pdlinda

I think that Zach (and Tori) feel "entitled" to extra $$$ compensation in various aspects of their lives because of Zach's unique status as a "little person." When you come to think of it, Zach and only Zach bore the brunt of being a "little person" and he has 3 "little people" children. The other members of the family are ALL average size. Even Matt and Amy's partners (spouse) are average size. The fact that none of the other Roloff children have anything to do with filming the show bears out the fact that viewers tune into the show to focus on how "little people" navigate various life situations. The show is their major source of $$$. Zach, and he alone, has suffered the medical procedures and the emotional scars of being physically "different". As Amy and Matt settle into late middle age and their value to the story lines recede, Zach and Tori may believe that they hold the "keys to the $$$ kingdom of the show" as Amy indicated. I don't think that Zach and Tori have any other way to earn a living and with their very young children offering endless possibilities for story lines, I think they believe that should be translated into an actual financial advantage. The sale of the farm to Zach, and the family dynamics between Zach and Matt, therefore, might just be a backdrop to the other story lines Zach, Tori and their children provide.

I agree. I actually was interested in last night's episode.

I say the same. I recalled both couples and the houses they bought. I wonder what's going on with the show???

I agree with that statement 100%. Mention was made some time ago that Nate had a professional job in IT and did well financially irrespective of his "day trader" activities. To me, Nate is not professionally established to the point where he is generating income that, ESPECIALLY in the very pricey San Diego market, would make the $$$ he received from appearing on MAFS unappealing. I never had any pretentions that he and Stacia would work out long term. IMO, one of the biggest barriers to success in the marriage was the income disparity between both of them and her need to "control." From what I recall, Nate had a very active social life prior to the show where he could "move and groove" in various ways that he enjoyed with people who liked and admired him.

I thought they could have shared that Ken had passed away but attributed it to an alternative cause. Burdening the father with his son's murder seemed too harsh to me.

I thought that was absolutely AMAZING! And that she had the stamina and "wits" to testify at a trial and was articulate and energetic was beyond inspirational. One would think a trauma like she suffered would be enough to hamper her longevity; however, she apparently was resilient enough to survive. I couldn't believe that they shared such horrible news with the father who was in a nursing home. Why was that necessary? I didn't understand. Maybe someone can explain that decision to me.

If he "lightened up" he wouldn't be Mitch. I don't think he wants to "lighten up" and I don't think he will ever "lighten up." If this "experiment" taught him anything (IMO) it was that he is "wedded" to his lifestyle that he loves and enjoys and there is nothing a "marriage" (to a stranger or otherwise) could provide him that he would prize over what he prizes just being himself. Not everyone is "marriage material.." There's nothing in any manual that dictates that a person like Mitch who strikes me as being "eccentric" should change in any way to achieve happiness in life.

I don't think they have too many applicants regardless of how they portray the hoards of potential participants. After all these years, "normal" people are probably disinterested in subjecting themselves to the loss of privacy from this "circus" of souped-up dramas and/or can't fit the filming into their lifestyles and/or work schedules. It also occurred to me that the institution of "marriage", per se, seems to be losing its allure for many folks and couples who chose to marry may prefer doing so in more traditional manner. I think what we're seeing is the best they can come up with to cast the show. That's why it's failing.

I agree that it's entertaining to watch Jackson in his everyday life; however, I still can't understand a word he says without the "closed captioning." Of course, Lilah is very cute, too, but has very limited language ability. Is that a typical trait of dwarfism? I recall that the Klein kids, Zoey and Will, in "The Little Couple" also had language difficulties but steps were taken to give them speech therapy. The show was cancelled so I don't know how well they are communicating verbally now.

I deference to my "upbringing", LOL,😄 I will refrain from saying what almost popped out of my mouth but I bet someone here is thinking the same thing I am😉

I was DONE WITH HER as soon as that gross humiliation of Justin took place. She is a devious schemer and I pity ANY MAN who gets involved with her because I think the demeaning and quasi-abusive behavior she displayed toward Justin would take place in any romantic relationship she had because it keeps her "in control."

SERIOUS QUESTIONS: Please someone explain Alexis' "look" to me....the grease all over her skin to make her "shine," the extremely high-cut gown on one side revealing her leg to the upper thigh, the revealing neckline with the "uplifted" boobs leaving NOTHING to the imagination, the exaggerated makeup...what is she trying to "project?" What is the "message" she's sending out to all viewers? What is her motive in presenting this way? It has to be intentional.

Personally, I see the producers really milking this story line with the family dispute regarding the farm because the show has become a real snooze-fest and I bet their ratings are tanking. I agree that the most potent source of content for the show is zach and tori and the 3 dwarf children. Therefore, I think zach and tori hold the keys to the $$$ kingdom that the show provides all the cast members. Amy, Chris, Matt and Caryn are peripheral players who really don't have anything materially interesting enough in their lives to capture and audience. That's my opinion.

Does anyone else recall another death they neglected to mention on this episode but described in detail on other episodes from the several true-crime shows covering this story. It was a young, blond, gay man whom, as I recall, had a flat tire somewhere near where the phony "shooting" was taking place on the open road where Alex was "shot" and called police and implicated his friend in having planned the shooting so he could avoid the "suicide clause" in his life insurance policy and leave the proceeds to his surviving son. I believe the young man was run over by Alex's car, or maybe shot??? I remember how devastated the young man's mother was to lose her son in such a tragic manner. Another family's life destroyed by the Murtaugh's.

So true. My daughter's in-laws bought a multi-million$$ home in the L.A. area about 5 years ago that I would term a mansion. Everything GRAND and OPULENT; HOWEVER, regardless of what they try with all sorts of "experts", it is still IMPOSSIBLE to get adequate cell/cable/internet service in their location!! I would say things have "improved"; however, in no way, shape, manner or form would I give you 5 CENTS for their home with those IT issues that are, apparently, incapable of being upgraded to the reliable level of service I would need to feel comfortable and "connected."

Not to belabor a point that is only open to speculation, I was wondering if we could assume that Amy bought her new house for cash (I'm not sure what she paid for the house but I believe it's reasonable to conclude that she paid in the neighborhood of $600K). That would have more-or-less exhausted the cash settlement she received from Matt. Then, to pay her the remaining $975K he owes her, Matt took out that large mortgage that he may disburse to her on a specific schedule (like monthly). I am only commenting about this in the context of many posters mentioning that Amy should have financed Zach's purchase of the farm from Matt or otherwise assisted Zach financially and I wasn't getting where people were assuming that she was flush enough with cash to have provided Zach with the $$$ he would have needed to satisfy Matt's original asking price.

Just a point of clarification. Did Amy receive her entire cash settlement in the divorce OR did matt give her only a portion of that money with monthly installments to act as sort of an annuity for her old age. I don't recall where I read something like that, but never knew if it was true.

Unless she's tagged the "goddess of deception, deceit and mischief" I'd say NO WAY!!!😆

To me, Alexis is a cross between a viper, a tarantula and a barracuda. She is a most unattractive person and should closely examine her treatment of other members of this season's MAFS participants, most especially Justin, preferably with a professional.

I think they'll stick it out till after the Reunion show, but, then separate and divorce. Maybe they'll continue to "be friends (with benefits)"😆

Sounds right. This could have been established early in the episodes because NONE of the couples had the sense of what qualities both parties needed to make a "marriage" work. I think ALL of the participants were "set in their ways" and not interested enough in whom each was partnered with to make "changes." Trust levels (at their respective ages) were more jaded, and, for those who were economically viable (Stacia,Alexa, Krysten and Miguel), or MAYBE economically viable (the rest, except Mitch), there weren't enough incentives for each to "risk" more than each was "benefitting."

I think the best thing for K&M (and all the rest of the couples) is to dissolve the marriage on DD, so the show will pay for their divorces. Then, should each so desire, they can start seeing each other on an ongoing basis and see how they wish to proceed in their relationships with the cameras off. With what I know about the show, that will never happen, but I think that would be best for all concerned.. None of these people are "spring chickens." They are seasoned adults. Marriage should be a serious commitment.

The dynamics between these couples are so intensely draining that their relationships translate into living through an ORDEAL that one would flee at the first opportunity.

I try to picture the production meeting where this nonsense (interacting with contestants) was hammered out.....some young producer trying to entice a "younger demographic" to the ranks of CHOPPED devotees by "jazzing up the dynamics" between guests and judges. I think when a company buys ads on a channel it isn't designated to a particular show; however, maybe somebody can provide that info; HOWEVER, my point is that the essence of the show is what brings viewers to it, NOT how much screaming and "encouraging remarks" the judge's make that, as you point out, acts as a toxic interruption to their work "flow" and concentration in preparing their dishes.

I couldn't find a good word to say about EITHER OF THEM. It seemed like a match made in "hell."☺️