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
• 
“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 hëll. 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.
“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.
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.
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
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.
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. 😉
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
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.
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).
“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
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!
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
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.
No, “What” is the name of the man playing second.
PAD
Hey, be careful with that joke; its an antique.
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 ášš 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?
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
LAME.
No, “What” is the name of the man playing second.
D’oh!
Faced!
Good one, Peter. 🙂
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.
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.
“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
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?
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
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?
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. 🙂
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.
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.
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 hëll.”
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.
Fred said There are several possible follow-ups that could prove effective.
Thanks for your responses Fred. :0)
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!
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.
David,
Exactly what I was thinking when I read angel’s post.