Will & Grace - Limited Revival on NBC for 2017/2018 Season

[Freddie2 841]

The over-saturation of reboots can only mean that an era of fresh ideas is just around the corner! I might watch the premiere, but I'm not particularly familiar with W & G- I think I sampled some season two episodes awhile back. I'll probably watch the new Roseanne, but I can't imagine that being anything extraordinary. All the shows I'd like to see come back for a reunion series or special have way too many dead cast members! Even something as recent as Everybody Loves Raymond would very sadly be out of the running. This starting and stopping is what British comedies actually do very well. The Vicar of Dibley aired five seasons for almos fifteen years, and Absolutely Fabulous spanned two decades!

 

[LittleRickyII 310]

I just watched this episode.  I have to agree it was not great.  I haven't seen that many episodes of the original series, but the episodes I have seen are much funnier than what aired last night.  Also, I have to comment that the whole White House West Wing segment was not realistic.  I went on a tour of the West Wing several years ago, so I was watching the segment with that in mind.  First of all, the Oval Office set-up was wrong.  Will entered from a door to the left of the desk.  In fact, the entrance is on the opposite side and further back from the desk.  Secondly, you CANNOT go around unescorted like he did.  That woman brought him into the Oval Office then left.  The escorts do not walk off and leave you.  Third, you can't go inside the Oval Office at all!  They'll only let you go as far as the doorway.  You can stick your head inside the door, but you can't walk through the door.  You have to remain in the hallway.  And you would not even dare walk through that doorway because there is a VERY intimidating Secret Service officer standing by keeping guard.  (Maybe if you're a Russian you can walk in there, but uninvited U.S. citizens can't.   )  Fourth, the West Wing has a lot of rooms crammed into a relatively small space.  It was presented in this episode like a big, luxurious facility.  The hallways around the West Wing are not spacious and the ceilings are low.  Fifth, the view from the window behind the president's desk does not look onto the Rose Garden; it's to the left of the desk.  So Grace wouldn't have seen Will by looking out that window.

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

10 hours ago, LittleRickyII said:

I just watched this episode.  I have to agree it was not great.  I haven't seen that many episodes of the original series, but the episodes I have seen are much funnier than what aired last night.  Also, I have to comment that the whole White House West Wing segment was not realistic.  I went on a tour of the West Wing several years ago, so I was watching the segment with that in mind.  First of all, the Oval Office set-up was wrong.  Will entered from a door to the left of the desk.  In fact, the entrance is on the opposite side and further back from the desk.  Secondly, you CANNOT go around unescorted like he did.  That woman brought him into the Oval Office then left.  The escorts do not walk off and leave you.  Third, you can't go inside the Oval Office at all!  They'll only let you go as far as the doorway.  You can stick your head inside the door, but you can't walk through the door.  You have to remain in the hallway.  And you would not even dare walk through that doorway because there is a VERY intimidating Secret Service officer standing by keeping guard.  (Maybe if you're a Russian you can walk in there, but uninvited U.S. citizens can't.   )  Fourth, the West Wing has a lot of rooms crammed into a relatively small space.  It was presented in this episode like a big, luxurious facility.  The hallways around the West Wing are not spacious and the ceilings are low.  Fifth, the view from the window behind the president's desk does not look onto the Rose Garden; it's to the left of the desk.  So Grace wouldn't have seen Will by looking out that window.

I agree that the scene was unrealistic because it was so obviously a set. I, too, have been on a tour of the West Wing and saw the Oval Office as well. Obviously this show is fiction, and the set was designed for blocking purposes, but it made it very obvious. I was hoping it'd all turn out to be another one of Karen's drug-fueled dreams, like the original series finale was revealed to be. 

However, the closing scene seemed to suggest they'd be dialing it down for future episodes. The whole "politics make us too divisive, let's go back to what we've always been" line seemed too pointed to suggest otherwise. 

[LittleRickyII 310]

4 hours ago, Mot Morenzi said:

I agree that the scene was unrealistic because it was so obviously a set. I, too, have been on a tour of the West Wing and saw the Oval Office as well. Obviously this show is fiction, and the set was designed for blocking purposes, but it made it very obvious. I was hoping it'd all turn out to be another one of Karen's drug-fueled dreams, like the original series finale was revealed to be. 

However, the closing scene seemed to suggest they'd be dialing it down for future episodes. The whole "politics make us too divisive, let's go back to what we've always been" line seemed too pointed to suggest otherwise. 

Funny, you mention the closing scene.  I saw this just yesterday and I barely remember the closing scene.  That says something.

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

2 hours ago, LittleRickyII said:

Funny, you mention the closing scene.  I saw this just yesterday and I barely remember the closing scene.  That says something.

When I woke up this morning, it took a while before I remembered watching it. Then I was like, "Oh yeah, W&G premiered. Meh, hope it's better next week."

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

Well, I thought episode 2 was fantastic. Funny from start to finish. Glad to see they've returned to form. 

And boy, did Lucy get a huge shoutout in this one! Let's just say the episode could've been called Grace and Karen Put in a Shower.  

http://nypost.com/2017/10/04/wacky-will-grace-scene-recalls-the-lucy-show-episode/

[Freddie2 841]

I did watch the premiere a couple of days ago, and it made me laugh, which is the minimum I ask for from a comedy show. I was definitely missing out on some stuff by not being familiar with the earlier episodes, and I agree that the political stuff was too much. I wasn’t planning on watching more, but seeing that they did a TLS shoutout like that has me interested!

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

38 minutes ago, Freddie2 said:

I did watch the premiere a couple of days ago, and it made me laugh, which is the minimum I ask for from a comedy show. I was definitely missing out on some stuff by not being familiar with the earlier episodes, and I agree that the political stuff was too much. I wasn’t planning on watching more, but seeing that they did a TLS shoutout like that has me interested!

I think they kind of had to do a political episode, seeing as how it was the election sketch that led to the series being revived in the first place. I'm glad they decided to knock it out in one go rather than prolonging it too much, though. Now they seem to be back on track with being funny first and foremost. 

If you enjoyed the first one, you'll love the second. Grace and Karen were truly 21st century Lucy and Viv in this outing. 

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

So far, I am enjoying the new season. I'm pleased that they've largely pushed politics aside after the premiere. The occasions it has come up since then have been in more subtle (and funnier) ways.

I found episode 3, with Harry Connick, Jr., a little slow, but it was necessary to tie up the Grace/Leo plot. Episode 4 was clever, though. I liked the new dynamic between Jack and his son. I'm anxiously awaiting Minnie Driver's upcoming appearance - her character was great!

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

http://kenlevine.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/the-take-away-from-will-grace.html

Great piece from Ken Levine last month about the viability of multi-camera shows.

[Brock 3,353]

Will & Grace has never really captured my interest over the years. I've tried and failed -- and I feel like I've missed out on some sort of cultural touchstone -- but the homage to Put In a Shower was exceptional. 

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

58 minutes ago, Brock said:

Will & Grace has never really captured my interest over the years. I've tried and failed -- and I feel like I've missed out on some sort of cultural touchstone -- but the homage to Put In a Shower was exceptional. 

I discovered the show around 2002-2003. It really grabbed me for a while - I caught up on the earlier seasons through DVD and watched seasons 6-8 religiously when originally broadcast. I was glad they ended it when they did at the time, as I felt the show was fading somewhat during the last two seasons. Over the last few years, my interest in it dwindled considerably, but this revival has succeeded in rekindling my enjoyment. I'm liking seeing them all back in action far more than I thought I would.

[LittleRickyII 310]

10 hours ago, Mot Morenzi said:

http://kenlevine.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/the-take-away-from-will-grace.html

Great piece from Ken Levine last month about the viability of multi-camera shows.

Good article.  I enjoy both multi-cam and single-cam sitcoms.  All that matters to me is that they're funny.  What annoys me about multi-cam shows -- alluded to in this article -- is when they insert fake and LOUD laughter, as if they're trying to tell us something is funny when it is not.  It's an insult to the viewers' intelligence.  And also that set-up/punchline rhythm of the dialogue that is NOT the way people talk.  Shows like Friends are a classic example of this.  I hate it.  What annoys me about these single cam sitcoms -- and they all seem to do it -- is that shaky camera technique.  Why do they do this?  Are they trying to make it look like an amateur is holding the camera?  I want to focus on the characters on the show, not on how it's being filmed.  Knock it off and hold the camera still for crying out loud!

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

17 minutes ago, LittleRickyII said:

Good article.  I enjoy both multi-cam and single-cam sitcoms.  All that matters to me is that they're funny.  What annoys me about multi-cam shows -- alluded to in this article -- is when they insert fake and LOUD laughter, as if they're trying to tell us something is funny when it is not.  It's an insult to the viewers intelligence.  And also that set-up/punchline rhythm of the dialogue that is NOT the way people talk.  Shows like Friends are a classic example of this.  I hate it.  What annoys me about these single cam sitcoms -- and they all seem to do it -- is that shaky camera technique.  Why do they do this?  Are they trying to make it look like an amateur is holding the camera?  I want to focus on the characters on the show, not on how it's being filmed.  Knock it off and hold the camera still for crying out loud!

I'm in full agreement. When multi-cam sitcoms are good, they're brilliant. When they're bad, they're unwatchable. So many of them (nowadays especially) are very plastic, both in appearance and delivery. Part of the problem is that most of the sets are way too clean and organized. They look like Ikea showrooms, not places where real people actually live. Sitcom sets used to look "lived in." Also, the newer trend of natural lighting only enhances this. The whiter, brighter lights of older shows were more effective, in my opinion. As for many of the "actors" on today's multi-cam shows...department store dummies would be more convincing in many cases!

There are some single-camera shows I like, but many I don't for the reason you mentioned. This whole "everything must be real" craze irks me - I don't care what symbolism of human angst the shaky camera is meant to represent, let me see the damn thing clearly! Plus, aren't comedies supposed to be funny? Nowadays any 30 minute show is classified as comedy, no matter how depressing the subject matter. SNL did a great sendup of that a few years ago..

[LittleRickyII 310]

23 hours ago, Mot Morenzi said:

I'm in full agreement. When multi-cam sitcoms are good, they're brilliant. When they're bad, they're unwatchable. So many of them (nowadays especially) are very plastic, both in appearance and delivery. Part of the problem is that most of the sets are way too clean and organized. They look like Ikea showrooms, not places where real people actually live. Sitcom sets used to look "lived in." Also, the newer trend of natural lighting only enhances this. The whiter, brighter lights of older shows were more effective, in my opinion. As for many of the "actors" on today's multi-cam shows...department store dummies would be more convincing in many cases!

There are some single-camera shows I like, but many I don't for the reason you mentioned. This whole "everything must be real" craze irks me - I don't care what symbolism of human angst the shaky camera is meant to represent, let me see the damn thing clearly! Plus, aren't comedies supposed to be funny? Nowadays any 30 minute show is classified as comedy, no matter how depressing the subject matter. SNL did a great sendup of that a few years ago..

 

I totally get what you mean by sets looking too clean and organized.  I've noticed that, too!  That said, and I've only seen one or two episodes, but the series Mom has an amazingly real-looking set, in terms of the layout.  Most live audience sitcom sets look like sets, not homes, with the walls that are not at 90 degree angles like walls in real homes.  But that Mom set, and also the ingenious set design for Sean Hayes' short-lived sitcom, Sean Saves the World -- those really impress me.

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

Interview with the creators about the big event that occurred in this week's episode (spoiler alert):

http://variety.com/2017/tv/features/will-and-grace-david-kohan-max-mutchnick-rosario-interview-1202604413/

[Neil 1,341]

RE: the sets.  I've been in more homes that look like Roseanne's (one of the most realistic homes on TV) than I have apartments that look like Will and Grace's.

When a show is actually funny, I don't notice if the audience response is souped-up.  And "Will and Grace" is and was (funny, that is).  What I don't like is the audience response going beyond laughing and the occasional applause to include "ooooooo" when something sexy is happening or "ahhhh" when there's some pathos.  I confess to never having seen most of the shows on the air now, including "Big Bang Theory".  I've watched a little bit of it and I can tell I don't know the characters well enough to appreciate the humor so that unreal single-volumed audience response stands out.   The only thing I haven't enjoyed about W&G is when Jack and Karen get too wild and do kinky things just for the audience response.   And speaking of Jack:  my experience may  not be as wide as some, but I don't know any 'flamers' and I'm good friends with someone who used to do drag!.  Throughout entertainment history, a flamer is always good for a laugh, even though that sort of portrayal panders to long-held stereotypes, yet they're undeniably funny.  (The closest I am to knowing a flamer is that my neighbor is a 2nd or 3rd cousin to R G 'Valter' Brown, who makes Jack look like John Wayne.) 

If you want to see the difference between genuine audience response and the jacked-up canned response added by the producers, look at the "Maude" episodes included on the whole-series set.  For some reason, there are two episodes that were never aired so they didn't get to the add-can-laughs stage of post-production.   I'm Pro-Bea but only so-so about "Maude".  It didn't seem like these episodes were any worse than the ones that aired.  The audience titters when normally we hear bellowing.  And say what you want about "Mothers In Law",  Desi stuck to his guns on this one and the audience response is real.  OK, there may have been some added to cover up something that went wrong or directing mistakes.  When a joke falls flat on MIL, Desi just let it lay there.  (at least that's my memory). 

Back to W&G:  overall it's been extremely well-written and expertly executed.  What astounds me about the revival is that all the participants seemed to have spent the last 10 years in Vivian Jones's vat of formaldehyde.   W&G debuted in 1998.  The equivalent would be:   in 1970 , they had gotten Lucy, Desi, Vivian and Frawley, had he survived,  back together for an I Love Lucy revival.  The only one who stayed looking the same is Doris Singleton/Carolyn Appleby. 

[Luvsbway 2,031]

I was just thinking the same thing about how everyone looked the same, especially Debra. Sean is the only one I can detect a bit of age, but it's not much. 

I wasn't a watcher in the original run but have caught many episodes in rerun. I much prefer the earlier years then the later guest star years. And I don't know why I was confused as to Grace's mom dying, then after reading a review, oh yeah, right, Debbie.

So far I'm enjoying the new run. It's just quick, mindless fun that there isn't too much of on TV now.

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

I can't say I was impressed with this week's Christmas episode. Easily one of the most bizarre holiday shows I've ever seen a sitcom do.

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

This is interesting - not only has the revival's second season been expanded from 13 to 18 episodes, NBC has ordered an 18 episode third season. The numbers may have dropped since the premiere, but it's clearly doing well enough in today's market to continue. Regardless of individual opinions of the show, I'm glad faith in the multi-camera format still exists.

http://deadline.com/2018/03/will-grace-revival-renewed-season-3-nbc-season-2-expanded-18-episodes-1202339735/

Though I feel a few episodes early in the season were weak, I've really enjoyed every episode aired this year. They seem to have found a good rhythm and a lot of the old magic is well and truly back.

And after that shower episode, I'd love a few more Lucy shout-outs. Maybe "Grace Does a TV Commercial" or "Mr. & Mr. TV Show"

[Luvsbway 2,031]

Last week's episode with Grace's cake smash was classic Lucy.

I watched most of this series in rerun, and liked the first few seasons better then the guest star heavy later seasons. I've really been enjoying this run too. It's crazy how everything just seems like they never went off the air. Everyone has their timing down.

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

3 hours ago, Luvsbway said:

Last week's episode with Grace's cake smash was classic Lucy.

I watched most of this series in rerun, and liked the first few seasons better then the guest star heavy later seasons. I've really been enjoying this run too. It's crazy how everything just seems like they never went off the air. Everyone has their timing down.

They're obviously having a blast doing it all again if they've agreed to run until at least 2020. 

I'm pleased these episodes are more reminiscent of the early years. The only guest star to play herself so far has been Jennifer Lopez, and that was basically a cameo. I'm also enjoying all the recurring characters from the original run popping up here and there. 

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

The first revival season is coming to DVD on June 12th, and a MOD Blu-Ray edition will also be available on the same day.

    

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

Watched the premiere of season 2 (or 10) tonight. I'm pleased to see they've dialed the political references right down, but I can't say I was wowed by this episode. I liked David Schwimmer and think he has potential to be a great guest star, but overall it didn't feel like a premiere-quality episode, more like filler you bury somewhere in the middle.

I appreciate their efforts to bring more physical comedy to the proceedings, but Sean Hayes seemed to be trying waaay too hard to be funny during his shtick.

[Mot Morenzi 1,489]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 1:50 AM, Mot Morenzi said:

Watched the premiere of season 2 (or 10) tonight. I'm pleased to see they've dialed the political references right down, but I can't say I was wowed by this episode. I liked David Schwimmer and think he has potential to be a great guest star, but overall it didn't feel like a premiere-quality episode, more like filler you bury somewhere in the middle.

Turns out my feelings were right - last week's show was the second episode produced, but they decided to air it first because of Schwimmer. That's why none of the bombshells from last season's finale were addressed, which made it not feel like an appropriate season debut.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/will-grace-premiere-bosses-david-schwimmer-role-revival-season-2-plan-1149550