Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S09.E02: Who's Your Daddy?

ElectricBoogaloo

By ElectricBoogaloo
in Will & Grace [V]

Recommended Posts

janie jones

janie jones

11 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I just figured it was a combination of the two.  I've read about shows that film in front of a live audience while supplementing scenes with a laugh track where the joke didn't necessarily get the reaction they wanted from the audience. 

I will admit that I did crack up at the idea of a young Grace at summer camp being called "Gross" Adler. 

And how old are the characters actually supposed to be?  They are hitting 50 or older, right?  Weren't Will and Grace in college in the mid 1980s? 

According to Wikipedia, Grace was born April 1967, and Will October 1966.

  • Love 1
SmithW6079

SmithW6079

Until Will's speech, I was mostly annoyed that haha, a sitcom episode where old people don't get young people and vice versa. However, in no gay bar would Jack be considered a "daddy." He's a twink, an aging twink tis true, but not a daddy. "Daddies" have a certain air of authority, whether it's their physical build or their personality. Will might be considered a "daddy" in some circumstances, but never Jack.

  • Love 2
wendyg

wendyg

janie jones: The practice you're talking about is called "sweetening" but I don't think it's used that much (instead, they get warm-up guys to keep the audience pumped and hysterical).

There is a variation - used for scenes that are too complex to film in front of an audience or that need outdoor locations - in which the scene is played for the audience and their reactions recorded. HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER used this technique exclusively (that is, they made the episode and screened it for an audience) because the show had so many scenes in a typical episode that they'd have worn out the audience by the time they go to the end. I think I saw an interview where Carter Bays and Craig Thomas suggested it would have been closer to a "hostage situation" had they tried to film it live in front of the audience.

  • Love 1
legaleagle53

legaleagle53

(edited)
19 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

The core premise of the whole series is basically The Object of My Affection.

Not really.  Grace hasn't been romantically interested in Will since their college days when she found out that he was gay.  During one of her fights with Will over Leo, Will accused her of choosing "some other guy" over him (because their original plan had been to have a child together via artificial insemination), and Grace fired back that she didn't "choose some other guy" over Will because, as she put it, Will was never an option for her.  The only time she ever really resented him for being gay (and thus not an option for her) was when she found out that the last woman he had slept with (as a last-ditch effort to prove to himself once and for all that he wasn't gay) was not Grace herself but one of Leo's exes.  She was insulted that Will never thought to experiment one last time with her. 

Edited by legaleagle53
  • Love 5
wendyg

wendyg

ExplainItAgain: I wonder if it's because of the four of them her body has changed the most. A lot of acting is a physical sense of the character, and Messing was really skinny before and isn't now. The added weight (for which I am not criticizing her at all; she looks great) means the character's physicality is very different, and I would expect that to make it harder for her to get back in the groove. They're all noticeably slower than they were at physical comedy, but that's to be expected at 50 unless you're Carol Burnett.

  • Love 1
janie jones

janie jones

8 hours ago, wendyg said:

janie jones: The practice you're talking about is called "sweetening" but I don't think it's used that much (instead, they get warm-up guys to keep the audience pumped and hysterical).

There is a variation - used for scenes that are too complex to film in front of an audience or that need outdoor locations - in which the scene is played for the audience and their reactions recorded. HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER used this technique exclusively (that is, they made the episode and screened it for an audience) because the show had so many scenes in a typical episode that they'd have worn out the audience by the time they go to the end. I think I saw an interview where Carter Bays and Craig Thomas suggested it would have been closer to a "hostage situation" had they tried to film it live in front of the audience.

I think you're talking to someone else.  I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Because I doubt this is referring to my post about how I wish Grace and Karen had taken off their shoes.  :)

  • Love 1
Bill1978

Bill1978

12 hours ago, ExplainItAgain said:

I thought she was better this week but she's having the most trouble slipping back into character I think. Hopefully the next few episodes she will settle down.

I can't remember where I saw it or read it, but I recall some interview with Debra Messing where she said by the third (or was it the fourth) episode she had found her groove as Grave again. It took her awhile to find Grace but once she found her she was off and running.

 

Re: The talk abut canned laughter vs live laughter. The only time in this episode I felt there was a can opened was right at the beginning when Jack walked in. I rewound to see what I had missed and it was nothing. I'm not sure what was meant to be hilarious about the entry. 

Having said that, this episode  made me laugh far too loudly, I;m sure the neighbours thought I was losing the plot of something. Even the stupid shower scene made me laugh. While I thought, why is Grace panicking when they could easily climb out over the top, I just justified that Grace's claustrophobia stopped her from thinking sensibly and just freak out, and Karen was having far too much fun watching Grace freak out to tell her the solution.

Sean Hayes' physical comedy in this episode was spot on. I do love quality physical comedy. The only downside to the episode was the obvious absent Rosario. Is this the first time we've seen any of Karen's other help?

  • Love 5
JasonCC

JasonCC

(edited)
Quote

Until Will's speech, I was mostly annoyed that haha, a sitcom episode where old people don't get young people and vice versa. However, in no gay bar would Jack be considered a "daddy." He's a twink, an aging twink tis true, but not a daddy. "Daddies" have a certain air of authority, whether it's their physical build or their personality. Will might be considered a "daddy" in some circumstances, but never Jack.

Yeah, that occurred to me too. It's not that Jack isn't old enough to be called "Daddy" he just isn't the physical type where that would be a flirty come-on. 

Edited by JasonCC
legaleagle53

legaleagle53

(edited)
On 10/7/2017 at 6:39 AM, SmithW6079 said:

Until Will's speech, I was mostly annoyed that haha, a sitcom episode where old people don't get young people and vice versa. However, in no gay bar would Jack be considered a "daddy." He's a twink, an aging twink tis true, but not a daddy. "Daddies" have a certain air of authority, whether it's their physical build or their personality. Will might be considered a "daddy" in some circumstances, but never Jack.

You're thinking of "daddy bears" or "sugar daddies," which Jack definitely isn't.  But there's no such thing as a 50-year-old twink, either -- it's a contradiction in terms.  In fact, any gay guy over the age of about 26 who billed himself as a "twink" or a "boi" would be laughed out of the bar and held up for ridicule as the archetype of the pathetic, desperate, delusional old queen who can only hook up with men by paying them for it.  Just imagine the reaction, then, if 50-year-old Jack tried it.  He'd REALLY learn what humiliation is in very short order.

Edited by legaleagle53
Miss Dee

Miss Dee

(edited)

I would love for both Will and Jack to find true love. But for the love of all things Madonna, NOT WITH EACH OTHER.

There comes a point in friendships with someone you could theoretically sleep with (that is, they fit within your defined limits of your sexuality and they're not considered off limits for some reason, e.g. monogamy) where you either go through that door or you don't, and if you don't that door inevitably closes.

That point passed for Will and Jack a long time ago; as well as they know each other and have for a long time, I just can't buy that they'd suddenly fall for each other *now*. It'd feel far too much like settling, and they both deserve better than that.

Edited by Miss Dee
Clarified my thoughts
  • Love 7
legaleagle53

legaleagle53

(edited)
15 minutes ago, Miss Dee said:

I would love for both Will and Jack to find true love. But for the love of all things Madonna, NOT WITH EACH OTHER.

There comes a point in friendships with someone you could theoretically sleep with (that is, they fit within your sexuality and they're not considered off limits for some reason, e.g. monogamy) where you either go through that door or you don't, and if you don't that door inevitably closes.

That point passed for Will and Jack a long time ago; as well as they know each other and have for a long time, I just can't buy that they'd suddenly fall for each other *now*. It'd feel far too much like settling, and they both deserve better than that.

And it would actually violate established canon (not that that would stop the show from going there). In the same episode that dealt with Will's coming out to himself and to Grace as gay in college, Jack (who at that time really WAS a twink) tried to come on to Will, who laughed off the idea of being sexually attracted to Jack as ridiculous.   Jack turned away for a few seconds to hide the fact that he was actually crushed by Will's rejection of him, then turned back around and pretended to laugh the idea off himself as ridiculous in order to save face.  It was a case of sour grapes at first rejection, but I never forgot seeing the momentary look of hurt and devastation on Jack's face and in his body language upon Will's rather insensitive rejection of what was actually a serious overture on Jack's part.

Honestly, as hard as the show made light of the idea in its previous life, I wouldn't be shocked in the least to see Will and Jack as endgame.  It's the only real reason I can see for breaking up Will and Vince and for having Jack learn the hard way that he's no longer the cute, funny, clever little twink he still thought he was up until now.

Edited by legaleagle53
  • Love 4
ItsJessMe

ItsJessMe

On 10/6/2017 at 9:28 PM, txhorns79 said:

I will admit that I did crack up at the idea of a young Grace at summer camp being called "Gross" Adler. 

And how old are the characters actually supposed to be?  They are hitting 50 or older, right?  Weren't Will and Grace in college in the mid 1980s? 

I cracked up at that too because i could swear she named the camp, "Camp Ramah", which is a massively popular Jewish camp (there are maybe a dozen of them or more across the US and Canada)  and which I could totally see Grace having gone to.  It was one of those subtle pieces of perfection to those who know about it.

  • Love 4
SmithW6079

SmithW6079

20 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

You're thinking of "daddy bears" or "sugar daddies," which Jack definitely isn't.  But there's no such thing as a 50-year-old twink, either -- it's a contradiction in terms.  In fact, any gay guy over the age of about 26 who billed himself as a "twink" or a "boi" would be laughed out of the bar and held up for ridicule as the archetype of the pathetic, desperate, delusional old queen who can only hook up with men by paying them for it.  Just imagine the reaction, then, if 50-year-old Jack tried it.  He'd REALLY learn what humiliation is in very short order.

No, I'm not. I know what a "bear" is,  I know what a "daddy" is, and I know what a "sugar daddy" is. Jack's none of those things, and his shock at being called a "daddy" showed that he very much still considers himself a twink, or at least a "boy." Jack is that aging, delusional old queen (the girdle, the make-up, the low lights). He has not accepted aging. 

As for there not being "50-year-old twinks," they exist. They might be the subject of ridicule, but they're around. I know a man in is late 50s/early 60s (no one's quite sure), who was certainly a twink in his youth, but whom no one would consider a "daddy" today just because he got old.

  • Love 2
iMonrey

iMonrey

Quote

 I wouldn't be shocked in the least to see Will and Jack as endgame.  It's the only real reason I can see for breaking up Will and Vince and for having Jack learn the hard way that he's no longer the cute, funny, clever little twink he still thought he was up until now.

Ugh - I hope not. I prefer to think Bobby Cannavale is simply not available. That, and/or the fact that having Will be in a 10+ year married relationship would marginalize him from the core group of four, because it would fundamentally change who he is. 

Men who have been friends as long as Will and Jack - even gay men - have more of a brotherly relationship than anything else. The thought of them ending up together is kind of icky and I would hope David Cohan and Max Mutchnick know that and realize how unfaithful it would be to the characters.

Quote

Is this the first time we've seen any of Karen's other help?

Well, we saw Gardener once, when Jack caught him in bed with Rosie, but that's about the only one I can think of!

The woman who played Bridget in this episode (Mary Pat Gleason) made at least two appearances on the original series as a crazy homeless person. She fought with Karen over a pair of designer shoes accidentally donated to Goodwill in one episode, and was waiting in the lobby of NBC in another episode where Jack and Will went in to protest a show editing out a gay kiss. 

  • Love 1
Scott

Scott

On 10/8/2017 at 1:03 PM, legaleagle53 said:

In fact, any gay guy over the age of about 26 who billed himself as a "twink" or a "boi" would be laughed out of the bar and held up for ridicule as the archetype of the pathetic, desperate, delusional old queen who can only hook up with men by paying them for it.  Just imagine the reaction, then, if 50-year-old Jack tried it.  He'd REALLY learn what humiliation is in very short order.

Someone needs to tell that to the legion of 30- and 40-year-old "______Boi" usernames I see on every flavor of social media/app/what have you.

  • Love 3
legaleagle53

legaleagle53

(edited)
3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Ugh - I hope not. I prefer to think Bobby Cannavale is simply not available. That, and/or the fact that having Will be in a 10+ year married relationship would marginalize him from the core group of four, because it would fundamentally change who he is. 

You say that as though it were a bad thing. 

Change and growth are good, which is why I consider the fact that this show pulled a Bobby-in-the-shower to be the mother of all shark jumps and have refused to watch this reboot on principle -- I prefer to remember the show as it was and the hopeful, positive note on which it ended in 2006.  What's wrong with showing gay couples (especially gay men) in happy, healthy, functional relationships rather than showing them as the overused stereotype of the angry, bitter queen who can't hold down a steady, fulfilling relationship and doesn't understand why?

Edited by legaleagle53
Irlandesa

Irlandesa

(edited)
On 10/6/2017 at 10:13 AM, Eureka said:

I read an article about the multi-cam aspect of it. Can you explain this, like what is the advantage of each type? I don't understand why it makes a difference to whether a show is good or not. I liked this episode much more than the premiere.

It doesn't make a difference to whether or not a show is good, IMO.  There are good and bad multi-cams and good and bad single-cams. 

The advantage to multi-cams is that there is a play-like atmosphere.  There is an energy to performing in front of a live audience.  While it can be awkward to hear laughter when you're not finding a joke funny, when you do, there's nothing quite like shared laughter.  I believe there also tends to be more jokes in multi-cams.  There's a specific rhythm to the jokes as well.  Setup/punchline or one liner.  I think they're quicker to film and cheaper too.

The disadvantage is the aforementioned laughter when you're not laughing.  It makes the lack of funny more pronounced.  It happens a lot, even on good shows because, as has been mentioned before, the audience is primed to laugh.  They have a warm-up person.  There's some excitement.  There's the fuel of a shared experience. That doesn't exist in a living room unless you're with a lot of people.

The advantage to single-cams is the ability to do quick cuts and visual jokes.  They have a more naturalistic look since they don't have to be filmed on a stage.  They're more like films. 

The disadvantage is that sometimes single cams can go light on the jokes.  There's no audience to die in front of.  And personally, I'm not always a laugh out loud person so I like to laugh with an audience. (I know that might make me gauche but so be it.) 

So they both have their benefits. 

 

On 10/8/2017 at 7:51 PM, Miss Dee said:

I would love for both Will and Jack to find true love. But for the love of all things Madonna, NOT WITH EACH OTHER.

I agree.  I thought they already established that they didn't think of each other like that...in fact, I swear they already did a "they're perfect for one another...psych!" type joke.  All that aside, I'd be all over them if I saw romantic chemistry between them but I don't. 

Edited by Irlandesa
  • Love 1
Bruinsfan

Bruinsfan

I distinctly remember their horror upon waking up naked in bed together after a boozy evening on Karen's mega-yacht, and it was shared horror between both of them whatever Jack's feelings might have been when they were first becoming friends. Will is basically a surrogate parent figure to eternal adolescent Jack, I can't see any sort of romantic possibility between them. (Thankfully, I might have to pull an Oedipus if I did!)

  • Love 3
txhorns79

txhorns79

Quote

What's wrong with showing gay couples (especially gay men) in happy, healthy, functional relationships rather than showing them as the overused stereotype of the angry, bitter queen who can't hold down a steady, fulfilling relationship and doesn't understand why?

In fairness, I think the show has been fairly good at making clear that Will and Grace are trapped in a very unhealthy, codependent relationship that basically has destroyed each one's chances at finding permanent happiness away from the other person.  They both had that fight during the original series, so I think they get it, but may no longer care.     

  • Love 3
legaleagle53

legaleagle53

(edited)
30 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

In fairness, I think the show has been fairly good at making clear that Will and Grace are trapped in a very unhealthy, codependent relationship that basically has destroyed each one's chances at finding permanent happiness away from the other person.  They both had that fight during the original series, so I think they get it, but may no longer care.     

And that's why I hate that the show did a Bobby-in-the-shower to deliberately erase all of the growth that had gotten them out of that hellhole of a relationship and into one that was much more mature, sensible, and healthier for both of them as well as for everyone else around them.  Why SHOULD Will and Grace be trapped forever in such a toxic, unfulfilling relationship?  That's not what I signed on for, and I just don't get why everyone else hated the series finale so much that they actually welcomed and even embraced the idea of setting these characters' growth and development back more than a decade just because they couldn't stand the idea that it took 20 years of separation to get them to the point that they weren't constantly destroying each other's shot at a permanent happiness. I liked that they each got their "happily ever after," dammit!

Edited by legaleagle53
  • Love 3
snarktini

snarktini

On 10/9/2017 at 9:17 PM, Maverick said:

 We've seen Driver, when Karen had to fire him but couldn't.  For some reason I think we've seen Cook can't place the episode if we did.  

Not sure about Cook, but we did meet Pastry Chef once. She couldn't fire him either, and he seduces everyone. :)

Karen swimming in the shower was priceless. I'm not in love with it so far, but moments like that will keep me tuning in (when I get around to it).

  • Love 1
iMonrey

iMonrey

Quote

Change and growth are good, which is why I consider the fact that this show pulled a Bobby-in-the-shower to be the mother of all shark jumps and have refused to watch this reboot on principle -- I prefer to remember the show as it was and the hopeful, positive note on which it ended in 2006.  What's wrong with showing gay couples (especially gay men) in happy, healthy, functional relationships rather than showing them as the overused stereotype of the angry, bitter queen who can't hold down a steady, fulfilling relationship and doesn't understand why?

I get where you're coming from, because I definitely felt like the show ended the way it should have ended 11 years ago. The truth is there was no real way to reboot the show without erasing that ending. I think the writers know (or, at least feel) that the audience won't be receptive to anything but the same dynamic the four leads had in the original series. If you have Grace married to Leo and Will married to Vince and both have kids . . . that's an entirely different show. Could it work? Maybe. I'd be interested to see it, for sure. I don't think the writers and/or network had confidence in it, though.

Quote

Not sure about Cook, but we did meet Pastry Chef once. She couldn't fire him either, and he seduces everyone. :)

Oh, you're right! I forgot about pastry chef. But they did fire him after they found out he sexed up Rosario too. 

  • Love 6
Angeleyes

Angeleyes

I don’t understand why they seem to have Will acting like his marriage/long term relationship never happened. You would think that Will would have mentioned how hard it is to begin dating again after not being single for so long and possibly freaking out about dating anyone, much less a younger person. Erasing the history does make both Jack and Will look like they’ve had no growth and just perpetually try to stay stuck at a certain age even though they have gotten older. It’s kind of pathetic. Jack in the compression suit and the bad makeup was hilarious though. 

  • Love 1
Angeleyes

Angeleyes

7 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

I get the impression that Will's breakup with Vince isn't nearly as recent as Grace's with Leo. There was an 11 year hiatus, he could have had years to come to terms with being single again.

Everything I read leading up to the premier of this show indicated that both breakups were supposed to be recent. If they want to alter that no problem, but at least give the audience a line indicating the timeline. Will could have said something to the effect of, “You know, when my marriage failed 4 years ago it was difficult for me to enter the dating scene again. Now I’m about to go out with a 20 year old . . .” It feels out of character for Will to not mention it in some way. 

SanDiegoInExile

SanDiegoInExile

(edited)
17 hours ago, Angeleyes said:

I don’t understand why they seem to have Will acting like his marriage/long term relationship never happened. You would think that Will would have mentioned how hard it is to begin dating again after not being single for so long and possibly freaking out about dating anyone...

That certainly sounds like a laugh-a-minute farcical comedy.  Afterschool Special Time.

They seem to be moving through the cast.  We got a Grace "backstory" acknowledgement in Episode 3.  Episode 4 deals with Jack's son.  I suspect we will get one for Will (dealing with either his Mom or his ex-).  And a Karen episode focusing on un-seen Stan.

Only a couple more episodes until NBC NFL Football takes over for the rest of the year.  Presumably we will get another short series of fresh episodes in 2018 until the Olympics hit. Then the last remaining 7-8 episodes of the 16 episodes for the season in April-May.

Edited by SanDiegoInExile
Angeleyes

Angeleyes

27 minutes ago, SanDiegoInExile said:

That certainly sounds like a laugh-a-minute farcical comedy.  Afterschool Special Time.

They seem to be moving through the cast.  We got a Grace "backstory" acknowledgement in Episode 3.  Episode 4 deals with Jack's son.  I suspect we will get one for Will (dealing with either his Mom or his ex-).  And a Karen episode focusing on un-seen Stan.

Only a couple more episodes until NBC NFL Football takes over for the rest of the year.  Presumably we will get another short series of fresh episodes in 2018 until the Olympics hit. Then the last remaining 7-8 episodes of the 16 episodes for the season in April-May.

Nope. It would absolutely be played for laughs. These characters freak out about everything including when Will was attracted to the guy in the first episode. Characters on sitcoms freak about dating issues all the time. A line here or there from Will about his marriage only makes sense without the need for a full episode backstory. 

sinkwriter

sinkwriter

(edited)
Quote

I distinctly remember their horror upon waking up naked in bed together after a boozy evening on Karen's mega-yacht, and it was shared horror between both of them whatever Jack's feelings might have been when they were first becoming friends. Will is basically a surrogate parent figure to eternal adolescent Jack, I can't see any sort of romantic possibility between them. (Thankfully, I might have to pull an Oedipus if I did!)

Yes, and I think they had a conversation after that incident, in which they talked about what would happen if they did ever marry. They both agreed there would never be any sex between them, Jack said he'd need his own place and some allowance, and they'd both have their own boyfriends on the side, etc. It was pretty funny. They were pretty much describing their relationship as it already was. 

I'd be okay with occasional jokes like this where they seem like they could get together because they do have such a shared history and shorthand with one another, but when it comes down to it, they're best as friends. Ultimately, I'd like to see Will happy in his own relationship. I really did love him with Bobby's character (Vince). 

Edited by sinkwriter
  • Love 4
Gothish520

Gothish520

On 10/7/2017 at 10:29 PM, Bill1978 said:

I can't remember where I saw it or read it, but I recall some interview with Debra Messing where she said by the third (or was it the fourth) episode she had found her groove as Grave again. It took her awhile to find Grace but once she found her she was off and running.

I saw flashes of the Grace we know and love in episode 3, Emergency Contact. So maybe by the next episode she locks in.

  • Love 1
xtwheeler

xtwheeler

On 10/13/2017 at 1:33 AM, SanDiegoInExile said:

That certainly sounds like a laugh-a-minute farcical comedy.  Afterschool Special Time.

They seem to be moving through the cast.  We got a Grace "backstory" acknowledgement in Episode 3.  Episode 4 deals with Jack's son.  I suspect we will get one for Will (dealing with either his Mom or his ex-).  And a Karen episode focusing on un-seen Stan.

Only a couple more episodes until NBC NFL Football takes over for the rest of the year.  Presumably we will get another short series of fresh episodes in 2018 until the Olympics hit. Then the last remaining 7-8 episodes of the 16 episodes for the season in April-May.

This made me realize how much I will miss Debbie Reynolds as Grace's mom. She was absolutely amazing and perfect and wonderful as Grace's mom, Broadway singing herself into every scene! 

  • Love 6
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...