The Kardashian Kvetching Korner

[Aethera]

Couldn't help myself on the thread title, sorry.

 

A place to discuss all things Kardashian, in the hopes of not overwhelming the episode threads. You're of course allowed to discuss Robert & Kris and anyone else appearing in the episode in the episode threads, but let's let this be the place for extended conversations about which Kardashians do or don't belong in the series, what Ryan Murphy is thinking with the little scenes he's including, etc, and why those things do or don't bother you. 

 

Keep it civil, please!

[hoosiermom]

Too funny they get their own thread! And I love the title!

Edited February 12, 2016 by hoosiermom

[Umbelina]

Moved from the other thread.  (edited a bit too because of this thread.)

 

The Kardashian involvement doesn't bother me, maybe because I've never seen any of their shows and don't care about them.

 

Anyway..

 

My speculation is that they are framing this story as it really played out.  Two sides.  One side vehemently believed OJ was guilty.  One side vehemently wanted him acquitted, I don't even know if they cared if he was guilty, believed him innocent or not?

Anyway, that divide, I think, will be a huge part of this story.  What better way to show that than the divide between a husband and wife, even if the marriage had been over for a year or so?  The kids are a major part of that, a present connection, since the couple had divorced. 

Robert Kardashian was on the defense team, and stood by OJ, one of the leaders there, even though he took a back seat as far as any actually lawyer stuff.  He was front and center in the beginning, and you always saw him on TV, he was there every single moment of that trial.

Kris Kardashian was on the side of Nicole, and a huge group formed with Kris at the very center, that group still exists today.  Hiltons, Kris, Faye and all ended up somewhat famous because of it.  If nothing else, they need someone for Faye to talk to on this show (I'm assuming here) and Kris is the logical choice.  To give an example of "that group still exists today?"  Faye just got married at Kyle Richards house and Kris Jenner officiated.

So, just as the country was divided, so is this "family" and it's based on this crime.  I think this is a way to personalize emotions in the telling of the story, show how ripped right down the line people were.  I don't see the exploitation of the current Kardashian fame in this, I just don't, because logically, in telling a story, it all makes sense to me.  I wouldn't be surprised if they use the kids to show that, mommy believing Uncle OJ guilty as hell, and having her coffee klatches about it, daddy believing OJ innocent, or later conflicted.  Kids are the logical connector.

Anyway, that's my take, and the very brief mentions don't bother me at all, because of the above.  Now should this become the Kim show (which I seriously doubt) I'll change my mind.

ETA

I swear I wrote all of that before I saw this:

http://www.tmz.com/2016/02/10/kris-jenner-robert-kardashian-oj-simpson/

 

ETA for this thread.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Kardashian kids does show some confusion, with mommy on the side that "OJ killed her!" and daddy on the side of Uncle OJ's defense.  That won't bother me either, because frankly, I think it would be strange if the kids weren't conflicted about all of this, and if they didn't ask.  They hung out with OJ and Nicole and their kids. 

 

I do wonder if they will show Faye's daughter, or Kato's, probably not, since I don't think either was around to play with OJ's kids after the murder.  We have seen Marcia's already though.  This is about the trial, but also about those involved with it, or with Nicole or OJ.

[Lorna Mae]

I'm okay with the Kardashian kids being in this. Reason being, it seems one of the purposes of this series is to show how American society changed because of this trial. There most likely wouldn't be a show about Kris, Kim et al if it hadn't happened, so we're seeing a foreshadowing. Daddy's on TV! I wish I could be on TV! That's where we are now, whether we should be or not.

I didn't see anyone in the IMDb credits playing Bruce Jenner, though. He testified briefly, right? But probably Caitlin didn't agree to a portrayal.

[BBDi]

Well, Kris was already working her way up the fame ladder before the murders by marrying a famous ex-athlete. By the time the murder and trial happened I imagine that Cim, Cortney, and Chloe were already used to bragging that their dad was OJ's best friend and their mom was married to Bruce Jenner.

In their circle I bet everyone was either famous, a little famous, or knew someone who was. But yeah this must have accelerated their climb up the ladder. I think the trial must have been Cris's fame whore dream come true! Not saying she didn't care about Nicole as well.

That said, there's no need to pound the viewer over the head with the K's. As the trial begins we will see how everyone connected becomes a celebrity in some sense, and how it paved the way for reality tv.

[rho]

Only marginally related to the show/case but here are some of Kris's feelings toward her dear friend Nicole's nachos

 

http://www.eater.com/2015/5/15/8611479/kris-jenner-nacho-recipe-kardashian-nicole-simpson

Edited February 14, 2016 by rho

[Jel]

I don't like the mentions of the kids because it's pandering. Even if Kris Jenner told them to stop running, that event is not noteworthy and it's not relevant to the story. 

 

If Kris Jenner says, "I knew he'd kill her" or something like that, then that's relevant. But when she mentions her kids by name and tells her kids to wipe their noses or sit down, that's not in any way relevant to the story or the characters back stories or their motivations. 

 

Including these BS Kardashian kids moments is not a deal breaker. It's just a bit depressing.

[Umbelina]

That first mention of the kids at the funeral scene was obviously a short cut to telling people who that woman was that was speaking to Faye Resnick.  It took 4 seconds.  I'm trying to think of a faster way they could have established that clearly, something Faye could have said that wasn't completely stilted?  It was such a short little scene.  I DO wonder why the producers decided not to make Kris pregnant, I'd forgotten that until she said it in that video, and then it came back to me.  I remember seeing film of her from that funeral, and the pregnancy drove home the whole "young mothers" aspect of their friendship.

 

I also think the kids are there to establish that even though Kris and Robert are divorced, they are still connected, because they had kids together and share custody.  I suspect it's also to show that not only did Robert and Kris socialize often with the Simpsons, but the two families also took vacations together, kids and all.  Again, establishing the relationship, and the divide since they took opposite sides.

 

Maybe if I'd ever watched a single Kardashian show I'd get it, but I haven't, so for me, they are just a family the Simpsons were close to, seeing the kids makes sense.  I kind of feel the same way about the guy playing Robert, I didn't like Friends, and though I've seen episodes here and there, and do know he played Ross, I have no problem seeing him as RK.  I actually think he's doing well, capturing that lost, shocked guy I remember from the trial and reading the suicide note.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Umbelina

[rho]

That first mention of the kids at the funeral scene was obviously a short cut to telling people who that woman was that was speaking to Faye Resnick.  It took 4 seconds.  I'm trying to think of a faster way they could have established that clearly, something Faye could have said that wasn't completely stilted?  It was such a short little scene.  I DO wonder why the producers decided not to make Kris pregnant, I'd forgotten that until she said it in that video, and then it came back to me.  I remember seeing film of her from that funeral, and the pregnancy drove home the whole "young mothers" aspect of their friendship

 

Kendall wasn't born until after the "not guilty" verdict. Kris was pregnant during the trial, not the funeral. 

[Umbelina]

Kendall wasn't born until after the "not guilty" verdict. Kris was pregnant during the trial, not the funeral. 

Thanks, so Kris was wrong in her interview?  That's kind of hilarious. 

 

I remember seeing a pregnant Kris waddling at some point...

[Jel]

That first mention of the kids at the funeral scene was obviously a short cut to telling people who that woman was that was speaking to Faye Resnick.  It took 4 seconds.  I'm trying to think of a faster way they could have established that clearly, something Faye could have said that wasn't completely stilted?  It was such a short little scene.  I DO wonder why the producers decided not to make Kris pregnant, I'd forgotten that until she said it in that video, and then it came back to me.  I remember seeing film of her from that funeral, and the pregnancy drove home the whole "young mothers" aspect of their friendship.

 

I also think the kids are there to establish that even though Kris and Robert are divorced, they are still connected, because they had kids together and share custody.  I suspect it's also to show that not only did Robert and Kris socialize often with the Simpsons, but the two families also took vacations together, kids and all.  Again, establishing the relationship, and the divide since they took opposite sides.

 

Maybe if I'd ever watched a single Kardashian show I'd get it, but I haven't, so for me, they are just a family the Simpsons were close to, seeing the kids makes sense.  I kind of feel the same way about the guy playing Robert, I didn't like Friends, and though I've seen episodes here and there, and do know he played Ross, I have no problem seeing him as RK.  I actually think he's doing well, capturing that lost, shocked guy I remember from the trial and reading the suicide note.

Couldn't she have just said the name Kris at some point in their conversation?

 

It's not a huge deal, but like I said earlier, with respect to the Kardashian kids, it feels to me like pandering and nothing more.  I don't see how their presence advances the story at all.  

[Umbelina]

Kris is a very common name, especially when spelled with a C, which no one would know in the spoken voice.  Faye is more unusual.  We shall see about the story being advanced, I already gave my reasons for thinking it does serve the story.  That said, we may never see the kids again, except in the background or handing them off for visitation.  Kardashians WERE a big part of this story, Robert obviously, and having his recent X be on the opposite side was news at the time. 

 

I don't think we are going to see just the trial, I think we will be seeing more of the effect on the news, the circle of friends on both sides, and the media circus.  I get why it seems like pandering to some, but so far, for me, nah.

[Jel]

Kris is a very common name, especially when spelled with a C, which no one would know in the spoken voice.  Faye is more unusual.  We shall see about the story being advanced, I already gave my reasons for thinking it does serve the story.  That said, we may never see the kids again, except in the background or handing them off for visitation.  Kardashians WERE a big part of this story, Robert obviously, and having his recent X be on the opposite side was news at the time. 

 

I don't think we are going to see just the trial, I think we will be seeing more of the effect on the news, the circle of friends on both sides, and the media circus.  I get why it seems like pandering to some, but so far, for me, nah.

I guess this where we disagree because I see the Kardashians (even Robert to a degree) as peripheral figures.  I watched a lot of the trial and followed the story, and except for a couple of times, (at the beginning -- the chase, the letter and at the end his face when the verdict was read) Robert didn't even really register on my attention meter very much, until there was talk of him removing a suitcase from the scene. And even then, no thought of his ex wife and kids entered my mind.  Most of the time he was a man sitting in the courtroom to me.  Kris Kardashian I don't remember at all from the trial, and I couldn't tell you if she was called as a witness (or deposed) and the kids, even less than not at all!

 

Part of my annoyance with it could be an early entree into the "get off my lawn" phase of life -- there's always that to consider as well ;)

Edited February 15, 2016 by Jel

[Umbelina]

Maybe the show will finally reveal that the tall daughter is indeed OJ's love child with Kris, even I haven't been able to avoid that particular rumor.

 

;)

[rho]

Thanks, so Kris was wrong in her interview?  That's kind of hilarious. 

 

I remember seeing a pregnant Kris waddling at some point...

 

I hadn't seen the interview until now but I think it's just tricky editing. She says she was "pregnant during the trial" which she was. I imagine she's referring to future episodes featuring the trial. The verdict was read fifteen months after the murders, so unless she's a whale, it's impossible she was pregnant the entire time with Kendall.

[Dejana]

Thanks, so Kris was wrong in her interview? That's kind of hilarious.

I remember seeing a pregnant Kris waddling at some point...

No, the Entertainment Tonight voiceover implied it but you never actually see Kris saying ACS has gotten it wrong about when she's pregnant. The ET segment almost seems put together by someone not aware of how long it really was, the whole murder/criminal trial ordeal.

I think the dynamic of Robert and Kris being so close to both OJ and Nicole, with Robert being on the defense team to boot, is interesting enough to explore in a show like this, that's delving into aspects of the story that the public didn't necessarily see at the time. The Kardashian kids knew OJ, Nicole and their kids, vacationed with them, and weren't so young that they wouldn't have understood the basics of what was going on. They've talked about it on Keeping Up, that they felt torn between their parents' diverging feelings on the case, and caught in the middle. The scene with the kids chanting their names was too goofy; a better way to play it would've been to have Kris there with the girls asking things like, "If he didn't do it, why'd he write a suicide note?" or "Mom, do you think Uncle OJ did it?" followed by "Daddy thinks he's innocent!" from young Rob, then cut to a flustered Selma Blair. As it happened on the show, it seems like the Kardashians only care about their name in the limelight, which their detractors would say isn't particularly wide of the mark...

[Dev F]

It's not a huge deal, but like I said earlier, with respect to the Kardashian kids, it feels to me like pandering and nothing more.  I don't see how their presence advances the story at all.  

 

To me, it seems like it's too soon to make that determination. In the end, the spine of the story will be whatever the writers decide that it is, so it seems distinctly possible to me that the Kardashian Babies will play an important thematic role when all is said and done. (For instance, if one of the main points of the series is how the cult of fame that surrounded the OJ case metastasized into our modern obsession with reality shows and vapid celebrity worship, the Kardashians are a pretty ideal way to dramatize and personalize that degeneration.) And if it turns out that they don't connect to the larger story in any meaningful way, then the problem will be that the writers dropped the ball on tying their various threads together, not that the Kardashians were inherently unsuited to being incorporated into the story.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Dev F

[Jel]

I agree that the Kardashians were close friends with the Simpsons, very close. I also agree that they represent a perfect example of the Cult of Fame. But this story (that is, the real events -- agreed that I don't know yet what the writers will do, and my assumption that the central story will be a pure history lesson is just that, an assumption) is not about that, and I can tell you (shaking my almost-old-lady fist in the air) that any attempt on behalf of the writers to make the cult of fame the spine of this story will be seen by me as special pleading, and I seriously hope that fame worship hasn't become so overwhelming that the writers choose to make that a central part of the story.  Score another one for Huxley if so.

 

I don't know whether you all are just debating here or if you genuinely do think that our societal obsession with fame is a big part of this story, and if you do, perhaps our differing views on it are age related? I was in my late 20s during the trial and from my vantage point, then and now, the real spine of the story, from a societal perspective, is race, racism and the legacy of racism. 

 

Really interesting to read your different points of view on it though, so thank you :)

[BBDi]

I agree that the Kardashians were close friends with the Simpsons, very close. I also agree that they represent a perfect example of the Cult of Fame. But this story (that is, the real events -- agreed that I don't know yet what the writers will do, and my assumption that the central story will be a pure history lesson is just that, an assumption) is not about that, and I can tell you (shaking my almost-old-lady fist in the air) that any attempt on behalf of the writers to make the cult of fame the spine of this story will be seen by me as special pleading, and I seriously hope that fame worship hasn't become so overwhelming that the writers choose to make that a central part of the story. Score another one for Huxley if so.

I don't know whether you all are just debating here or if you genuinely do think that our societal obsession with fame is a big part of this story, and if you do, perhaps our differing views on it are age related? I was in my late 20s during the trial and from my vantage point, then and now, the real spine of the story, from a societal perspective, is race, racism and the legacy of racism.

Really interesting to read your different points of view on it though, so thank you :)

Well...I am hoping that the writers will explore all these threads and then find a way to pull them together.

I said on another thread that I think that one reason that the prosecution failed is that they saw Simpson as a celebrity first, and a black man second. Or maybe even third, after domestic abuser. That's what they saw when they looked at Simpson, but that's not what the jury saw.

Honestly, that's probably how a lot of white people, myself included, saw it. I saw him as a celebrity living a privileged life who needed to be brought to justice. After all, he was someone who had already been protected by the police.

I just didn't see it in the larger context at the time.

Edited February 16, 2016 by BBDi

[Constantinople]

I think the connection between the trial and reality tv is a little overblown.

The Real World first aired in 1992. Keeping Up With the Kardashians first aired in 2007, after there had already been a number of reality shows based on vaguely famous people.

 

Maybe if I'd ever watched a single Kardashian show I'd get it, but I haven't, so for me, they are just a family the Simpsons were close to, seeing the kids makes sense.  I kind of feel the same way about the guy playing Robert, I didn't like Friends, and though I've seen episodes here and there, and do know he played Ross, I have no problem seeing him as RK.  I actually think he's doing well, capturing that lost, shocked guy I remember from the trial and reading the suicide note.

I haven't watched any Kardashian show and I've only watched a few episodes of Friends.

I don't think the comparison is particularly apt unless people start telling Robert Kardashian that he looks just like Ross from Friends (which first aired 3 months after the murder). That would provide as much insight into the trial as the K Kids yelling out the spelling of their name.

[Dev F]

I don't know whether you all are just debating here or if you genuinely do think that our societal obsession with fame is a big part of this story, and if you do, perhaps our differing views on it are age related? I was in my late 20s during the trial and from my vantage point, then and now, the real spine of the story, from a societal perspective, is race, racism and the legacy of racism.

 

I was a little younger, in my late teens, when the case went down, but I'm not saying I think the expansion of our fame obsession was at the core of the real-life case. I think it was a part of the story, certainly; as one of the most significant pop culture events of the 1990s, it couldn't help but influence what came after. But it doesn't have to be central to the real story to be central to the fictionalized dramatization of that story. Like I said, I think the writers get to choose what their story is about, and I don't that the fame obsession would be a wildly off-base thing to focus on. (As long as they're not ignoring other important aspects of the case, like the racial dimension, and I think it's clear that they're doing no such thing.)

 

Put it this way: I would never say that the quiz show scandal of the 1950s was primarily about the tension between white privilege and Jewish ethnic identity in America. But Quiz Show, Robert Redford's movie about the scandal, is very much about said tension. And because that's a very real conflict in a broader sense, and because the film grounds it in the real-life experiences of some of the major players in the scandal (working-class Jewish nerd Herb Stempel, upper-crust white intellectual Charles Van Doren, and Ivy League Jewish lawyer Dick Goodwin), it works like gangbusters, regardless of whether it represents a bit of dramatic license.

[Umbelina]

Television stations had more viewers for the OJ trial, than the soaps got.  Soaps were expensive to produce, this was extremely cheap to produce by those standards.  Soap magazines at the time bemoaned the death of the soaps, and predicted more "real" stuff would eventually supplant them, because less outlay, and more cash coming in for owners of networks.

 

That happened.  Fledgling reality shows existed before, but not with these kinds of ratings.  Now, a huge % of what is offered on my many channels is "reality tv".

 

So yes, I think in a HUGE way this trial changed TV for ever.  They needed sensation as a hook, which eventually landed us with those horrible Judge shows, Kardashian shows, hip hop kids shows, housewives shows, therapy shows, families with WAY too many kids shows, hoarders shows, and all the rest.  I miss really good scripted comedy and drama, we have a few left.  Thank God for The Americans, and Better Call Saul and a few others.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Umbelina

[BW Manilowe]

An article posted to Entertainment Weekly's EW.com website earlier today attempts to explain why it's supposedly important to include the spawn of Robert Kardashian & Kris Jenner in this show. For what it's worth.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/16/defending-kardashians-kids-people-v-oj-simpson

[Jel]

I was a little younger, in my late teens, when the case went down, but I'm not saying I think the expansion of our fame obsession was at the core of the real-life case. I think it was a part of the story, certainly; as one of the most significant pop culture events of the 1990s, it couldn't help but influence what came after. But it doesn't have to be central to the real story to be central to the fictionalized dramatization of that story. Like I said, I think the writers get to choose what their story is about, and I don't that the fame obsession would be a wildly off-base thing to focus on. (As long as they're not ignoring other important aspects of the case, like the racial dimension, and I think it's clear that they're doing no such thing.)

 

 

 

In a work of fiction you'd have my complete agreement, but given that so many of us watched the story unfold, and remember so much of it, it's history to many of us.  This story is not the writers'. They didn't write it, they wrote the script; I see that as a big difference.  

 

But, it's not even the entirely made up Kardashian scenes based-on-events-that- did-not-happen that rankles -- it's the fact that it's them. It feels, to me, like a cheesy, pandering way to entice "The Millenials!". If Paris Hilton was still a very big deal I have no doubt that they'd find a way to work her in as well, since she was about as relevant to the story as the Kardashian kids.

 

No doubt the trail changed tv, and while things like judge shows and "reality" tv existed before it, it seems to have certainly done its part to make those shows more palatable and in demand to the public (as well as other things like you get what they give you and lower costs for the floundering networks, plus the internet and vast increases in cable tv offerings)

[Dejana]

In a work of fiction you'd have my complete agreement, but given that so many of us watched the story unfold, and remember so much of it, it's history to many of us.  This story is not the writers'. They didn't write it, they wrote the script; I see that as a big difference.  

 

But, it's not even the entirely made up Kardashian scenes based-on-events-that- did-not-happen that rankles -- it's the fact that it's them. It feels, to me, like a cheesy, pandering way to entice "The Millenials!". If Paris Hilton was still a very big deal I have no doubt that they'd find a way to work her in as well, since she was about as relevant to the story as the Kardashian kids.

 

No doubt the trail changed tv, and while things like judge shows and "reality" tv existed before it, it seems to have certainly done its part to make those shows more palatable and in demand to the public (as well as other things like you get what they give you and lower costs for the floundering networks, plus the internet and vast increases in cable tv offerings)

 

I would say it's true of nonfiction, even, that the narrative is very much shaped by the version of the events and its players, that the writer wants to showcase. Read enough biographies about the same historical figure/event and in the different versions, you will probably see minor but sharp differences in what aspects are focused on vs. ignored and how they're interpreted. That's basically what's happening here, and this show is an admittedly fictionalized version of events that happened twenty years ago, which often brings an element of reflection on how the world has changed. Even a minor thing, like choosing to show Marcia Clark smoking everywhere: even if she did in real life, if this show had been made for ABC or some other major network like that, they might have omitted that part of the portrayal. Movies and TV shows about the past are often just as much about the present: how things are different now, and the ways that they're not.

 

Sure, if this show had been made in 1998, it wouldn't focus on the Kardashians so much (not that they are really getting a lot of airtime in it). But it was made now, with the people watching knowing all that came for them. A big element in the latest episode was showing how so many players from the case were thrust into the spotlight: from the eyewitness who got $5,000 from a tabloid show to Kato having fangirls and thinking he'd get more auditions, to the Kardashians getting a table at a restaurant because the hostess recognized him from TV. This notoriety merely came from people being in the right place and the right time and capitalizing on it (or not). Back then, the general public probably figured that this sort of "fame" was fleeting and to remain in the limelight for a longer period of time, you had to have actual talent or skill worthy of the accolades. Yet, little did we know just how much money you could make or how far you could go, how long you could stay in the headlines, if you made it your job to be a perpetually-famous spectacle... Maybe that concept is only tangentially related to the actual OJ case, but, the connection is there.

 

In the scene with Robert, the Kardashian children mentioned their mother and stepfather selling the Thighmaster, I believe. Not quite:

 

[Lesia]

From what I have read, Robert Kardashian was a strict, involved father. He wanted to make sure all his kids would be self sufficient with their future careers. He and Bruce Jenner had a decent enough relationship with regards to co-parenting all the kids. I think Kim was too afraid to tell him she had eloped with her first husband (pre Kris Humphreys) until she had been married for a while.

I think he would be horrified with what they have all turned into
 

[WordFreak]

Just a quick comment here about the inclusion of the K kids in this show. I guess what bothers me the most about it that it only gives the Kardashians more exposure than they already have. I keep wishing they would just go away and we wouldn't have to hear about them ever again, but this will only happen if everyone stops talking about them, writing about them, watching their vapid show and buying their crappy products and apps. Depicting the kids in this show unfortunately just puts the spotlight on them again and gives people another avenue in which to discuss them (as I am doing right now. You gotta love irony!)

 

We know Robert Sr. was involved in the OJ trial, so I guess I just wish we could see him without being reminded of the vacuous famewhores his children became. Now, I feel so much better having gotten that off my chest, LOL.

[VCRTracking]

I think it's because we associate the name "Kardashian" now with being fame-whores and celebrity that they show Robert wasn't like that. He really tried to instill in his kids that fame wasn't important but being virtuous was. Some see his continuation of calling him "Juice" as evidence of him being a sycophant, but to me it seems more hero-worship. The show is clearly showing him to be a good man who supported OJ out of loyalty and friendship. It's like when they had a fictionalized version of Conrad Hilton on Mad Men. We recognize his last name from the hotels but from his great-granddaughter Paris. You see this no BS, hard-working, up-from-his-boot straps, down to earth self made man in contrast to his shallow, vacuous descendants.

Edited February 17, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Umbelina]

For the record, a LOT of people called OJ "Juice."  If not that, then OJ.  He was only called Orenthal by the court, and possibly his mother.  Juice and OJ were interchangeable names for him.

[DangerousMinds]

In a work of fiction you'd have my complete agreement, but given that so many of us watched the story unfold, and remember so much of it, it's history to many of us.  This story is not the writers'. They didn't write it, they wrote the script; I see that as a big difference.  

 

But, it's not even the entirely made up Kardashian scenes based-on-events-that- did-not-happen that rankles -- it's the fact that it's them. It feels, to me, like a cheesy, pandering way to entice "The Millenials!". If Paris Hilton was still a very big deal I have no doubt that they'd find a way to work her in as well, since she was about as relevant to the story as the Kardashian kids.

 

No doubt the trail changed tv, and while things like judge shows and "reality" tv existed before it, it seems to have certainly done its part to make those shows more palatable and in demand to the public (as well as other things like you get what they give you and lower costs for the floundering networks, plus the internet and vast increases in cable tv offerings)

Awww, you're not giving most millenials enough credit.

[Jel]

Awww, you're not giving most millenials enough credit.

Double aww because I did not intend that as a slam on young people.  It's just a reflection of my jaded view of Hollywood and producers' ideas about what they think would appeal to a younger audience -- cheeseball pandering, etc.  Sorry for not being more clear.

 

Would it help if I said, "Some of my best friends are millenials?"  No? 

[Umbelina]

I thought this was the best and more revealing/relevant scene with the kids yet.  They are in a perfect position to show many things, the divides in opinion, and no one was caught more in the middle than they are, although as more actual friends of OJ/Nicole arrive, there should be some divisions.  One or two women went with the OJ side, the rest of Nicole's friends, and they knew OJ very well too, knew without doubt that he murdered her.

 

Still, you total ALL of them together and do we possibly even have 3 minutes of screen time?  I kind of doubt it. 

 

ETA  Just found this.

 

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/16/defending-kardashians-kids-people-v-oj-simpson

Defending the Kardashians: Why showing the kids is crucial to The People v. O.J. Simpson

 

And granted, that wincing is exactly what so many experience while watching The People v. O.J. Simpson. And it’s understandable. But audiences are confusing the Kardashian kids’ inclusion in the narrative with some kind of a moral endorsement. Some have even accused Ryan Murphy of cutting to the children simply to boost the show’s ratings. That’s an absurd accusation, made mainly by people who never heard the name Kardashian before 2007 and for that reason feel like the show is twisting itself into knots in order to include the family. When, in fact, they are a peripheral — but ineradicable — crumb of the O.J. cake.

 

Just so long as you realize that’s what the show is doing. This one satiric element has backfired for The People v. O.J. Simpson because the Kardashians appall too many people. But if you’re sickened by the show’s use of them, here’s one final cure for your pain: Stop believing, right now, that anyone involved with the O.J. Simpson story crawled out of those two years with any integrity intact. Yes, the attorneys on both sides were doing their jobs, but the case developed into one of the most bloated zits in American culture.

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by Umbelina

[Kromm]

The worst aspect of this to me is that Murphy & Co. actually have been lying in interviews. I lost track of it/can't find it now but I read one yesterday where they actually had the big brass ones to claim that the Kardashian kids were minimized in the show because their relevance was marginal. MINIMIZED. That's not the story Episode 3 told us.

And damn the show was heavy-handed with the kids learning their first "fame is cool, we get stuff!" lesson (and how supposedly Robert wasn't all about that, but they just didn't listen!)

[Jel]

Here's a little something from Vanity Fair:

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/02/people-v-oj-simpson-robert-kardashian

 

Kardashian, then, emerges as one of the show’s most accessible characters, and what Alexander described as “the heart of the show.” He continues, “He brought a soulfulness that nobody else was going to be able to bring us. He’s like one of the characters out of Crimes and Misdemeanors, a character with this moral weight hanging over him—he doesn’t know what to do or how to get out of it. He was just fascinating to us.”

 

I think those of you who are defending (to whatever degree) the Ks in the show pretty much called how the writers and producers wanted to use this figure (RK) in their story telling, especially you, Umbelina. So good on you!

 

I still think it stinks, and I still wish they'd gone just about any other way, but it is what it is, and there's nothing I can do about it.

 

What can I say except ... get off my lawn? ;)

 

ETA: No, wait I wanna say the unspoken line after "He was just fascinating to us.”, in my mind, is "and conveniently, his family is mega famous and a huge part of pop culture, so we thinks it's adorbs how we bring them, peripheral though they might be, into every goddam episode" Le blah!

Edited February 17, 2016 by Jel

[Chaos Theory]

I know people don't like the Kardashians but I find this portion of their life fascinating. This is coming from someone who thinks reality tv is the bane of existence and the one form of television I would happily gleefully do without.

Robert played a very real part in the story and this telling of it has already at least in part dealt with the home life of Both Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden; I even think Jonnie Cochran was seen in his own home. I think it unfair to exclude the Kardashians because they are unlikeable in real life. I think this particular moment in time is actually fascinating. The period in time when they were virtual nobodies.

Yes it's a fine line but in three episodes i don't think the show has crossed it.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[Jel]

I know people don't like the Kardashians but I find this portion of their life fascinating. This is coming from someone who thinks reality tv is the bane of existence and the one form of television I would happily gleefully do without.

Robert played a very real part in the story and this telling of it has already at least in part dealt with the home life of Both Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden; I even think Jonnie Cochran was seen in his own home. I think it unfair to exclude the Kardashians because they are unlikeable in real life. I think this particular moment in time is actually fascinating. The period in time when they were virtual nobodies.

Yes it's a fine line but in three episodes i don't think the show has crossed it.

Honestly, I think most people are objecting to their (the kids) inclusion in the show not because they are unlikeable, but because they were not at all relevant to the story.  Whether Kim could or could not find her phone that day never did appear on any 101 Key Points About the OJ Simpson Trial list, but I didn't read every list -- seems the writers read that one, amirite!?

 

The writers have seemingly (conveniently!) chosen RK as the "heart" of the story, so I guess we will be seeing a lot more of them. For that they have earned a place on my Rain Man-style "List of Serious Injuries".

Edited February 17, 2016 by Jel

[Umbelina]

They are just as relevant as Cochran's girlfriend, or Marsha's kids, simply a way to advance the story.

 

For example in the first episode, they were merely REFERRED to, took 2 seconds of screen time, to easily establish who Kris was.  Second episode, 23 seconds, illustrated  how famous people got for even being tangentially involved in this, "dad's on TV!"  That one was a bit OTT for me, but I could easily see something like that happening among siblings who suddenly see their NON famous dad on TV.  The last episode gave them a substantial scene, even so, how long was it?  2 minutes?  It shows RK's  mouth saying "of course Uncle OJ didn't do it" while the rest of his body showed more than that.  It also allowed him to pick the kids up, and have that talk with Kris, who fervently believes OJ guilty.  "What about Nicole?  She was your friend too!  He BUTCHERED THEM, Robert!" 

 

I thought all of that really worked in this episode, and worked very well.

 

ETA

Wait, I think that was Cochran's wife.  His girlfriend was white.  Later his wife too?  Can't remember.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Umbelina

[Dejana]

Honestly, I think most people are objecting to their (the kids) inclusion in the show not because they are unlikeable, but because they were not at all relevant to the story.  Whether Kim could or could not find her phone that day never did appear on any 101 Key Points About the OJ Simpson Trial list, but I didn't read every list -- seems the writers read that one, amirite!?

 

The writers have seemingly (conveniently!) chosen RK as the "heart" of the story, so I guess we will be seeing a lot more of them. For that they have earned a place on my Rain Man-style "List of Serious Injuries".

 

Look at the backlash to the mentions in the first episode that literally took seconds and I'd say that negativity is more down to distaste for Kim/Khloe/et al than objection to them being relentlessly inserted into the story. Suppose that IRL, the OJ suicide attempt had taken place at Robert Shapiro's house instead. If there'd been a, "Not in Bobby's bedroom!" line from Shapiro, I doubt it would have registered at all or been objectionable in any way. True, maybe the writers wouldn't have thrown it into the story in the first place, but had there been a mention of some other random kid's name, and that kid had never became a mega-famous reality star, I doubt it would've become anything worthy of derision.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Dejana

[lyric]

One thing I found interesting in an interview with David Schwimmer (I'll circle back with a link), was his comment that Robert himself is barely mentioned in Toobin's book, so he had to do research elsewhere.  I realize the writers are taking some license here, as expected; I just find it intriguing that this series is based on a book in which one of the central characters is hardly mentioned at all, so naturally I'd venture to guess the kids are non-existent in the book as well.  

 

Linky:

Variety Magazine

 

ETA the relevant excerpt:

We really see that at the start of the second episode, when you pray for O.J.’s safety. Was Jeffrey Toobin’s book helpful at all to you? What other research did you do?

Jeffrey’s book, which I read twice, was of great help just to understand the trial and the context and all the agendas. It wasn’t that helpful for Robert, actually, because Jeffrey was kind of dismissive of Robert. He’s hardly mentioned in the book, maybe a couple of times. So it was really digging deeper into watching his interviews and reading every article I could find in which Robert was referred to or in which he was quoted. I researched his business dealings with O.J. and how he came into money, his family being in the meatpacking business. Just to understand his history and who he was as a person, his education, his character.

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by lyric

[Kromm]

I know people don't like the Kardashians but I find this portion of their life fascinating. This is coming from someone who thinks reality tv is the bane of existence and the one form of television I would happily gleefully do without.

Robert played a very real part in the story and this telling of it has already at least in part dealt with the home life of Both Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden; I even think Jonnie Cochran was seen in his own home. I think it unfair to exclude the Kardashians because they are unlikeable in real life. I think this particular moment in time is actually fascinating. The period in time when they were virtual nobodies.

Yes it's a fine line but in three episodes i don't think the show has crossed it.

That sounds nice in theory, but even the Kardashians say none of what's been shown is true. Your fascination with this part of their lives is being measured against a deliberate fictionalization of it. If that's okay with you, I understand, but is it accomplishing what you really want (leaning about them in that period)?

[Jel]

Look at the backlash to the mentions in the first episode that literally took seconds and I'd say that negativity is more down to distaste for Kim/Khloe/et al than objection to them being relentlessly inserted into the story. Suppose that IRL, the OJ suicide attempt had taken place at Robert Shapiro's house instead. If there'd been a, "Not in Bobby's bedroom!" line from Shapiro, I doubt it would have registered at all or been objectionable in any way. True, maybe the writers wouldn't have thrown it into the story in the first place, but had there been a mention of some other random kid's name, and that kid had never became a mega-famous reality star, I doubt it would've become anything worthy of derision.

Funnily enough, I had no objection to that, because I seem to remember something about OJ and a suicide threat in a then unknown Kardashian kid's bedroom, so it was a historical mention.

 

The initial complaints, I feel, were eye rolling and incredulity -- and not at the Kimmie's bedroom remark, (for me anyway) but at the kids and the tv, which we have since learned did not even happen.  I am further disappointed by the every-episode Kardashian scenes.  If you are not, then, I'm happy for you -- perhaps you will enjoy the rest of series more than I will.

[Umbelina]

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/02/people-v-oj-simpson-kardashians?mbid=nl_021716_Daily&CNDID=29505557&spMailingID=8557490&spUserID=MTA5MzMxNDM4OTQwS0&spJobID=861748801&spReportId=ODYxNzQ4ODAxS0

Robert Kardashian may have never actually lectured his kids about the danger of fame, but that‘s not the point, say the show’s creators.

 

[Dejana]

One thing I found interesting in an interview with David Schwimmer (I'll circle back with a link), was his comment that Robert himself is barely mentioned in Toobin's book, so he had to do research elsewhere.  I realize the writers are taking some license here, as expected; I just find it intriguing that this series is based on a book in which one of the central characters is hardly mentioned at all, so naturally I'd venture to guess the kids are non-existent in the book as well.  

 

Linky:

Variety Magazine

 

ETA the relevant excerpt:

 

Well, at least got Schwimmer got some good info on the case out of it. I remember the time they cast Hermione's mother in one of the final Harry Potter movies and the actress said something like, she was reading the entire series to get character background for the role, and I just thought, bless her, poor dear.

 

Any adaptation is just that, even of a nonfiction book. If you look through the list of Best Adapted Screenplay nominees in any given year, they often differ wildly from the original source material. Steven Spielberg's Lincoln movie is based on a few pages from Team of Rivals (a 944-page book) and has an entirely different overall focus.

 

As for the scene of Robert K. lecturing the kids about fame not really happening that way, I think they wanted to convey the point that he didn't really bring up the children to be layabout rich kid brats, which by all accounts is true. People without much knowledge of the family may think that because of his friendship with OJ that he was this professional celebrity hanger-on and his kids learned all about existing in the limelight from him. Whether this is crucial info that had to be imparted in the story of the OJ case, that's up to everyone to decide...

Edited February 18, 2016 by Dejana

[ennui]

As for the scene of Robert K. lecturing the kids about fame not really happening that way, I think they wanted to convey the point that he didn't really bring up the children to be layabout rich kid brats, which by all accounts is true.

 

I've been corrected, myself, many times. "The Kardashians are not layabouts, they work very hard." *eyeroll*

Did y'all know Kim has 40 million Twitter followers? Why?

[ketose]

I haven't read Toobin's book, but I assume it has to do with the trial and the legal arguments. The actual crime would be just a collection of evidence. Except for the charges of getting rid of the knife, Robert Kardashian had little to do with the defense or the details of the crime itself.

 

Kardashian is a characterization of people who thought OJ couldn't be guilty but saw the evidence and eventually faced reality. Because he was a lawyer, he was involved in the trial more than anyone else in Simpson's orbit. He also has to face an ex-wife who was convinced from the beginning that OJ was guilty.

 

I don't think the trial or Robert Kardashian's notoriety made the kids who they are today. I do think that Robert and Kris being so close with the Simpsons for years before their divorces exposed the kids to what fame was and how important it seemed to most people.

[Kromm]

I don't think the trial or Robert Kardashian's notoriety made the kids who they are today. I do think that Robert and Kris being so close with the Simpsons for years before their divorces exposed the kids to what fame was and how important it seemed to most people.

Think of it this way. Kris was married to Bruce Jenner by this point--in fact she had been married to Jenner for 4 years already (even if this show is ducking showing him onscreen). Those kids didn't need to see people give Daddy instant seating in some restaurant to learn that fame gets perks. They'd been seeing it happen around them for years already. Bruce wasn't a huge star at that point (his fame had faded), but he was still instantly recognizable to tons of people around L.A., or the whole country in fact, and I'm sure got tons of freebies.

[Umbelina]

Well, 3 years, she married Jenner in April of 1991 according to Wikipedia.  ;) 

 

Kardashian did take the kids out to lunch on that day, it was Father's Day.  Of course the dialogue is created by the writers, but frankly, I'd be shocked if the kids didn't ask their dad about "Uncle OJ's" guilt or innocence, their mom was practically leading the anti-OJ group at that time.  It's not as if they were toddlers, and of course they had questions about Nicole.  So, to me, it just doesn't matter exactly when the conversation happened, I'm sure it did happen.

 

Although I agree, the little morality lesson thing wasn't needed about fame.  I've never watched their shows, did any of them ever talk about dad telling them stuff like that, about friendship and loyalty.

 

I know The Run Of His Life is negative about Robert, from what everyone's said here, but I never really had the impression from other readings that he was a bad man.  Actually, his face during the verdict and his obvious conflict even then was something that made me a bit more sympathetic to him, kind of the same thing with AC really.  I did feel that both were in shock and in pain though.

[elzin]

I'm finding an interesting parallel between the K kids and Mark Fuhrman. I'm reminded of Marcia's closing where she says basically "Do we wish there were no such person? Does he make us sick" Yes, most of us here wish there were no such K 21st century media sensation, but like Fuhrman, it exists and to exclude even mentioning it would almost call MORE attention to it. The K kids have no relevance then other than to show us a grounded, conflicted Robert, but they do exist NOW,

 

Personally I'd prefer if they hadn't been in it at all or maybe just once in passing, but I can understand their inclusion isn't necessarily completely ridiculous.

 

I also think they can't possibly be in or referred to in all of the episodes. Robert had a huge role in the beginning and a strong reaction at the end, but he was mostly just was sitting there for the trial. I would think screen time is going to be  pretty tight with 100 lawyers and 1000 witnesses and 10000000 media members, and his story is going to minimum. And if his story is going to be minimum, his kids would be around even less.

[vibeology]

I don't care about the Kardashians. I've seen a few minutes of their shows here and there in the course of the however many years its been on and I see the gossip stories about them, but I do tend to scroll past most of the time. I'm not a fan, but I've also managed not to be a hater. I have no real feeling about them at all. But I also think reality is no excuse for telling a strong story. This isn't a documentary or a recreation. Its a piece of fiction using the OJ Simpson trial as a way to tell a story about characters. There needs to be someone on team OJ that the audience can latch onto as our window to that world and Robert Kardashian makes sense as that choice. He wasn't a lawyer looking to make a buck or get some fame. He was there from the very start to the end. He has the personal conflict of also knowing and loving Nicole as a family friend that makes the whole murder and trial all the more emotional for him. In a lot of ways he is our protagonist, at least for that side of the trial.

 

So I'm less bothered than some that we're seeing his family and personal life. They're characters that further his arc. That the kids are excited to hear their name on TV or see their father be given special treatment is part of his arc. He started this story blinded by his love for The Juice and the aura of fame that surrounds him. Then we saw how he reacted when OJ failed the polygraph. The doubts are creeping in and he's coming to see that his idol might not be worthy of the adoration. At the same time, the people he cares most about are being drawn into fame because of his choice to stick by OJ. He wants his children to work hard and earn a place, but he's indirectly teaching them that fame can be had for reasons other than hard work (ie proximity to fame, notoriety or the willingness to sell your story) and how he deals with this a huge part of who I think the character is supposed to be.

 

Ultimately, until the entire story is done, we can't judge what themes are being explored, but I think this is where Robert's story is going based on what's been set up so far and I don't think that story can be told as effectively without seeing how his choices taint his children, who might be the only people more important to him than OJ.

[Jel]

Those of us who watched the trial, and were, in my case anyway, near-obsessed with it, know that Robert Kardashian was not a huge part of the story. He was a peripheral figure. Out of all of OJ's friends and hangers-on, Al Cowlings was the biggest player in the story by far, and if his kids were Kardashian-like, guess whose kids we'd be seeing at the funeral? Not Robert's, I can tell you that.

 

The idea that RK is the heart of the story: I was just reading some old Vanity Fair articles, in which Dominic Dunne describes Kim Goldman as the "heart" of the story; that, whether you agree with it or not, is far more accurate to the feelings of the time. Jeff Toobin, on whose book this series is based, had a pretty low opinion of RK, and certainly didn't make him any sort of key figure in his book.  So the writers' choice to make him, of all people, of all the many, many figures in that case, the "heart" of the story is suspect.  

 

In choosing  RK, the writers are essentially rewriting history. Sure, they can do that, but for those of us for whom the truth matters, that choice is a bit of an affront. Is it a fictionalized story, really? Maybe the bigger question is to what degree is it okay to fictionalize a history that so many people actually lived though, and why are people who did live through it okay with that?

Edited February 18, 2016 by Jel