I laughed my a** off! I'm probably a simple person.

Number of movies with rear nudity - priceless.

I thought it was a funny episode. Rosario was hilarious.

"What a man. What a man. What man. What a mighty good man."


Can't wait for next week. Grace looks to be standing her ground.

I watched several episodes of this show a couple of seasons ago, but I haven't really followed it recently. Is Will not gay now, or is he just such good friends with Grace that he's willing to have sex with her so she can get pregnant?

Brian

No sex......invetro (sp?) fertilization.

Basically, since both Will and Grace have accepted the possibility of never finding the right partner, they decided to have a child together. They initially were going to have sex, but they both couldn't go through with it and decided on invitro. During this time, they had promised each other not to date others in order to focus on baby-related matters, which is why Will is so upset Grace may be backing out because she's possibly found the right man. Will had grown enamored of the idea of having a child.

It's part of the NBC Must See TV contract. If your show lasts more than 3 seasons, the lead characters are contractually obligated to either "fall in love" or have a baby together. There's a progressive scale for shows that last significantly longer than 3 seasons (Friends); I think it's 2 after 5 seasons, 3 after 7 seasons, and a new "love triangle" or "baby angle" every season after season 8.

What people don't know is that Seinfeld was actually cancelled by NBC because Jerry and Elaine wouldn't have a baby together.

das

P.S. Don't be mad at me; I don't make the rules.

das Monkey may be on to something here. Frasier and Roz actually slept together this past season.

But Frasier in on Tuesdays.

Didn't it used to air on Thursdays at one point?

Isn't Tuesday a "Must See TV" day? I remember it being hailed as such a couple of years ago.

But yes, Frasier started out on Thursday night. Then they moved it to Tuesday night. Then Seinfeld went off the air and to that spot Frasier went. Then Will and Grace became a hit and deposed Frasier, and back it went to Tuesday where it rests comfortably now. Too comfortably if you ask me. I don't know, but the moment Niles and Daphne got together, the show lost some of its fizz, as I suppose happens in every show when two lead characters get together. And Peri Gilpin is so bloody underused. She needs an antagonist, like Bulldog.

Anyway, this thread is about Will and Grace. I gave up on the show early in Season 3.

Das, that was genius. You may have just figured out NBC's code for making sitcoms.

As for Fraiser..wasn't that once in the NBC must see thursday night line-up? Maybe all the sitcom needs to be in the thursday lineup for a certain time period before the rules apply.

• Quoth MicFreJas •<HR SIZE=1>Das, that was genius. You may have just figured out NBC's code for making sitcoms.<HR SIZE=1>

Oh, I did nothing special. This contract (with Satan) is published clearly in the Hall of Evil. I know a guy who knows a guy who knows George Luca$, who of course has a master key to the Hall of Evil.

das

While in no way defending some of the "sitcom" cliches, it isn't really that far out there for babies and hook-ups to enter into the equation after a few years of shows about 20-30 somethings. All of my friends are getting married and pregnant right now. So it doesn't really bother me if it happens on a sitcom.

• Quoth draven-x •<HR SIZE=1>While in no way defending some of the "sitcom" cliches, it isn't really that far out there for babies and hook-ups to enter into the equation after a few years of shows about 20-30 somethings. All of my friends are getting married and pregnant right now. So it doesn't really bother me if it happens on a sitcom. <HR SIZE=1>

Ah, but how often do Brad Pitt and Tom Selleck show up for dinner? I know that's a different subsection of the contract, but still related.

das

P.S. I assume the babies you speak of age in natural human progression? Such activity is not permitted in sit-com land.

Das, your assessment is more than correct and it infects shows across the TV landscape. The latest victim? That 70's Show...assuming Kitty's actually pregnant as she says she is in this week's promos.

don't forget nbc likes to revamp a sitcom when the ratings fall and then cancel them during the revamp season ha.

It's even more simplier than that. Baby, relationship, marriage attract audiences to follow EVERY show!!

Sitcom genius, James Burrows, had said himself, "If we were able to convert sitcom into soap. Then we guaranteed our self at least certain loyal audiences." That's exactly what he did in Cheers, Friends, and Will and Grace!!

It's not in the contract like das Monkey had said. Nobody is gonna put plots in the business contract.....

• Quoth SuperJim88 •<HR SIZE=1>Baby, relationship, marriage attract audiences to follow EVERY show!!

Then we guaranteed our self at least certain loyal audiences.<HR SIZE=1>

Baaaaa-aaaa-a-aaaa ... baaaa-aaaaa-aa-aaaa

das

P.S. I know you've recently become obsessed with Jim Burrows, and he is most certainly a very accomplished director, but I would be reluctant to throw the "genius" title around with him so frequently. The true genius came from the likes of James Brooks, Grant Tinker, Glen and Les Charles, and of course Bob Newhart and Mary Tyler Moore. They were the brains behind the MTM machine that gave Burrows a chance to work behind the camera on so many great shows, and most of his work since then (largely in "Executive Producer" capacity) has been pretty derivative and uninspired. As exemplified by his quote, he's learned how to stamp out a carbon-copy sit-com and make boatloads of money. That makes him a shrewd businessman, but I'd save the "genius" label those more responsible for the quality of those great shows.

You are so right...They always screw the show.
If Ross and Rachell don't hook up in the end....an NBC exec. is going to die.

Dude, everybody is entitle to their own opinion. Impose personal attack on other simply based on difference of opinion is irresponsible and worst, stupid. The fact remain that you couldn't find any reasoning to defeat my arguement and just being ignorant!! Haven't you learn enough from the history?!

P.S. (to you too) Les Charles worked with James Burrow in Cheers and as far as I'm concern they are both at the same level. So essentially your level of "genius" is just like my level.

• Quoth SuperJim88 •<HR SIZE=1>Dude, everybody is entitle to their own opinion. Impose personal attack on other simply based on difference of opinion is irresponsible and worst, stupid. The fact remain that you couldn't find any reasoning to defeat my arguement and just being ignorant!! Haven't you learn enough from the history?!

P.S. (to you too) Les Charles worked with James Burrow in Cheers and as far as I'm concern they are both at the same level. So essentially your level of "genius" is just like my level. <HR SIZE=1>

Personal attack? Hardly. I responded to the Burrows quote (and mentality) that you posted about ... and even that wasn't an attack. As for the stuff about ignorance and history, I don't even know what that means, so I can't respond to it. If you think that gives you the right to call me irresponsible, stupid, and ignorant, more power to you. In life, many people are going to disagree with you ... get used to it.

das

See again, your reply is full of another attempt of personal attack and completely disregard to the real topic for what this thread is for!!

I began this whole thing by saying that your idea that having marriage, relationship and baby attract audience is right, but there are simplier reasons than having it in the contract. The next thing I know, personal attack flying everywhere...... And all your replies never did reply to the topic at hand but simply attack my opinions and impose yours on me.

das

You sure have a liberal definition of a "personal attack." We'll just assume this post is one as well and get that out of the way. Feel free to use the "Report this post to a moderator" link to register your complaint. I'll await disciplinary action for disagreeing with you.

As for being on topic, I directly responded to your comments about James Burrows and his mentality in developing sit-coms. While I believe him to be an accomplished director, I think his method of producing shows (as quoted by you) is derivative and uninspired. I also believe that he's ridden on the coat-tails of more innovative creative minds in the TV industry. But I'm just restating what I already posted.

It's nearly impossible to have any intelligent discussion with you if you're just going to insist any disagreement is a personal attack and any attempt to clarify such statements is also a personal attack. Laughing at me doesn't help matters. The hypocrisy of calling me names and making wild accusations under the umbrella of responding to a non-existant personal attack really has no place here in TV Talk. We can talk about TV shows or we can kick sand on each other. I prefer the former.

das

How many is that? I lost count........

Those are personal attacks? Yowzers. I guess the question then is, "what isn't a personal attack?"

Again, I suggest you utilize the "Report this post to a moderator" link. I've tried to clarify my comments and engage in something more than just senseless bickering. It appears a wasted effort. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... well ... it was fun.

das

P.S. As if it even needs clarification, the first comment was a response to a Jim Burrows quote. The second was a response to your proclaiming him as a genius in two recent threads. The third and fourth are opinions. The fifth is a statement of fact. The sixth and seventh are observations from this silly discussion. And since you lost count, I count 7. I'm sure you'll find more in this post, so we'll keep that "7" count as a soft number for now.