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
• 
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
“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 hëll. Let’s all remember that the next time someone accuses liberals of being arrogant elitists.
PAD
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.
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 hëll because they have no moral values, but that is a discussion for another tiem.
Jim in Iowa
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 hëll 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.
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
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.
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).
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
“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. 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 hëll.”?
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.
“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
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?
“(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.
“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.
“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. 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.
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.
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 hëll.”?
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.
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.
eclarke says:
“There’s always “C”. He’s lying because, you know, he’s immoral.”
I seriously doubt it. Chill.
Posted by: Thomas E. Reed”
“However, Eisner is making the same mistake as with “Millionaire” – he’s promoting the hëll 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.
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:)
“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 hëll.”?”
I believe the phrase is, “Exceptions that prove the rule.”
PAD
“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
“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
Don’t forget that Bree’s husband cries every time that he ëjáçûláŧëš. Something that could happen to a gay man if he was “living a lie.”
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 bášŧárdš I can identify with. No pretense, no elaboration; they just kill.
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. 😎
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.
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.
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.
Again, though, ROOTS would pre-date all versions of TREK save TOS. Unless there was another version done later?
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.
That should be “I THINK that…” I think.
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.
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.
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
However, Eisner is making the same mistake as with “Millionaire” – he’s promoting the hëll 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.
As an almost unrelated aside, what’s the name of the woman who playes Bree?
“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 hëll.”?”
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’.
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
Marcia Cross plays Bree. She also played Kimberly Shaw on Melrose Place.
Thanks, philioteria21. I missed Melrose Place, but I thought she looked familiar. And hot. 😉
“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 [dámņ 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.
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?
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?