruitment. Of course the interview where you come face to face is much more likely to exercise basic predjudices.

I'm not suggesting that business has eradicated prejudice, has equal ops down to a fine art, but how much of an issue are the black cast members of, say, ER? Race has been used as plotline, but then so has almost everything else in ER (that and helicopters), and I certainly would never advocate not using everything at your disposal to write interesting stories. Perhaps comedy is more self conscious about this - after all they might be wary of making jokes about sensitive subjects.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Dim memory of an episode of Happy Days with the most cringey moment possibly EVAH.
Richie and co. make friends with a black schoolmate (they were at SCHOOL?! they were all about 35!!). Anyway, they invite said schoolmate back to Richie's and it's a bit awkward, and then they all say stuff like -- 'hey, you must be really good at basketball because, uhm...' or 'hey, you must be good at drums, because...' and of course they learn not to put even 'positive' stereotypes on people. Although the message is actually kind of sound, it was really a hideous episode. And something tells me the character did not re-appear. But it was 15 years ago when I saw it, so it might just be a figment of my imagination.

― Nu-Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.driko.org/smallpics/ghostbusters.jpg

reading things into things that aren't necessarily there part 3491

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:21 (twenty-one years ago)

she prefer's catholics to protestants?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Dan Ackroyd kinda looks like Geir but with hair

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Will and Grace is almost appallingly bad, esp. when you consider how it is so critically acclaimed and adored. There might be one decent laugh per episode but the characters are all so annoying that I keep hoping the set collapses on them in a hilarious moment of comedic justice.

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 18:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I resisted Will and Grace when it first came out, though whenever I saw it I didn't think it was bad. I catch it now on reruns sometimes (like when I'm home visiting my mom) and it is always entertaining. Karen is an extremely watchable, amusing character.

― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)

what I like about the Karen character (and I use the word "like" in the loosest def.) is that she's nowhere near as "bad" as she constantly tells us she is.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 18:50 (twenty-one years ago)

The biggest problem W&G is having now is that someone seems to have decided Will wasn't gay enough so now he's kind of like Straightjacket Jack, completely ruining the contrast between the two characters and making them both kind of irrelevant.

xpost Huck, can you elaborate?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 18:52 (twenty-one years ago)

well, like, she's always talking about how medicated and amoral she is, but she's generally pretty lucid, and overwhelmingly loyal to her friends until a punchline dictates otherwise.
All of the characters on W&G act inconsistently with what they verbally tell the audience about themselves. That's because the characters and stories serve the punchlines on W&G. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 18:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think lucidity is a good measure of how medicated Karen is at any given time! Otherwise yeah, point taken.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 19:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I just meant she never seems boozed up or pilled up, though she's obviously a functional lush, but I thought lucid was a better word choice than sober.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 19:01 (twenty-one years ago)

She's really just the same character as Christina Baranski played on Cybill, or that other lush/ho from Caroline in the City.

Shoot me now, WTF have I wasted my life learning about?

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 19:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Dude, don't feel bad; look at my posts on the Real World thread over on ILM!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 19:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't really understand how people like it, I don't find anyone's reasons convincing, but I guess I'm a bit sour when it comes to TV.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 19:26 (twenty-one years ago)

If you don't find shrill narcissism funny, there's nothing in Will & Grace that is going to appeal to you.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 19:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't even believe it as shrill narcissism.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 19:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe just shrill.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't like W&G either.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 19:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Jerry the Nipper hit on the reason I like Will & Grace, the screwball aspect of it. The thing is, I never watch it anymore- I only watch the Simpsons and The King of Queens.

― lawrence kansas (lawrence kansas), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 19:41 (twenty-one years ago)

W&G really isn't about gay men though, it's ultimately about the women who love them. Will is there for Grace to turn to, Jack is there for Karen to goof on. The characters are almost completely unappealing, which is strange, because the downright evil characters on Seinfeld were endlessly appealing. Plus the fact that they were actually funny was helpful...

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 20:31 (twenty-one years ago)

i know there are two hiv+ charachters, but one of the m fucks with aplomb, and really it is nothing more then a plot point, a women in victorian melodrama coughing blood from her hankie.

the other in is a morality tale against getting old.

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 00:08 (twenty-one years ago)

reading things into things that aren't necessarily there part 3491

I want to do a PhD analysing pictures just like this for the exact reason you've posted it. I mean, colors aside, consider the characters: Winston wasn't part of the original team, he's not a SCIENTIST, etc. It's rankism!

― Catty (Catty), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 10:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Dana is copping a feel, Winston has turned away in disgust

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 10:35 (twenty-one years ago)

At the same time Winston was the most popular characte ron the Real Ghostbusters. Not scientist = everyman.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 10:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Winston had some of the best gags. but then again I think Ernie Hudson is fucking hysterical in just about everything he's in... like Congo, for example. Genius. Absolute, underrated genius.

― Catty (Catty), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 10:50 (twenty-one years ago)

and he was a laugh riot in The Hand That Rocks The Cradle...

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 11:02 (twenty-one years ago)

right, like there was any scenerey left after Rebecca de Mornay was done chomping her way through it.

― Catty (Catty), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 11:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I like Will & Grace.

I don't think it's about one single character, or another.

― the pinefox, Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Ernie Hudson's introduction in "Going Berzerk" was classic.

they're at a trial hearing, and he's handcuffed to john candy. Candy asks him why he's here, and without changing his thousand-yard-stare, deadpans that "I set fire to my family."

― Jeremy the Kingfish (Kingfish), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

i nominate

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/leffamaailma/topten/candyman.jpg

as Will & Grace's new neighbour

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Emile Heskey?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

hahaha, THANK you i'd been trying to place the resemblance for weeks

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 3 December 2003 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

seven months pass...

REVIVE!

― Revivalist (Revivalist), Monday, 19 July 2004 11:24 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.