November 28, 2004

Pick a Housewife

Word is that there will be a fatality on tonight's "Desperate Housewives." Last time I tried to figure out who was going to croak on a show, it was the series ender of "Angel" and Wesley was the guy I considered most likely to survive. So with that brilliant track record, let's see:

EDIE: (One to one odds) The heavy favorite. Last seen having drinks with Richard Roundtree who may or may not have had instructions to kill her. Plus the finger could then be pointed at the long-suffering Susan since her next door neighbor knows about their competition over the plumber.

GABRIELLE: (Five to one odds) First runner up. If her husband finds out about her affair, and puts any of the responsibility for his mother's accident on Gabrielle, she's in serious trouble.

As for the rest, frankly, I don't think any of them at risk because they all have kids and I don't think the producers want any more motherless children on the show: One's enough since Mary Alice died in the pilot. Nevertheless...

SUSAN: (Twenty to one) The perpetual hard luck case of the Housewives. I could see her accidentally taking a bullet meant for someone else.

BREE: (Fifty to one) If Carlos discovers her son was responsible for the car accident with his mother, a brawl could ensue in which she accidentally is killed. But I think it's unlikely.

LYNETTE: (One hundred to one) I don't know: Can you fatally overdose on that medicine for ADD?

PAD

Posted by Peter David at November 28, 2004 01:37 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 28, 2004 02:13 PM

If it's one of the main characters I think you're nailed it...but have they explicitly said that's the case? There are a bunch of secondary characters we could easily lose. I guess tonight will be the episode that shows how ballsy the producers are.

Posted by: mark coale at November 28, 2004 02:24 PM


Could they kill off Mrs. Kravitz? Or is she one of the supporting characters and not one of the potential targets?

If they killed off Felicity Huffman, I may stop watching the show.

Posted by: mark coale at November 28, 2004 02:26 PM


also,

It's funny that the "Housewives" would kill off someone before they do on "Lost," where we've been expecting it and no one has bought it yet (not counting the Marshall or the pilot).

Posted by: Michael A. Burstein at November 28, 2004 02:57 PM

My money's on Edie, but she is the most obvious choice.

I sincerely doubt it'll be one of the four principle characters. On the other hand, they've already established one narrator from the dead; could they arrange it so we have two?

Posted by: Dermie at November 28, 2004 04:06 PM

My understanding is that the fatality is supposed to be one of the supporting cast members, not one of the primary five housewives.

Posted by: Kathleen David at November 28, 2004 04:09 PM

I think it is going to be Mrs. Hollis (sp?) who found the measuring cup in the rubble of Edie's house and tryed to blackmail Susan

Posted by: Rebekah at November 28, 2004 04:09 PM

I hope it's a secondary character.

Posted by: Thomas E. Reed at November 28, 2004 04:32 PM

I hope they kill ALL of them. And then the producer who whipped up this crappy, depressing, one-joke show.

During the Reagan years, shows like "Dynasty" and "Dallas" showed the rich betraying and killing each other. Well, nowdays, the middle class is "rich" compared to most Americans. Owning a house, or even getting a mortgage, makes you practically an Onassis. This is the same thing, just cheaper in scale.

I never cared who killed J.R., and I don't care who'll die in this series. Given current censorship, it won't be as gory or as sadistic a death as it should be - a "Soldier Blue" kind of death, if you understand the reference.

Posted by: Jerome Maida at November 28, 2004 05:11 PM

Geez, Thomas Reed, I don't watch the show, but you're pretty harsh.
If you hate it so much, why not support a different program? Arguably the most entertaining "Law and Order" show, "Criminal Intent", is on at the same time as "Desperate Housewives". Enjoy that, or any other choices on your dial, or rent a movie, or read a novel.
There's really no need to be so angry, especially on a thread where so many people seem to think it's fun.
Jerome, Someone who DID care who shot J.R. years ago, and thought it was Cliff Barnes:)

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at November 28, 2004 05:20 PM

I'm with Kathleen in believing that if there is a fatality, it will be Mrs. Hollis. The commercial seemed coy in its phrasing of the "loss". Don't be surprised if Edie up and moves away.

Posted by: Michael Cravens at November 28, 2004 06:01 PM

I think the neighbor's name is Mrs. Huber, and that's who I lay good money on. Remember last week, where the note to Mary Alice was written on that odd purple computer paper? Well, Edie is staying with Mrs. Huber at the moment, and while all the indications thus far might suggest Edie sent the note, I think Mrs. Huber sent the note to Mary Alice. (After all, if she's willing to blackmail Susan to get what she wants, who's to say she wouldn't do the same to Mary Alice?)

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at November 28, 2004 06:04 PM

Michael..... you're good. :)

Posted by: Kevin T. Brown at November 28, 2004 06:06 PM

Who says it's one of the wives that die...? My money is on one of the husbands.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at November 28, 2004 06:13 PM

Kevin T. Brown:
>Who says it's one of the wives that die...? My money is on one of the husbands.

The previews and commercials have implied that a wife is going to be gone for good. While a husband's death could lead to this, it doesn't seem likely.

Posted by: Jess Willey at November 28, 2004 06:15 PM

Most ADD meds can easily fatally overdose. I got pretty close to a toxic dose of Aderol once. (Not near fatal, unless I had choked on the vomit.) I had gone off meds for an experiment, went back after having lost between 45-50 pounds in about three weeks. I took my regular dose, took my film test, then passed out and vomitted face down in a trash can. The really strange thing is I remember the 3 1/2 hrs between taking the meds and my friend pulling me, blood, chewed Ho-Hos and all out of the trash can as a fog. Id didn't know where I was or how I got there. I thought I had to go take my test. He told me I got the highest grade in the class and to check my pocket for the grade slip. There it was, that days date, my name and a 96.

Turns out the docs FORGOT to adjust the dosage after the post experiment checkup in order to take the weight loss into account. What had been a normal dose was enough to send my body in partial shock.

Posted by: Tom Galloway at November 28, 2004 06:31 PM

Don't think they can kill off any of the four husbands without fundamentally, and too early, changing a major situation. They're clearly working towards a coming out of the closet storyline with Bree's husband, Lynette's situation really only works when there's the husband/breadwinner to play off of, Gabrielle's husband ends the affair plot and frees her to get things right, and Mary Alice's husband is instrumental to the season suicide arc.

Other than Edie (who's served her purpose vis a vis Mike and Susan and needs to either get a new one or be gone), the other favorite would seem to be the mother-in-law. Personally, I'm hoping they go for true soap opera cheese and have her wake up with short-term amnesia about catching them in the act.

Posted by: David K. M. Klaus at November 28, 2004 08:01 PM


Peter A. David wrote:


> Can you fatally overdose on that medicine
> for ADD?


Ritalin is the trade name for methylphenidate, a Schedule 2 amphetamine. While I don't think they showed a label on-screen confirming what it was, I think how it affected her made it obvious enough.

So, yes, you can.

Posted by: Thacher E. Cleveland at November 28, 2004 08:22 PM

Hey, is this the first mention of DH in the blog? Is it going to be a regular in the TV Round-Up, whenever that comes back regularly (c'mon, Peter, what're you trying to do, make money?)?

At the girl I'm dating's family for Thanksgiving, meeting all of them for the first time, I walked in on the middle of a conversation about DH, where they were just saying something along the lines of "So what do you think he's investigating? Is it the Dana thing or is it something else?" I chuckled, and it got them staring daggers at me until explained I watched the show too, and was running into other people that watched it for the first time since the show began. All I've gotten is grief from other people I know about it, so it's nice to know that Peter is watching it too, so I don't feel alone watching it. :)

Posted by: Kim Metzger at November 28, 2004 08:32 PM

PAD said: BREE: (Fifty to one) If Carlos discovers her son was responsible for the car accident with his mother, a brawl could ensue in which she accidentally is killed. But I think it's unlikely.

I agree it's unlikely. If Carlos tried to hurt Bree or anyone in her family, Carlos would end up the next entree in Bree's house.

Posted by: Ray Cornwall at November 28, 2004 10:20 PM

Michael, A+ for detective work. NICE job.

Posted by: Kathleen David at November 28, 2004 11:04 PM

Well Michael came up with the right name. I came up with the victim first but not the right name.

Peter thinks it is a bit of a cheat since they didn't flash her picture with the other housewives.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 28, 2004 11:12 PM

"a "Soldier Blue" kind of death,"

Wow, there's a memory I'd blocked out. A teacher of mine showed this in high school, not knowing what she was in store for. I'm amazed she didn't lose her job (and as I write this it occurs to me that it couldn't have been on video tape...so how did we see it? 16 mm film? That had to cost a bundle...)

If memories are to be trusted, the climax of this movie out Pekinpawed THE WILD BUNCH. We're talking mutilation, rape, gore...until I saw DAWN OF THE DEAD this was the most violent movie I'd ever seen.

Boy, you REALLY don't like DH, do you?

Posted by: Julio Diaz at November 28, 2004 11:13 PM

I agree with Peter as related by Kathleen that the death was a bit of a cheat, but that's marketing's fault and not the fault of the show. And the episode was so well done that I just don't care. Everything that happens on this show takes a baby step toward answering the existing mysteries while at the same time opening up a treasure trove of new ones. I absolutely love it!

Posted by: Julio Diaz at November 28, 2004 11:16 PM

Oh, and no way I thought it was going to be Edie -- that would have been too obvious, and this show has been anything but obvious. I feared most for Lynette and Susan, and they really played up both possibilities (Lynette with the meds, Susan with discovering some of her boyfriend's secrets -- and a gun). I thought Gabrielle was a possibility, too. Never really believed Bree was in danger. I'd have been very disappointed if they'd taken the easy route with Edie, especially given all the attention the character brought to the show after the Monday Night Football incident.

Posted by: Julio Diaz at November 28, 2004 11:18 PM

Finally, I'd be all for adding DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES to the Cowboy Pete roundup.

And someday, I'll get all my thoughts into ONE message before hitting "Post."

Posted by: Michael Cravens at November 28, 2004 11:22 PM

Yeah, it was a cheat.

But I've been watching television too long to believe that any of the main characters would really perish, and I've read too many detective novels to believe that any mystery is ever as simple as it appears.

I almost wish it had been Edie. She's nice to look at, absolutely, but doesn't bring a lot to the table that the other ladies can't also bring.

But yeah, this episode clicked, especially that whole "guilt" theme as it ramped up at the very end with intercutting of scenes of Susan and Mike with the scenes of Paul and Mrs. Huber.

It's a guilty pleasure for a twentysomething straight male law school student like myself, but what can I say? I like good writing that is staged beautifully, whether its Alias or The West Wing or Gilmore Girls or Desperate Housewives or Lost, etc.

But props to Kathleen for also nailing it. :-)

Posted by: Peter David at November 28, 2004 11:42 PM

Yeah, this was a case of a mismarketed episode. In fact, during the show itself they showed five fast pictures of the lead females and said one of them was doing to be killed off. I wasn't recording it so I can't do a frame-by-frame, but I didn't think Mrs. Huber was in it. If she was, it was literally blink-and-miss-it.

If they hadn't said anything about someone being killed off, I would have been blown away by the end. Instead I just kind of shrugged over the departure of a blackmailing busybody in whom no one had any emotional investment and no one's gonna miss. Nothing against the actress; she was perfectly fine. But c'mon, does ANYONE care her character is dead?

Don't get me wrong. I'd rather see her go than any of the main ones. But what I'd REALLY have preferred was if it had been a surprise that anything life-and-death-related was happening. I mean, heck, remember when Furillo and Davenport got married on "Hill Street?" No advance promo at all. Any such advertising would have ruined it. It was just, boom, "You ready to put your money where your mouth is, Furillo?" and off they went. Now THAT was smart TV.

Man, though, those sequences where Brenda Strong as Mary Alice appeared to Lynette...those were something.

PAD

Posted by: Squeee at November 29, 2004 02:24 AM

I’ll have to say I saw it coming. Edie was too obvious. Lois (Susan – whatever) is too important. I probably wouldn’t watch the show anymore if she was gone. And not just cuz she is hot. The others have too much going on too. Gabrielle was the only one that I thought that had a slight chance of being the one. And Christine Estabrook “Mrs. Huber” is on the front of the Houston Chronicle’s TV Guide.
And I for one do care. I am glad she is gone. She got what she deserved, not Mary Alice. The TV guide described her as Gladys Kravitz. Wouldn’t we all have liked to seen Samantha Stevens bring down a lightning bolt down on her head and leave a smoldering chunk of kindling.

Posted by: The StarWolf at November 29, 2004 07:20 AM

Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. I could only stomach a couple of episodes, but if the rest continued on in the same vein, it seems to me that killing off one of the 'desperate(1)' characters would be considered by some as a 'mercy killing'.

(1) [though I'd be more inclined to say 'moronic' as so many of their problems could be solved with a moment's thought - say, having them visit some third world country to make them realize how well-off they actually are]

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at November 29, 2004 07:37 AM

Anyone here watching Boston Legal? This show is easily one of the most smartly written and brillantly acted shows on right now. The moment last night when it was subtley implied that Alan Shore had criven several people into therapy had me laughing out loud! Good stuff.

Fred

Posted by: Napoleon Park at November 29, 2004 08:00 AM

I totally thought it would be Edie. I figured they were double-thinking it. It was obvious that it would be Edie, so it couldn;t be... but that's what they wanted us to think...
Was it a cheat? I don't think so. 'A Desperate Housewife will die" blared the promos, while "It won;t be one of the main four" revealed spoiler articles.
Mrs. Martha Huber was a widow, therefore a husewife. She was in a tight financial situation, thus deasperate. She tried to extort Susan, a major clue implicating her in the Mary Alice blackmail note writing.
But was she the major character we were promised? While, other than Mary Alice Young, Martha Huber was the first character we saw in the pilot episode. How much more major can you get than first?
-----
"It's funny that the "Housewives" would kill off someone before they do on "Lost," where we've been expecting
it and no one has bought it yet (not counting the Marshall or the pilot)."
So far the on-the-island death toll is 1. black guy sucked into the jet engine on the beach (It's allus the brotha go first). 2. The Pilot (ironically killed in "The Pilot" episode). 3. The U.S. Marshal.
4. Joanna, the woman who swam out so far Dr. Jack had to save Boone, who tried to save her. (Does anyone think Joanna was a suicide?)
5 & 6. "Adam and Eve", the 40-50 year old corpses found in the caves by the spring.
7. Robert, Danielle Rousseau's husband.
And unseen characters who may not be dead: Alex (Danielle's child) and Bernard (Rose's husband who was in the tail of the plane but not found in the debris near the spring.
I was confused by the count at first. We all know they had a head count of 48 at first (it was in the pre-show hype). After drowned Joanna, Jack said "46". That works if "guy sucked into jet engine" died before the count and the pilot wasn't included. Then 48 minus US Marshal and Joanna makes 46.
So far 20 characters have been identified, but Danielle Rousseau was not part of the original head count, either. The other 19 are Dr. Jack Shepard, Kate, Charlie, Hurley, Sawyer, Sayid, Shannon, Boone, Michael, Walt, Claire, Rose, "Colonel" John Locke, Sun, Jin, minor named characters Scott, Steve and Ethan, and the grey haired guy with glasses and a rash who likes golf (no name yet but plenty of character specific details. Vincent the dog also has a name.
That leaves 26 plane crash survivors not as yet introduced who may wind up being 'redshirts', not counting Bernard and Alex who might be alive.

Posted by: The StarWolf at November 29, 2004 08:25 AM

The Boston Legal team are simply fortunate that the prosecution is so incompetent in many instances. Consider the loon who had himself shot by a storekeeper and then refused treatment because the bullet would prove his culpability.

Why didn't the prosecution not point out that the hazards to the defendant of NOT taking it out outweighed those of the operation itself? Something the doctor would likely have been quite happy to back up. This would have shot down the defense's argument as to the risk of the operation to her client.

At the very least the prosecuting attorney should have fought for a competency hearing to see whether the defendant is a risk to himself given that most sane people would not hesitate to have a potentially fatal bullet taken out.

Posted by: Tom Keller at November 29, 2004 08:57 AM

I don't watch the show, but I would guess whichever character is played by Nicolette Sheridan. And the killer will eventually be revealed to be Michael Powell. :)

Posted by: Den at November 29, 2004 09:22 AM

Anyone here watching Boston Legal? This show is easily one of the most smartly written and brillantly acted shows on right now. The moment last night when it was subtley implied that Alan Shore had criven several people into therapy had me laughing out loud! Good stuff.

If by "smartly written" you mean, "written by a roomfull of brain-damaged monkeys hurling their feces at a typewriter," then yes.

I hate David Kelley. Is there any TV producer who is more overrated than him?

Answer: No.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at November 29, 2004 09:50 AM

Me:
>>Anyone here watching Boston Legal? This show is easily one of the most smartly written and brillantly acted shows on right now. The moment last night when it was subtley implied that Alan Shore had criven several people into therapy had me laughing out loud! Good stuff.

Den:
>If by "smartly written" you mean, "written by a roomfull of brain-damaged monkeys hurling their feces at a typewriter," then yes.

Not quite what I meant.

>I hate David Kelley. Is there any TV producer who is more overrated than him?
>Answer: No.

Sorry you feel that way. Danny Crane and Alan Shore have the wittiest dialogue on television today and Alan is one of my favorite characters of all time. Brilliantly written. Consistant, yet still surprises the audience. Quite a bit of depth there.

Fred

Posted by: JamesLynch at November 29, 2004 10:36 AM

I don't watch DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES -- at most it'll be on in the background while I websurf -- but the concept of marketing a "fake/unimportant death" has a long history in another genre:

Comic books.

Most comic books feature their main character in deadly peril, as if the companies would really kill off Spider-Man or Batman. I'm sure many of the posters here can also recall comic book stories that promised a "major" character would die, only to discover it was a secondary (thirdy?) character. It's a cheap way to get people to pay attention; it's also effective.

As for BOSTON LEGAL, ehh. It's fun to see James Spader as a subtly degenerate manipulator and to see William Shatner as a parody of himself. That said, the cases are ridiculous, Spader's character would have been disbarred years ago, and the cases are designed for the characters instead of the other ways around. David Kelly always manages to keep his best shows (PICKET FENCES, ALLY McBEAL, THE PRACTICE) going for so long that they lose their edge; and BOSTON LEGAL isn't one of his best.

Posted by: Sneezy the Squid at November 29, 2004 10:56 AM

I mean, heck, remember when Furillo and Davenport got married on "Hill Street?" No advance promo at all. Any such advertising would have ruined it. It was just, boom, "You ready to put your money where your mouth is, Furillo?" and off they went. Now THAT was smart TV.

In this day and age of "the Hype" in every network's desperate grab for eyeballs, there are no "major" events that won't get promoed to death, 9 times out of 10. It's sad, for just the reason PAD listed. Most of the very cool bits in shows these days are blown by the promos, and I'm sick of it. But until I run a network, what am I gonna do? :(

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at November 29, 2004 10:57 AM

JamesLynch:

>As for BOSTON LEGAL, ehh. It's fun to see James Spader as a subtly degenerate manipulator and to see William Shatner as a parody of himself. That said, the cases are ridiculous, Spader's character would have been disbarred years ago, and the cases are designed for the characters instead of the other ways around. David Kelly always manages to keep his best shows (PICKET FENCES, ALLY McBEAL, THE PRACTICE) going for so long that they lose their edge; and BOSTON LEGAL isn't one of his best.

Wow, guess I'm in the minority. I wasn't a fan of the other Keyy shows you listed, but started watching the final season of the Practice due to Spader's character. While Boston Public hasn't reached the same level of entertainment for me that the last season of the Practice had, it is finding its feet. You are absolutely right that Spader would have been disbarred. The counselor from therapist from last night's episode would surely have lost his license to practice as well. I can easily asuspend my disbelief at the silly cases and scenerios I'm watching simply due to the fact that these characters are so much fun to watch and the zingers thrown out always kill me. :)

Posted by: Den at November 29, 2004 11:06 AM

Now you've hit on the reason why I can't stand David Kelley's shows. Every single one I've tried to watch from Pickett Fences all the way up to Boston Legal, I've always been astounded at how the various lawyers/doctors on the show manage to keep their licenses week after week.

I can't suspend my disbelief enough to believe that lawyers can commit disbarrable offenses every week and doctors can break the ethical rules of their profession every week and escape consequences all the time. The Practice was the most egregious example. None of the lawyers on that show should be permitted to practice law.

The other problem is Kelley's tendency to constantly go over the top with sensationalistic stories that take things to ridiculous extremes.

I remember watching promos for Boston Public on Fox a couple of years ago. I counted three weeks in a row where they used the tagline "This will be the most important episode of Boston Public this year."

Posted by: Luigi Novi at November 29, 2004 11:19 AM

Wow, promos indicate that a character will be killed off, and it turns out NOT to be Teri Hatcher, Nicolettte Sheridan, or Evan Longoria?

Wow, i'm shocked. :-)

Posted by: Alan M. at November 29, 2004 11:25 AM

Yeah, this was a case of a mismarketed episode. In fact, during the show itself they showed five fast pictures of the lead females and said one of them was doing to be killed off. I wasn't recording it so I can't do a frame-by-frame, but I didn't think Mrs. Huber was in it. If she was, it was literally blink-and-miss-it.

If they hadn't said anything about someone being killed off, I would have been blown away by the end. Instead I just kind of shrugged over the departure of a blackmailing busybody in whom no one had any emotional investment and no one's gonna miss. Nothing against the actress; she was perfectly fine. But c'mon, does ANYONE care her character is dead?

It was a cheat, but I also thing this was, for the most part, an example of using the marketing to good effect. Because we were told to expect a death, when each of the main characters' possible deaths were foreshadowed (Edie by the hitman, Susan by Mike, Lynette by the drugs, Gabrielle when the priest warned her about dying before her time, and Bree...well, okay, there was never really an instance of her death being suggested), it made the audience wonder, "Well, someone's gonna buy it; could it be her?" In this instance, the death was secondary to the suspense.

Posted by: Jim in Iowa at November 29, 2004 01:49 PM

I have seen about 20 minutes of Desperate Housewives. While it is entertaining on one level, the lack of morality wore me out. What I find fascinating is that it is doing so well, particularly in a season when Bush won on "moral values." I know, I know, many of you hate that term and would say conservatives don't own the patent on moral values. That is not my point. My question is, it would be interesting to see how many who voted for Bush based on "moral values" also faithfully watch this show.

I am not advocating a boycott, etc. I am not suggesting that those of you who watch endorse the values being shown. I am simply stating a question that can be tossed out to any of you on this site: Is there anyone here who voted for Bush based on a conservative interpretation of "moral values" who finds it a guilty pleasure to watch this show?

(Since I faithfully watched Buffy & Angel, shows that were not necessarily the epitome of "conservative Christian values," I am not being critical of any of you, just curious.)

Jim in Iowa

Posted by: Julio Diaz at November 29, 2004 01:57 PM

A question about BOSTON LEGAL, which I've not been watching:

Is Rene Auberjonois, who I've seen in commercials for the show twice now, a regular? And if so, is this the first time that two regulars from two different STAR TREK series have gone on to be regulars on the same show? I can't think of any other instance where this has happened.

Posted by: Den at November 29, 2004 02:04 PM

I don't watch the show, but my wife loves it. Neither of us voted for Bush, but I can tell you in no uncertain terms that she has zero tolerance for many of the behaviors portrayed on the show, particularly adultery. My wife has a friend who recently confided with her that she (the friend) has been cheating on her husband. This has upset my wife to no end. She cares a great deal about her friend, but she can't condone her friend's choices.

So no, watching a show in which people behave immorally doesn't mean you approve of their behavior, only that you find their "desperate" efforts to get away with these actions to be an amusing diversion. I know many conservatives will find it hard to believe that not everyone who voted for Kerry believes in "anything goes" morality, but it's the truth.

As for boycotts, the American Family Association is already organizing one.

Posted by: gary at November 29, 2004 02:05 PM

what are we dividing desperate housewives by theblue states and the red states now?
its a TV show an entertainment nuff said

Posted by: Jeff at November 29, 2004 02:06 PM

Yes, Rene Auberjonois is a regular on "Boston Legal". He's the resident stick-up-the-ass character (or better described as the character that lectures on the 'right' way to do things, and is ignored by the rest of the cast).

Posted by: gary at November 29, 2004 02:22 PM

coming soon. net is citing a TV guide report
quoting christine eastbrook as saying her chracter is like the terminator she will be back
eastbrook also says she is still shooting episodes
so the plot thickens we will see

Posted by: Jim in Iowa at November 29, 2004 02:23 PM

I know many conservatives will find it hard to believe that not everyone who voted for Kerry believes in "anything goes" morality, but it's the truth.

Since I do have some close friends who voted for Kerry, I know that does not mean they have no moral values.

I think it is possible to watch a show with values you don't agree with -- I have a seen a few episodes of Will & Grace that are quite funny. Others who may be agnostic or even atheists may have appreciated Touched by an Angel (don't know any, but wouldn't be surprised if some existed). But at least for me, after a while, I get tired of the tension and lose interest.

My personal opininon: A show like this usually lasts about one season and then it quickly declines. It is hard to keep up the "desperation" without it becoming so absurd that you lose viewers. There are exceptions, but they are usually found on cable where there is room to "up the stakes" and take it to another level. So anyone who is thinking of "boycotting" this show might want to start now so that they can have the illusion they actually got it off the air in two years.

Jim in Iowa

Posted by: Den at November 29, 2004 03:05 PM

You're may right in that this show could run out of steam in a year or two, but then I suspect many felt the same way about NYPD Blue when it first deputed and it had a respectable run.

Speaking as one of the few people who does not love Raymond, I can't ever tell what is going to be a long lasting hit.

Posted by: eclark1849 at November 29, 2004 03:28 PM

Is Rene Auberjonois, who I've seen in commercials for the show twice now, a regular? And if so, is this the first time that two regulars from two different STAR TREK series have gone on to be regulars on the same show? I can't think of any other instance where this has happened.

I can give you a case in reverse. Both Rene Auberjonois and Ethan Philips, who played Neelix on Voyager, were regular cast members on "Benson".

Posted by: Roger Tang at November 29, 2004 03:36 PM

I think it is possible to watch a show with values you don't agree with -- I have a seen a few episodes of Will & Grace that are quite funny. Others who may be agnostic or even atheists may have appreciated Touched by an Angel (don't know any, but wouldn't be surprised if some existed). But at least for me, after a while, I get tired of the tension and lose interest.

My personal opininon: A show like this usually lasts about one season and then it quickly declines. It is hard to keep up the "desperation" without it becoming so absurd that you lose viewers. There are exceptions, but they are usually found on cable where there is room to "up the stakes" and take it to another level. So anyone who is thinking of "boycotting" this show might want to start now so that they can have the illusion they actually got it off the air in two years.

I think that's quite true...the show feels like it'll be OK for a season or two and then the mounting stakes vault it into the real of absurdity.

I also kinda feel boycotts of shows like these are kinda pointless; at some point, it engenders possesive feelings among its supporters ("How DARE they try to take that away from me!") which last longer than the enjoyment they'd normally get from the show itself.

Posted by: J-Bo at November 29, 2004 03:42 PM

It's okay for those Red Staters to watch DH because as of yet there have been no hairdresser or minions of lesbos seen on Wisteria Lane.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at November 29, 2004 03:43 PM

Jim:

>I have seen about 20 minutes of Desperate Housewives. While it is entertaining on one level, the lack of morality wore me out. What I find fascinating is that it is doing so well, particularly in a season when Bush won on "moral values." I know, I know, many of you hate that term and would say conservatives don't own the patent on moral values. That is not my point. My question is, it would be interesting to see how many who voted for Bush based on "moral values" also faithfully watch this show.

While there are some very unhealthy behaviors on this show, only Ms. Huber, Gabrielle and Edie, to a lesser degree, come across as immoral to me. If you watch, all of three them are dealing with the consequences of their selfish behaviors.

Posted by: Trelane at November 29, 2004 04:12 PM

I can easily asuspend my disbelief at the silly cases and scenerios I'm watching simply due to the fact that these characters are so much fun to watch and the zingers thrown out always kill me - Fred Chamberlain

I quite agree. My wife used to love the Practice which I never really got into. The last season however, she got me hooked into the last few episodes by telling me that I would love this new guy Alan Shore, 'despicable yet delightful', not to mention that Shatner had joined by that time. Now, Sunday nights at 10 are a lock as far as the tube is concerned. Spader reeks deceptive ooze like a slime trail on the floor, but dammit, he does it with such...style! Oh and watching Shatner and Auberjonois is an added bonus as well.

Posted by: Jim in Iowa at November 29, 2004 04:20 PM

While there are some very unhealthy behaviors on this show, only Ms. Huber, Gabrielle and Edie, to a lesser degree, come across as immoral to me. If you watch, all of three them are dealing with the consequences of their selfish behaviors.

I watched 20 minutes because there are two actors I have enjoyed in the past. I confess, I loved Teri Hatcher (sp?) in "Lois and Clark," and I like one of the guys who was a regular on "The Pretender." If I remember correctly (and I may not!), the part I saw had Teri H trying to get the "Prenender" guy to like her. The guys dog didn't, so Terri smeared some gravy on her neck. The dog ended up choking on her earring or something. No idea what led up to it or what happened after it, but her desperate ploy to get the dog to like her was actually quite funny and almost realistic. His reaction when the trick went bad was also realistic.

However, I will stick to my own soap operas of Smallville, Lost, and Alias (in January). That is enough for one week.

Jim in Iowa

Posted by: Peter David at November 29, 2004 04:25 PM

"I have seen about 20 minutes of Desperate Housewives. While it is entertaining on one level, the lack of morality wore me out. What I find fascinating is that it is doing so well, particularly in a season when Bush won on "moral values." I know, I know, many of you hate that term and would say conservatives don't own the patent on moral values. That is not my point. My question is, it would be interesting to see how many who voted for Bush based on "moral values" also faithfully watch this show."

No, that is the point. I am sick to death of conservatives insinuating that those who do not share their moral values have NO moral values. I voted AGAINST Bush, the lying anti-gay, anti-women's rights bigot, on what I felt were moral grounds, so how 'bout them apples?

That is the ultimate difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals accept that conservatives can not share their values but still be moral people. Conservatives believes that those who don't share their values have no morals and are going to hell. Let's all remember that the next time someone accuses liberals of being arrogant elitists.

PAD

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 29, 2004 04:47 PM

Well, the only thing I care about is, you know, whether Walt Disney is rolling in his grave over this show.

Cause, you know, he's rolling over that stupid MNF segment ABC did... even though Walt's been dead some years before Disney Co. bought ABC... etc etc.

Posted by: Jim in Iowa at November 29, 2004 04:51 PM

PAD,

Sorry, I was pointing out what to me would be an interesting irony. While the media is making a big deal that Bush was elected because of moral issues, a show that at least as it is advertised would not be in agreement with those same values is doing quite well.

I very clearly stated that I DO believe a liberal can have moral values. The fact that you and I may disagree on a few of them does not mean I assume you have no values. On the contrary, it is quite clear from things you write about your wife and daughter that we do share some fundatmental values about family.

By the way, I have never said and do not believe that someone goes to hell because they have no moral values, but that is a discussion for another tiem.

Jim in Iowa

Posted by: Thomas E. Reed at November 29, 2004 05:40 PM

Roger Tang said:

"My personal opininon: A show like this usually lasts about one season and then it quickly declines. It is hard to keep up the "desperation" without it becoming so absurd that you lose viewers."

Excellent point, but as H.L. Menkin said, "You can fool too many of the people too much of the time." Didn't "Dynasty" run for four years?

However, Eisner is making the same mistake as with "Millionaire" - he's promoting the hell out of it. That will speed up viewer exhaustion and dissatisfaction.

And by the way, I have a reason for being angry about this show. The TV station I work for runs it. I can't stop it from running. It's my job to make sure it runs. It pays my salary.

(And none of that "well, smartguy, why don't you quit?" crap. I broadcast things I really like putting on the air, like hurricane warnings that save lives. This post, in fact, is a hurricane warning of sorts.)

The moral argument against "Housewives" has a point, but one that hasn't been argued. Pop culture doesn't always influence popular attitudes. It often reflects them.

There is no morality in the show, just as there is no moral compass in Bush's administration. I think this show promotes the idea that killing your neighbors - in Wisteria Walk or in Abu Gareb - is a fun game with no consequences. The show isn't badly influencing America. America is influencing the show.

Posted by: Jim in Iowa at November 29, 2004 05:51 PM

The moral argument against "Housewives" has a point, but one that hasn't been argued. Pop culture doesn't always influence popular attitudes. It often reflects them.

There is no morality in the show, just as there is no moral compass in Bush's administration. I think this show promotes the idea that killing your neighbors - in Wisteria Walk or in Abu Gareb - is a fun game with no consequences. The show isn't badly influencing America. America is influencing the show.

Not sure why my pointing out an irony seems to make people think I am accusing a show of tearing down the moral fiber of America. I think you said it well: Pop culture tends to reflect, not set, popular attitudes. However, it is naive to think pop culture does not have any influence. Fashion trends can change based on how a music star dresses. A show like "Will and Grace" does have an agenda to show that gay people are normal.

That being said, I need to go get a copy of Stone and Anvil. I did not see it 2 weeks ago at Barnes & Noble, and I want to find out who done it. Does anyone know if it is actually in the stores yet or can I only get it on Amazon?

Jim in Iowa

Posted by: Michael A. Burstein at November 29, 2004 06:15 PM

When Lynette had the dream in which Mary Alice handed her the gun, I was almost convinced that Lynette would be the housewife to die. Glad I was proved wrong, but the marketing worked on me at least to that extent.

Of course, once we found out that the paper belonged to Mrs. Huber, I knew she was the one.

I too have found Jim's comments on the popularity of the show to be fascinating. But I wouldn't say that the show has no moral center. I think the point of the show is to demonstrate how desperation can lead one to violate one's own morality, and how difficult it is to live with that choice. I mean, if the show were completely amoral, Gabrielle would be getting away with her adultery with no problems, Bree wouldn't be worried about her son's indifference to almost killing a woman with a car, etc.

Posted by: Roger Tang at November 29, 2004 06:24 PM

Hm. Seems to me that the moral stance of the show isn't stated explicitly. And folks seem to have a problem with stuff that's not stated explicitly (see comments about FALLEN ANGEL).

Posted by: Blake at November 29, 2004 06:40 PM

This is off subject, but did anyone catch the pic of Dr Doom holding his shaft in the CBG #1600 (page 94)? Couldn't believe they let that slip through.... Made me laugh...
-Blake

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2004 07:13 PM

"That is the ultimate difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals accept that conservatives can not share their values but still be moral people. Conservatives believes that those who don't share their values have no morals and are going to hell. Let's all remember that the next time someone accuses liberals of being arrogant elitists."

So how to explain the existance of conservatives like myself who DON'T belive that "those who don't share their values have no morals and are going to hell."?

Is it:
A- You were exaggerating.
B- I'm lying. I really believe that nonsense.

I suppose one could respond that this just shows the problem with liberals--they love to assume the worst of anyone who disagrees with them. But that would be ridiculous. It's only true of some.

Posted by: Peter David at November 29, 2004 07:48 PM

"It's okay for those Red Staters to watch DH because as of yet there have been no hairdresser or minions of lesbos seen on Wisteria Lane."

Uhm, maybe not. They've been subtly hinting that Bree's husband might have come to the conclusion that he's gay, and that's the catalyst for filing for divorce.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2004 08:52 PM

PAD says:
"Uhm, maybe not. They've been subtly hinting that Bree's husband might have come to the conclusion that he's gay, and that's the catalyst for filing for divorce."

You know, that hadn't occured to me...but it makes sense and I don't know why it makes sense. What are some of the hints you've picked up?

Posted by: Jeremy Naugher at November 29, 2004 09:11 PM

"(1) [though I'd be more inclined to say 'moronic' as so many of their problems could be solved with a moment's thought - say, having them visit some third world country to make them realize how well-off they actually are]"

They may be well off financially, but that doesn't mean that everything is ok. Also, if their 'fictional' (let's not forget that this is fiction-maybe Wisteria Lane is the poorest part of the fictional universe that they live in) problems are so insignificant how significant is your slight annoyance with a show that you do not watch. Your problem could easily be solved by turning the channel and/or not clicking on blog entries that refer to the show.

Posted by: Jeremy Naugher at November 29, 2004 09:27 PM

"And by the way, I have a reason for being angry about this show. The TV station I work for runs it. I can't stop it from running. It's my job to make sure it runs. It pays my salary.

(And none of that "well, smartguy, why don't you quit?" crap. I broadcast things I really like putting on the air, like hurricane warnings that save lives. This post, in fact, is a hurricane warning of sorts.)"

It seems you might be exaggerating a little because if you felt as strongly about this as you're coming across. You would have no problem giving up your job and staging a protest of sorts by not allowing the show on the air. It would only be off the air for the one week (and the station would probably replay the episode at a later date), but the entire world would be alerted of your moral outrage and depending on the size of your local affiliate and your willingness to pander to the American Family Association, you could make national headlines.

Sacrifices have to be made if you believe in something strong enough. I firmly disagree with you on the morality of the show, which I do enjoy, but I can also empathize with your feelings of helplessness at having to play something that you disagree with. This is my problem with this country. Everyone feels helpless, and most people point the blame on society. We are society. We control the course of the country. If you disagree with something, try to change it. It might just make the world a better place.

Posted by: Jeremy Naugher at November 29, 2004 09:31 PM

"That is the ultimate difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals accept that conservatives can not share their values but still be moral people. Conservatives believes that those who don't share their values have no morals and are going to hell. Let's all remember that the next time someone accuses liberals of being arrogant elitists."

I've never before posted on any message board simply to say that I agree with something, but I completely agree with this.

Posted by: SER at November 29, 2004 10:05 PM

PAD said:
That is the ultimate difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals accept that conservatives can not share their values but still be moral people. >>

I suppose it's possible to be like Bill Clinton and believe that Kerry and Bush are both decent, likeable people who see the world differently and from their perspective are behaving morally.

I just wish the supporters of Kerry and Bush thought this way. I don't see evidence of it.

****************************
Thomas Reed said:

"There is no morality in (Desperate Housewives), just as there is no moral compass in Bush's administration. I think this show promotes the idea that killing your neighbors - in Wisteria Walk or in Abu Gareb - is a fun game with no consequences. The show isn't badly influencing America. America is influencing the show."

I strongly disagree. DH, unlike, say BUFFY, has protagonists who are flawed and are hardly admirable. We identify with them because they represent the darkest parts of ourselves, just as Buffy represents the best parts of ourselves.

However, there is morality -- much like in THE SOPRANOS. The "heroes" aren't happy and their actions have definite repercussions on themselves and others.

DH, like most soap operas, are dark comedies and the best comedies are tragedies at their heart.

Posted by: eclark1849 at November 29, 2004 10:10 PM

So how to explain the existance of conservatives like myself who DON'T belive that "those who don't share their values have no morals and are going to hell."?

Is it:
A- You were exaggerating.
B- I'm lying. I really believe that nonsense.

There's always "C". He's lying because, you know, he's immoral.

Posted by: Julio Diaz at November 29, 2004 10:15 PM

eclark posted: I can give you a case in reverse. Both Rene Auberjonois and Ethan Philips, who played Neelix on Voyager, were regular cast members on "Benson".

Can't believe I didn't think of that, as I certainly watched the show while it was on the air, but as you said, that predates both men's TREK careers, so it kind of doesn't count.

For that matter, have multiple "generations" of TREK stars ever appeared together in non-TREK movies? Of the top of my head, I can think of but one example: Phillips has a cameo in JEFFREY, which starred Patrick Stewart.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2004 10:37 PM

eclarke says:

"There's always "C". He's lying because, you know, he's immoral."

I seriously doubt it. Chill.

Posted by: Jeff at November 29, 2004 10:57 PM

Posted by: Thomas E. Reed"
"However, Eisner is making the same mistake as with "Millionaire" - he's promoting the hell out of it. That will speed up viewer exhaustion and dissatisfaction."
It wasn't the promotion of "Millionaire" that caused it's downfall. It was the constant airings, thus no longer being special, and the overuse of stunt shows like "Celeberties That Haven't Had A Hit In Years", or "Olympic Athletes".

"And by the way, I have a reason for being angry about this show. The TV station I work for runs it. I can't stop it from running. It's my job to make sure it runs. It pays my salary."
You're a Master Control operator at an ABC station? Wow, small world. But, that's no reason to be angry for the show. You should be more worried about things like Extreme Makeover or crap like that.

Posted by: Jerome Maida at November 30, 2004 12:00 AM

Fred,
Holy crap! We agree on something! I find Spader's Shore to be deliciously entertaining (although it's Denny Crane, not Danny.) I usually get tired of kelly's over-the-top shows as well, and hated "The Practice", but Spader and the crew have me tuning nto them instead of Jill Hennessy (on "Crossing Jordan"), which, let me tell you, is saying quite a bit:)

Posted by: Peter David at November 30, 2004 12:20 AM

"So how to explain the existance of conservatives like myself who DON'T belive that "those who don't share their values have no morals and are going to hell."?"

I believe the phrase is, "Exceptions that prove the rule."

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at November 30, 2004 12:23 AM

"You know, that hadn't occured to me...but it makes sense and I don't know why it makes sense. What are some of the hints you've picked up?"

On "Desperate Housewives?" That's the major one. On other shows, I was certain that Lana's boyfriend running into Lana wasn't just coincidence, but set up by Lex. Now it appears that it wasn't just coincidence, but set up by his mother...which I couldn't possibly have known, but at least I figured there was more to it. And I've been saying since the first episode of "Veronica Mars" that I'm suspicious about her parentage, which hasn't yet been confirmed, but they sure seem to be setting it up.

Over on "Lost," I think it's an alien scheme. Why? Delenn just showed up.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at November 30, 2004 12:35 AM

"You know, that hadn't occured to me...but it makes sense and I don't know why it makes sense. What are some of the hints you've picked up?"

Oh, wait. I totally screwed up. You meant what were the hints specifically about her husband being gay. Okay. Well, the first indicator was that he needed to talk privately to the shrink, and you're wondering, what could he possibly need to talk about that Bree couldn't be there for (I think Kath actually pointed that one out.)

Then came Bree's attempt to seduce him in the sexy lingerie. He originally claimed that Bree wasn't interested in trying to satisfy him. Not only did she claim otherwise, but she sure proved it as far as I'm concerned. She throws her nearly naked body at him, gets momentarily distracted by his Mexican food, and that's all that's needed to cause him to shut down? It's not like she said, "Wait, before we do anything, I need to take half an hour to clean the room." She was jumping his bones, and then didn't want the food to fall on the floor. Under the circumstance, a hetero guy should be so aroused that he can barely see straight. If she's saying, "I just need to toss out this food," his reply should be, "Great, you take care of that" while getting out of his own clothes ASAP. Instead he seized on that as an excuse to throw her out. That's how it played to me: Grabbing a pretext to cover his own lack of arousal. And if he wasn't aroused by that, I'm thinking he's gay.

Then when his son wanted to move in with him, he told him that there were things in his life he had to explore that his son couldn't be there for. I'll tell you right now, if it involved bringing single women back to the hotel room, I'm doubting the son would have cared. I think he wanted to be able to bring men back there.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on it.

PAD

Posted by: philioteria21 at November 30, 2004 01:56 AM

Don't forget that Bree's husband cries every time that he ejaculates. Something that could happen to a gay man if he was "living a lie."

Posted by: Thomas E. Reed at November 30, 2004 06:37 AM

Jeremy, I think you must be college age or younger. Of course you'd quit a job on a matter of principle. You have nothing invested in it. (I love these kids who make great statements about matters of principle and the things they'd do to make a statement. I guess you had to live through the stupidity of Kent State to understand.)

There are lots of other things to do besides quit, you know. Like tell people. Which I'm doing here, and elsewhere. Not a big campaign, not something to start a web site over, just encouraging people to think about whether an amoral TV show reflects, or encourages, amorality in real life.

(Hint: as someone whose B.A. is in Communications, I can tell you it does both at the same time; the critical matter is who is pushing it more strongly.)

And SER, those are nice statements, but applying fine art principles to popular entertainment is like using a surgeon's scalpel to chop through the underbrush; the wrong tool for the job. This isn't Sondheim's "Assassins," you know. Now THOSE are treacherous bastards I can identify with. No pretense, no elaboration; they just kill.


Posted by: The StarWolf at November 30, 2004 06:43 AM

Boston stars?

If they wanted to bring someone in from another Kelly show to co-star in BOSTON LEGAL, I wish they'd have brought in Lucy 'Ling' Liu from ALLY instead. Now THERE was a fun attorney. She could take on pretty much anyone [except MAYBE Crane] at the Boston Legal firm and chew them up for breakfast with room left over for a snack. Also, it doesn't get much more over-the-top than her. Pity Liu is probably too busy trying to make movies. 8-)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 30, 2004 06:46 AM

PAD says:
"Then when his son wanted to move in with him, he told him that there were things in his life he had to explore that his son couldn't be there for."

Yes! That's the one! I knew there had been something that sounded off to me. Your speculation makes perfect sense.

Posted by: Matt at November 30, 2004 07:55 AM

Peter thinks it is a bit of a cheat since they didn't flash her picture with the other housewives.


I did have a tape of the promo, and the "flash" of Edie also had Mrs. Huber in by way of an over the shoulder shot, with part of her face visible. Still a cheat, but at least they included her in the "somebody dies" promo.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 30, 2004 08:39 AM

For that matter, have multiple "generations" of TREK stars ever appeared together in non-TREK movies?

One of those Roots movies or mini-series or whatever had a number of Trek people in it.
One of them had LeVar Burton, Avery Brooks, Tim Russ, and Kate Mulgrew.

Posted by: Julio Diaz at November 30, 2004 09:25 AM

Again, though, ROOTS would pre-date all versions of TREK save TOS. Unless there was another version done later?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 30, 2004 10:09 AM

PAD says:
I believe the phrase is, "Exceptions that prove the rule."

Of course, in the reality based world, exceptions DISPROVE rules. I that the original saying was more like "The exceptions tests the rule" or something else that would have some sane kind of validity to it.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 30, 2004 10:12 AM

That should be "I THINK that..." I think.

Posted by: Loren at November 30, 2004 11:25 AM

Instead he seized on that as an excuse to throw her out. That's how it played to me: Grabbing a pretext to cover his own lack of arousal

I'm probably not the only one, but that reminded me an awful lot of the scene in "American Beauty" where Spacey breaks off a make-out session with his wife because she stopped a wine glass from spilling. He was just fed up with his wife's control-freak habits, and seeing that in the middle of intimacy killed the moment for him.

Posted by: Loren at November 30, 2004 11:29 AM

And as for shows with Star Trek actors, I'm surprised no one has mentioned "Gargoyles." Jonathan Frakes, Marina Sirtis, and Brent Spiner all had recurring roles, and Michael Dorn, LeVar Burton, Avery Brooks, Colm Meaney, Kate Mulgrew, and Nichelle Nichols all guest-starred.

Posted by: Tobin Lopes at November 30, 2004 11:32 AM

About the morality:

A show reviewer pointed out that while the show is a good one and shows a lot of promise and potential it's not for everyone. It's called "Desperate Housewives" for a reason. These women are all unhappy, in one way or another, with their life and hence they don't behave in ways we might expect.

This really hit home with me. I've been watching since the beginning and Danielle's cheating has really gotten to me. I mean last week she was even caught, decides that she's gone-getting out and leaving, then Mama gets hit by a car and she stays! And then WANTS to keep on with the affair!! These are not decisions people who are not desperate would make. That's way people watch. It's not predictable solved-in-an-hour tv.

To those who dislike the show, to paraphrase Carlin: there are buttons on the tv, use'em.

-tpl

Posted by: Kim Metzger at November 30, 2004 12:08 PM

However, Eisner is making the same mistake as with "Millionaire" - he's promoting the hell out of it. That will speed up viewer exhaustion and dissatisfaction.

No, that wasn't the mistake that killed Millionaire. The mistake that killed Millionaire was trying to put it on nearly every night to boost ratings and, later, putting on nothing but celebrity contestants.

If Desperate Housewives starts to run three or four nights a week, THEN we can claim that ABC is overdoing it.

Posted by: Thacher E. Cleveland at November 30, 2004 12:54 PM

As an almost unrelated aside, what's the name of the woman who playes Bree?

Posted by: the angry black woman at November 30, 2004 01:05 PM

"So how to explain the existance of conservatives like myself who DON'T belive that "those who don't share their values have no morals and are going to hell."?"

I believe the phrase is, "Exceptions that prove the rule."

Or the answer could be D - PAD is being closeminded and doing the same thing he accuses others of.

And I have also heard that it's supposed to be "Exceptions that test the rule."

Should also point out that there's a difference between 'rules' and 'assumptions' and 'conceptions'.

Posted by: Peter David at November 30, 2004 01:27 PM

Or the answer could be D - PAD is being closeminded and doing the same thing he accuses others of."

I don't "accuse" others of doing it. They DO do it. It's called "sauce for the goose," and I notice the goose always squawks.

PAD

Posted by: philioteria21 at November 30, 2004 01:50 PM

Marcia Cross plays Bree. She also played Kimberly Shaw on Melrose Place.

Posted by: Thacher E. Cleveland at November 30, 2004 03:45 PM

Thanks, philioteria21. I missed Melrose Place, but I thought she looked familiar. And hot. ;)

Posted by: Sasha at November 30, 2004 04:40 PM

"You know, that hadn't occured to me...but it makes sense and I don't know why it makes sense. What are some of the hints you've picked up?"

[SNIP!]

I had the same thought actually. What first made me think that Bree's husband was a closeted homosexual was the scene he shares with Bree after the motel (and I agree with PAD, any heterosexual with a pulse would have jumped onto that train [damn she was hot!]) at their house. Bree's husband turns her down (again) after she offers to do "anything" (and she makes it clear that she really does mean anything). She confides in him that secrets drove Mary Alice to suicide and doesn't want any secrets between them and begs him to let go of his secrets. He waves her off, suggesting he has a very big secret he ain't telling her.

Posted by: Guido at November 30, 2004 04:40 PM

The first sign Bree's husband might be gay: he's been married to Barbie for years...

Re the lack of morality of DH:
Wasn't this episode all about morals? Or did they just throw in that bible at the beginning and the end to sell more copies? Characters exhibiting lapsed morality are way more useful in examining morality than perfect characters could ever be. You learn better from mistakes, even other people's, than from perfect examples, because you are forced to consider the implications of both your mistake and whatever might be "correct". And it's more entertaining.

And considering all the debating about morality in this thread alone, can there really be such a thing as absolute morality?

Posted by: eclark1849 at November 30, 2004 06:15 PM

eclarke says:
"There's always "C". He's lying because, you know, he's immoral."

Bill Mulligan:
I seriously doubt it. Chill.

I'm so misunderstood. Seriously, did you think you needed to say that because you thought I was being serious?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 30, 2004 06:24 PM

"It's called "sauce for the goose," and I notice the goose always squawks."

Oh good grief, what are we, 12??? You've set up an amazing argument--coservatives believe taht liberals are amoral and going to hell. Anyone who disagrees is either "the exception that proves the rule" or a sqawking goose, ie. the rule that proves the rule.

I guess it has the advantage of not being able to be proven wrong...if too many conservatives tell you taht you're wrong you can just keep lumping them into the ever growing list of "exceptions" or just smugly assume they are denying t heir true thoughts. Or just cover your ears and sing Jimmy Crack Corn until you can't hear them.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 30, 2004 06:56 PM

"Seriously, did you think you needed to say that because you thought I was being serious?"

I have a hard time remembering sometimes who the genuine crazies are, as opposed to the ones who are being funny. Sorry.

Posted by: Novafan at November 30, 2004 11:49 PM

philioteria21 said Don't forget that Bree's husband cries every time ... Something that could happen to a gay man if he was "living a lie."

I really didn't need to know that. The phrase TMI comes into play.

Posted by: Novafan at December 1, 2004 12:06 AM

Peter said Then came Bree's attempt to seduce him in the sexy lingerie. He originally claimed that Bree wasn't interested in trying to satisfy him. Not only did she claim otherwise, but she sure proved it as far as I'm concerned. She throws her nearly naked body at him, gets momentarily distracted by his Mexican food, and that's all that's needed to cause him to shut down? It's not like she said, "Wait, before we do anything, I need to take half an hour to clean the room." She was jumping his bones, and then didn't want the food to fall on the floor. Under the circumstance, a hetero guy should be so aroused that he can barely see straight. If she's saying, "I just need to toss out this food," his reply should be, "Great, you take care of that" while getting out of his own clothes ASAP. Instead he seized on that as an excuse to throw her out. That's how it played to me: Grabbing a pretext to cover his own lack of arousal. And if he wasn't aroused by that, I'm thinking he's gay.

I can't remember the episode exactly, but didn't he state afterwards why he wasn't interested anymore? She showed the same pattern that she always had before and he was obviously finally turned off by it. I don't think that makes him gay.

Just because you're aroused doesn't mean that something that happens couldn't change the situation, even if it's as simple as someone taking care of the Mexican food. If losing arousal because of external events makes one gay, then there's a lot of closeted gay men out there. LOL.

Novafan

Posted by: Napoleon Park at December 1, 2004 03:02 AM

Kim Metzger commented: "If Desperate Housewives starts to run three or four nights a week, THEN we can claim that ABC is overdoing it."
DH, Lost and Boston Legal are my favorite new shows of the season (along with Venture Brothers and CSI:NY), so I don't want to sound critical,...
but I have to jump in and play Devils Advocate here.
If they're on three or four times a week, Millionaire style, they're over-doing it?
What if the show's preempted one week by a music awards show featuring Longoria and Sheridan as presenters, then Sheridan appears in a controversial sports program promo a week later, with a regular episode in between. That's three appearances within a nine-day period.
What if everytime you log on with your PC Yahoo or Netscape or Reuters has a new Desperate Housewives article? Of course ABC can't be blamed for that, or for the fact that the show was on the cover of TV Guide twice in one month, or on the cover of TV Guide and Newsweek in the same week. Not ABC's fault there, either, but they were using the Newsweek cover in their promos half a week before my subscription copy arrived.
How about the show's sizable ensemble cast saturating the talk show arena?
Since I usually lock onto the underdog cult shows that get canceled right away (Greg The Bunny, Andy Richter Controls The Universe, Karen Sisco...) it's an unfamiliar experience for me to be a fan of "this years big hit", but the buzz surrounding it really does seem to me to be verging on overkill. (Even if I'm contributing my share over at the Yahoo "Jump The Shark" group.)
------
The actress who played the late Martha Huber, Christine Estabrook, showed up on NYPD: Blue last night as a woman who voluteers at a church soup kitchen, helps solve a crime and clears the name of a falsely acused priest, and is sarcastically refered to by the criminal as "Mother Theresa". From neighborhood busy-body, blackmailer and be-yotch to crime solving saintedly do-gooder in two quick nights. Way to play against the stereotype. It is a cheat that although they promised "One Desperate Housewife will be gone for good" Ms. Estabrook is still filming scenes for the series. Probably flashbacks as Mrs. Huber, but could they be going with the soap opera convention of the same actor playing a sister or cousin?
Imagine if Mrs. Huber has an "evil twin".
------
In the chat forum at IMDb someone accused "Boston Legal" of being sexist and ageist because of all the young (under 35) women and older (40 to mid-'70s) men. However it looks like that objection is being addressed, with 25 year old lake Bell leaving the series and Candace Bergen arriving as the third partner, Shirley Schmidt, to play opposide Shatner and comic Larry Miller as the firm's founders, Crane, Poole and Schmidt.
Nice to see Murphy Brown again, though I'll miss Sally. I hope Lake Bell finds work again real soon.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 1, 2004 10:32 AM

In the chat forum at IMDb someone accused "Boston Legal" of being sexist and ageist because of all the young (under 35) women and older (40 to mid-'70s) men.

Yes, and we all know that the forums, chat or message board, at IMDb are just *filled* with intelligent people.

You know, those people who just can't wait to know whether Actress X is going to be nude in Movie Y, etc. ;)

Posted by: Jim in Iowa at December 1, 2004 11:43 AM

Re the lack of morality of DH:
Wasn't this episode all about morals? Or did they just throw in that bible at the beginning and the end to sell more copies? Characters exhibiting lapsed morality are way more useful in examining morality than perfect characters could ever be. You learn better from mistakes, even other people's, than from perfect examples, because you are forced to consider the implications of both your mistake and whatever might be "correct". And it's more entertaining.

You raise an interesting issue. An argument could be made for a lot of shows that any well written, intelligent show deals with morals. The problem is when a given segment of the audience disagrees with the morals being shown.

What adds to the "confusion" in these discussions is that there are at least 2 layers that could be discussed. Let me give a hypothetical situation: An episode could show the way adultery destroys a marriage. On that level, it could be considered, perhaps, more "traditional" values. But if the episode included a rated "R" sex scene of the act of adultery, then the method used to convey the message could be a problem for some who hold to "traditional" values.

A show like DH may indeed, at the end of the day, be a "good" moral tale. But the sensual promo's are definitely not the standard way to tell such a tale!

And considering all the debating about morality in this thread alone, can there really be such a thing as absolute morality?

And that, my friend, is the $64,000 question! Your observation nails the issue of some of the debates on this site.

Jim in Iowa

Posted by: Den at December 1, 2004 12:38 PM

You raise an interesting issue. An argument could be made for a lot of shows that any well written, intelligent show deals with morals. The problem is when a given segment of the audience disagrees with the morals being shown.

The solution for that segment of the audience is simple. You see, all TVs come with these things called "buttons." When you press some of these "buttons", it changes the TV to another channel. There's even a "button" that turns the TV off so that you can go read a book.

That is, until the AFA burns all of the books.

Posted by: SER at December 1, 2004 01:08 PM

In the chat forum at IMDb someone accused "Boston Legal" of being sexist and ageist because of all the young (under 35) women and older (40 to mid-'70s) men. However it looks like that objection is being addressed, with 25 year old lake Bell leaving the series and Candace Bergen arriving as the third partner, Shirley Schmidt, to play opposide Shatner and comic Larry Miller as the firm's founders, Crane, Poole and Schmidt.
Nice to see Murphy Brown again, though I'll miss Sally. I hope Lake Bell finds work again real soon.
**********************************

That's unfortunate. Bell was my favorite thing about the otherwise dreary MISS MATCH, so I was glad to see she'd turned up on BOSTON LEGAL.

I sort of knew this was coming, though, given that her sole purpose seemed to be that of the love interest and when that fizzled out...

As for the arguments about sexism, it sort of bores me to see feminists complain about a situation that women create: In other words, women find older men attractive and men find younger women attractive. It's not like men are forcing women to like James Spader and Mark Valley.

I can't tell you how many female LAW & ORDER fans think Sam Watterson is attractive (especially a few years ago when he was in his mid-to-late 50s). His "relationship" with the much younger Jill Hennessey on the show seemed "realistic" to me because I knew women who would eagerly be in a similar situation (just like the 25-year-old Lake Bell and the 40something James Spader).

Posted by: Peter David at December 1, 2004 02:01 PM

"As an almost unrelated aside, what's the name of the woman who playes Bree?"

No, "What" is the name of the man playing second.

PAD

Posted by: Eric L. Sofer, the Silver Age Fogey at December 1, 2004 03:00 PM

QUOTE: ""As an almost unrelated aside, what's the name of the woman who playes Bree?"

No, "What" is the name of the man playing second."

I just read that line in "Stone and Anvil." Boy, you LOVE that one, don't you? :)

BTW, "Stone and Anvil" is absolutely magnificent. I am enjoying it no end... I wish it were double its current length. GREAT!

Posted by: Jim in Iowa at December 1, 2004 03:35 PM

The solution for that segment of the audience is simple. You see, all TVs come with these things called "buttons." When you press some of these "buttons", it changes the TV to another channel. There's even a "button" that turns the TV off so that you can go read a book.

Your statement is absurd and misses the point. Let me change the storyline. Let's say there is a new, highly rated show, that portrays homosexuality as being wrong and harmful to a person's soul. The show depicts characters who are gay as realizing the mistake of their ways and they find religion and change, get married to someone of the opposite sex, and live happily ever after. What would happen? Would you tell a gay activist that if they don't like the point of the show they have an "off" button they can use? Of course not. Then why does it apply the other way? Why is it illegitimate to comment on the content of a show? When African Americans (or any other segment of the population) "complain" that there are not enough positive portrayals of their group, do you also tell them to go read a book?


That is, until the AFA burns all of the books.

The irony is, the "left" is actually making much more progress in banning anything religious than the other way around. There are school districts now that ban even the INSTRUMENTAL playing of any traditional Christmas carols. Even though the words are not even being sung, the song is still banned.

Go compare a school library today versus 50 years ago. The contrast would be striking. The books now being banned are of a religious context (such as "Pilgrims Progress") while others that once were banned are now acceptable. Let me be clear, I think that other than for age appropriate reasons, it is wrong to ban books. But to suggest that the AFA is actually a threat to our libraries is absurd. (Not to mention, they do not want to burn "all" of the books.)

Jim in Iowa

Posted by: kingbobb at December 1, 2004 04:26 PM

Quoting Jim in Iowa: ""The solution for that segment of the audience is simple. You see, all TVs come with these things called "buttons." When you press some of these "buttons", it changes the TV to another channel. There's even a "button" that turns the TV off so that you can go read a book.

Your statement is absurd and misses the point. Let me change the storyline. Let's say there is a new, highly rated show, that portrays homosexuality as being wrong and harmful to a person's soul. The show depicts characters who are gay as realizing the mistake of their ways and they find religion and change, get married to someone of the opposite sex, and live happily ever after. What would happen? Would you tell a gay activist that if they don't like the point of the show they have an "off" button they can use? Of course not. Then why does it apply the other way? Why is it illegitimate to comment on the content of a show? When African Americans (or any other segment of the population) "complain" that there are not enough positive portrayals of their group, do you also tell them to go read a book?"

Hmmm, maybe I don't want to jump into this one...

As to the hypothectical show about homosexuals, I'd say, yeah, if they don't like it, don't watch. Or complain to the sponsors, the same way any activist group does when a show is broadcast that they find offensive or potentially harmful in some way. I often say the same thing to myself, whenever I hear of some group complaining about a show. I say "no one is making them watch...what's their deal?"

I get that people hide behind their children, saying they don't want their kids exposed to "those kinds of things." Fine. be a parent, and raise your kid to not watch things you find objectionable. Or, maybe, use the event of exposure as a chance to talk with your kids.

Posted by: TallestFanEver at December 1, 2004 04:50 PM

No, "What" is the name of the man playing second.

PAD

Hey, be careful with that joke; its an antique.

Posted by: Den at December 1, 2004 05:27 PM

Your statement is absurd and misses the point. Let me change the storyline. Let's say there is a new, highly rated show, that portrays homosexuality as being wrong and harmful to a person's soul. The show depicts characters who are gay as realizing the mistake of their ways and they find religion and change, get married to someone of the opposite sex, and live happily ever after. What would happen? Would you tell a gay activist that if they don't like the point of the show they have an "off" button they can use? Of course not.

Since this was directed at me, I'm assuming that "you" in which you are referring to is meant to mean me and not some hypothetical "you."

In which case, you are a complete and total ass for assuming what I would or would not say in a situation like that.

You see, Jim, unlike 99% of the political class out there, I am not a hypocrit. I believe in freedom of speech as a keystone of our society.

For the record, if a gay activist were to object to a show that portrayed gays in a negative light, I would say the exact same thing I said above.

So, you can take those words you tried to put in my mouth and shove them where the sun doesn't shine, okay?

Posted by: Jim in Iowa at December 1, 2004 05:36 PM

For the record, if a gay activist were to object to a show that portrayed gays in a negative light, I would say the exact same thing I said above.

You are right, I should not have assumed. You are consistent in your view. I apologize for the assumption rather than just asking the question.

Jim in Iowa

Posted by: Tom at December 1, 2004 05:54 PM

LAME.

Posted by: Thacher E. Cleveland at December 1, 2004 08:01 PM

No, "What" is the name of the man playing second.

D'oh!

Faced!

Good one, Peter. :)

Posted by: Novafan at December 1, 2004 08:03 PM

kingbobb said I get that people hide behind their children, saying they don't want their kids exposed to "those kinds of things." Fine. be a parent, and raise your kid to not watch things you find objectionable. Or, maybe, use the event of exposure as a chance to talk with your kids.

That's just great. We should allow our kids to watch every single tv show so we can take the chance to talk to our kids. Why don't we go a step beyond that and ask our kids what shows they want to watch and not care if we object to it or not.

Just say No to drugs.

Posted by: Den at December 1, 2004 10:31 PM

Or, Novafan, parents could actually take responsibility for monitoring what their children watch instead of expecting the networks to raise their kids for them.

And, Jim in Iowa: Apology accepted.

Posted by: Peter David at December 1, 2004 10:34 PM

"What would happen? Would you tell a gay activist that if they don't like the point of the show they have an "off" button they can use? Of course not."

Of course not, except without the "not" part. Absolutely I would say the same thing.

PAD

Posted by: eclark1849 at December 2, 2004 03:03 AM

Or, Novafan, parents could actually take responsibility for monitoring what their children watch instead of expecting the networks to raise their kids for them.

You know, it might be that since I'm not a parent, and just don't understand these types of things, but what do you do about the times when your child is out of your sphere of influence. For example, like when youre at work, or they're at school or over a friends house, etc.

I mean, let's say that you forbid your daughter from wearing make-up. How do you know that once she leaves for school in the morning, that she doesn't stop into the girls bathroom and apply her makeup before class? And could you say that parent was "parenting" his child?

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at December 2, 2004 07:50 AM

eclark:

>>Or, Novafan, parents could actually take responsibility for monitoring what their children watch instead of expecting the networks to raise their kids for them.

>You know, it might be that since I'm not a parent, and just don't understand these types of things, but what do you do about the times when your child is out of your sphere of influence. For example, like when youre at work, or they're at school or over a friends house, etc.

It might just that as I was never outside of my parents' influence. Although, I wasn't raised like veal, there were very straight forward consequences to disobeying the rules set down. Sure, kids will get away with things. I still remember watching Porkys as a teen, after being left alone in the house. Big difference between society then and now is that parents held onto the responsibility for the negative actions of their children. Today, fingers are pointed everywhere else.... teacher, school administrators, government, etc.

Fred

Posted by: Novafan at December 2, 2004 08:10 AM

Fred said Today, fingers are pointed everywhere else.... teacher, school administrators, government, etc.

The problem arises when you yourself control what your kids can and can't see and other places don't have the same rules. One day my son asked if he could watch something, and I said no way because I knew there was way too much violence in the movie. Guess what he said? "I've already seen it before."

Now how in the world are you supposed to deal with that?

Posted by: Den at December 2, 2004 09:10 AM

You know, it might be that since I'm not a parent, and just don't understand these types of things, but what do you do about the times when your child is out of your sphere of influence. For example, like when youre at work, or they're at school or over a friends house, etc.

I mean, let's say that you forbid your daughter from wearing make-up. How do you know that once she leaves for school in the morning, that she doesn't stop into the girls bathroom and apply her makeup before class? And could you say that parent was "parenting" his child?

When I was a kid, I lived in mortal fear of my parents finding out that I had done something that they didn't approved of. My parents were not abusive, but they made it clear that there would definitely be consequences if I got caught doing something that they didn't approve of. Too many parents today want to be their kid's friend and not their parent.

No excuses. With cell phones and other methods of communication, parents should know where their kids are, who they're with, and what they're doing. Questions, it's the anti-drug. :)

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at December 2, 2004 11:16 AM

Novafan:

>>Fred said Today, fingers are pointed everywhere else.... teacher, school administrators, government, etc.

>The problem arises when you yourself control what your kids can and can't see and other places don't have the same rules. One day my son asked if he could watch something, and I said no way because I knew there was way too much violence in the movie. Guess what he said? "I've already seen it before."

>Now how in the world are you supposed to deal with that?

There are several possible follow-ups that could prove effective. The first and most immediate response would be to restrict your child from visiting the home in which he broke your rules, explaining clearly that this is a natural consequence. Depending on the age and level of understanding of the kid, you could also talk to him/her about the rationale of why this rule is in place.... possibly also what his reaction is to the movie, etc.

It isn't unreasonable to follow up with the adult responsible and inform them of your expectations for your child, what is ok and not ok for him, and the currect situation of your son not being allowed over there due to his decision to knowingly violate a rule.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at December 2, 2004 11:57 AM

oops..... just reread my post and wanted to make a clarification. A restriction from haning out with a friend or at his house would be temporary with that priviledge being given back after a determined period of time. Should repeated transgressions occur, it would be no surprise to any child for certain homes or friends to be off-limits. This kind of stuff used to be the norm.

Posted by: Scott Jones at December 2, 2004 03:07 PM

PAD wrote:

"That is the ultimate difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals accept that conservatives can not share their values but still be moral people. Conservatives believes that those who don't share their values have no morals and are going to hell."

PAD,

I thought that was the difference between extremists/fanatics and everyone else, not the difference between conservatives and liberals.

If you read Strauss and Howe's book The Fourth Turning (or their earlier book Generations), they talk about intolerance as being a trait of Baby Boomers of all political stripes.

Posted by: Novafan at December 4, 2004 12:26 AM

Fred said There are several possible follow-ups that could prove effective.

Thanks for your responses Fred. :0)

Posted by: angel at December 8, 2004 07:16 PM

I think it sucks when tv shows glorify having sex with an underage BOY, such as the character Gabrielle does. They make it look glamourous but it is just pathetic. Look at that case right now with the teacher and the 13 year old. There is about the same age difference. I have never seen the show and don't plan on watching it. These wives need to get a life, a clue or heaven forbid, a JOB!

Posted by: David Hunt at December 8, 2004 07:47 PM

angel,

First, mia culpa. I haven't seen Desperate Housewives either. However...

If you've never seen the show, how do you know that Gabrielle's affair with her gardener is glorified? For all you know, the whole affair could be presented in a negative light and/or she might suffer some sort of moral consequences.

I'll also note that a good show will have actual ongoing plots and won't wrap everything up in neat little bow at the end of the hour. Even if someone will eventually suffer the consequences of their actions, it might take months for someone to get their comeuppance. Or maybe, just maybe, DH might actually be a show that has characters that might approach the complexity of real people. In real life, there are people who have some moral failing but are otherwise good people. A really great show will give you very complex characters.

Posted by: Jeff Lawson at December 8, 2004 07:50 PM

David,

Exactly what I was thinking when I read angel's post.