|
Post by bluemoongirl on Feb 2, 2006 15:52:49 GMT -5
Yes, it is just terribly sad. A side issue that rather surprised me was that the writing for the episode is credited to Glenn Caron and Charles Eglee, who had been on the show since its start, and it always bothered me that they would want to throw in such a hostile and devastating plotline. It just derails the building theme in the story of the possibility for real happiness in the future. If it hadn't happened, you could really see that David would have just been agog with joy when that kid came along. Could see him playing with the kid, running full-tilt chasing him around the house... Would have made for an interesting plotline if D. tried to sneak out to a clinic one day and get a paternity test... But it was not to be. I don't see why they thought the audience wouldn't have been interested in that. It didn't have to turn into a 'family sitcom,' as in boring and samey, if that's what they were afraid of. With better writing they could have kept everything as sharp and interesting as ever and still have them raise the kid. Characters don't have to do, or not do, anything until and unless the writers make them that way! I mean, these characters are people who couldn't be boring if they tried. It always makes me angry that the writers took this away from the audience. I mean, who are they writing it for? Us! It's as if they forced us to sit through things nobody in their right mind would have ever wanted to see. Yes, we all know about the issues surrounding writing and production in the last couple of years, and perhaps one can sympathize up to a point, because those were some tough things to deal with. But I'll always feel, da*n, did they have to do that? Sad's the right word for it. Yes, I totally agree with you on this - as I'm sure many do. They could of had a child and not ruined the show. But I'd like to add to this that there are so many shows over the years that are written primarily by men...(no offense to Glenn and the gang)...but, in my opinion, unless a show is established with children or leaning more towards a family show - once a couple 'crosses the line' or a pregnancy or child is introduced into the dynamic, the show just falls apart. At this moment, I can't give you an example. But there have been so many shows I've watched over some 20 odd years and it always turns out that way. The writers get the 'tease' right, but once a 'relationship' is established, they ruin it. Am I making sense? You all know what I mean. In my opinion, male tv writers don't know how to write a couple in a relationship if the characters have been based on the will they/won't they theme. Ok...here's an example. The X Files. Any fans of this show will know that, as usual, there were issues with the show later in the series...but, when Mulder and Scully finally were in a relationship (such that it was) the writers ruined the chemistry that they had. I was always scratching my head with frustration because I knew those characters, and they just wouldn't act the way they did in a relationship. Might not be the best example...but I'm sure you all have had favorite shows where the characters and ultimately the show failed because once the characters became intimate the writers didn't know what the 'blank' to do next. Oh, and here's another example - Northern Exposure. Ok, now I'm frustrated.
|
|
|
Post by queensgirl on Feb 2, 2006 16:41:43 GMT -5
May have to disagree with you about NE. But I think with ML they maybe figured that a baby on the show would have changed the appeal to the young, single set. The show's cache rested with the Me Generation and Generation X, the former of whom more so than the latter would have been in prime time 'singles bar' years and not wanted to see the characters 'lose their availability.' A lot of men admired the David character (and a lot of women liked him) because of his roving party guy image. They may have wanted to see him play the eternal college guy, never settling down, and unfortunately not see him grow up and act like he really loved somebody. At least, that's what the execs may have figured. Personally, I can't even be sure if the dire predictions would have proven true, but sometimes they play to expectations and stereotypes more than anything and not everyone gets a say in how things turn out. Demographics... I just think it was so cruel to write a pregnancy plot into the storyline and then take it away. Why write it in at all? Just leave it out if you're going to wind up doing something else. I mean, maybe they thought the younger people didn't want to see them be mature yet, but for Pete's sake, did anybody want to see a miscarriage? Where can you take that? I still think David would have been hilarious as a father, and it would have been interesting to see another side of Maddie. Shame some audiences cannot learn to appreciate any well-written story, no matter what direction it takes. I think if you have good enough writing, you can make almost anything work for anyone. Well, sometimes it's based on the fears of the executives even more than actual reality. They probably thought family shows were for parents with young kids and single-people shows are for people roughly in their teens to 30s, and that's that. When you're the latter age, you really don't want to think about babies and stability, it reminds you too much of your parents. I continue to say, I would have loved it, I'd have been so happy for them and I can get into any well-done story. For that matter, a lot of young people liked The Cosby Show, Family Ties and Growing Pains, which were about families! So what gives? But it was not to be. We all know about the strictness of beliefs and prejudices in the entertainment industry, which may back up its reputation as one of the worst out there, and as long as somebody else controls what you see, you're going to get stuck with what they want to give you, like it or not. They're thinking advertising dollars, not story quality. Ironically, this ploy backfired on them, as if I recall correctly, the fifth season opener did pretty well but the plot lines in the rest of the year ticked everybody off so much it was never the same. I'd almost gloat...except that what really happened was such an utter shame. (What's funny is that many if not most of the original fans of the show have likely gotten married and/or had children by now, and may have to explain from time to time why it was such a cool show... )
|
|
|
Post by bluemoongirl on Feb 2, 2006 17:14:13 GMT -5
I just think it was so cruel to write a pregnancy plot into the storyline and then take it away. Why write it in at all? Just leave it out if you're going to wind up doing something else. I mean, maybe they thought the younger people didn't want to see them be mature yet, but for Pete's sake, did anybody want to see a miscarriage? Where can you take that? Yes, I agree with what you said about demographics and such. It's all a numbers game, regardless of what the audience really wants to see. They think they 'know' what the audience wants, and a lot of times they're sooo wrong. But to answer what you said above...We know why they did this. It's because they had to have a plot line that would allow Cybill to be on maternity leave. And even before that to not even be in the show at all due to complications. That's why season 4 went so funky. It wasn't anyones fault, it was just what happened in real life that had to be accomodated. But to have Maddie have a misscarriage later was just a cruel irony for the characters. The show was allready in trouble. I think it would have been a new twist to make them parents and give it freshness for the rest of the time it was on the air. It definately would have been fun to see them as parents - with all the sass and banter that we'd come to love from these characters - but with a twist. Just like the little scene I wrote under the thread of "What ifs" awhile back. I could totally see Maddie and David as parents in a situation like that - and I would have watched it too.
|
|
|
Post by queensgirl on Feb 2, 2006 17:53:57 GMT -5
Good point. With Season 4, you're right, can't very well begrudge anybody the time to have children. It just happened to dovetail with the writer's strike and the directorial changes on the show, which led to all these things that didn't seem to work out for anybody. I think they would have been great as parents. I've said it before, these people had such offbeat and compelling personalities, they could not have been boring if they tried. How could it have been worse than what they actually did with the story? I mean, heaven forfend they both wind up happy. If you want interesting conflict and banter, and odd situations you can get into, what's crazier than trying to raise a kid? Can you picture the vast amount more of stuff they would have had to argue about? ;D Nick and Nora Charles got married and everything was fine. They still used to fight and joke with one another, but the audience didn't give up on them. They were more popular than ever. Different time, though. I'm just saying, a girl can dream, can't she? Okay, she can't. But still!
|
|
|
Post by adyjdy on Feb 3, 2006 0:28:19 GMT -5
Another thing to remember is that this was an EXTREMELY conformist time, and ML was a victim of that culture to a certain degree. Back then, TV shows premiered in September, put out 21-26 episodes and went on hiatus for the summer, period. I think this is one show--and I'm sure there are many others--that would have benefitted from a "Sopranos"-type production schedule. A new crop of really great shows that everyone waits and waits and waits for and then the show goes on break for a while, sometimes a long while. That certainly would have solved the Cybill/Maddie pregnancy issues.
One thing I've never understood completely is why the writers had Maddied be BOTH pregnant and absent in Chicago for so long. Couldn't they have just had her stay in Chicago without being pregnant? I mean it's not like we saw her that much during that arc anyway.
Not that I minded the pregnancy storyline, but the baby dying was unspeakably cruel. And, I might add, undully harsh for the key demo every network wants watching any show during primetime... women ages 25 to 49. That was a just plain ol' stupid decision, both plot and numbers-wise.
|
|
|
Post by Hazel on Feb 4, 2006 20:21:28 GMT -5
Sorry to jump in here, but my DVDs just shipped from Amazon!!!! ;D
I now return you to your original discussion already in progress...
|
|
|
Post by queensgirl on Feb 4, 2006 23:54:15 GMT -5
Sorry to jump in here, but my DVDs just shipped from Amazon!!!! ;D I now return you to your original discussion already in progress... Good for you. I'll be going to the store Tuesday. I like that 'opening day' feeling. When I bought the first set, the clerk paused, took a good look at the box and said, "This was the coolest show ever..." Yes it was, m'friend, yes it was. ;D I work a third shift so I'll have to go to the store early, get the set, watch a little and then leave it at home. I'll be fidgeting all day, wishing I could go home and watch some more! I'm too new at the company to ask for a day off... Almost makes me wish the release day were Friday. I said almost. Three days!
|
|
|
Post by queensgirl on Feb 5, 2006 0:01:26 GMT -5
Another thing to remember is that this was an EXTREMELY conformist time, and ML was a victim of that culture to a certain degree. Back then, TV shows premiered in September, put out 21-26 episodes and went on hiatus for the summer, period. I think this is one show--and I'm sure there are many others--that would have benefitted from a "Sopranos"-type production schedule. A new crop of really great shows that everyone waits and waits and waits for and then the show goes on break for a while, sometimes a long while. That certainly would have solved the Cybill/Maddie pregnancy issues. One thing I've never understood completely is why the writers had Maddied be BOTH pregnant and absent in Chicago for so long. Couldn't they have just had her stay in Chicago without being pregnant? I mean it's not like we saw her that much during that arc anyway. Not that I minded the pregnancy storyline, but the baby dying was unspeakably cruel. And, I might add, undully harsh for the key demo every network wants watching any show during primetime... women ages 25 to 49. That was a just plain ol' stupid decision, both plot and numbers-wise. Right. Good points all around.
|
|
|
Post by mlbestshowever on Feb 5, 2006 13:01:49 GMT -5
Amazon told me they shipped my order yesterday!!! I am so excited. The expected delivery date is the 24th so I will have to wait a little longer :-( You are happy to get the DVDs on Tuesday! I canĀ“t wait to open the mailbox the next days coming home from work and see if the DVDs arrived...
|
|
|
Post by babyhayes on Feb 6, 2006 16:01:37 GMT -5
WWOOOOHHHOOOO!!!! 0 days to go!! It's the 7th Feb!!!! (HOW quickly has that date arrived? Yay!) ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by queensgirl on Feb 6, 2006 16:11:10 GMT -5
In your time zone, sure. I've still got eight hours until midnight, and then nine or ten more after that until the stores open. ;D But I'll be there with bells on!
|
|
|
Post by babyhayes on Feb 7, 2006 16:57:07 GMT -5
Hee Hee, I might be ahead on the time zones but don't worry you'll get those DVDs before i do. Damn it! Happy shopping!
|
|