The Kardashian Kvetching Korner

[Blinkoshuman]

"It's more important to be a good person than to be famous."  How did David Schwimmer not throw up when he said that?

 

 

That said, there's no need to pound the viewer over the head with the K's

I feel like that's exactly what they'll do, with a wink wink nudge nudge.  Blech.  I don't keep up with the Kardashians at all, but I know them because they're famous.  And they're famous because they're famous.  And I hate that.

[vibeology]

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?

 

I watched the trial. I was young, but I followed every step and when the Kardashians got famous, I literally didn't remember Robert K, so I agree with you that in real life he wasn't an important figure to the trial proceedings. That could be why the writers are using him as a window. He isn't a showy personality and despite his very famous family, he's not a known "character" the way Cochrane, AC, Shapiro or anyone else tied to the trial was. Stories need main characters to drive the action. Picking Robert K because he was a blank canvas for most viewers and then using him to push the themes is a very good plan, in my opinion, to making an entertaining and engaging TV show. It's not a documentary. There are so many of those out there already. It's a fiction, based on a real event, but still fiction and because of that I'm okay with the writers picking POV characters for the audience.

[Jel]

Doesn't Occam's Razor apply here though? Of all the possible reasons they could be highlighting RK, wouldn't "because he's the Kardashians' dad" be the most likely one?

 

Or am I just too cynical? 

 

Btw, I am not a Kardashian hater either. I think they've done well for themselves and parlayed their sex tapes into a huge empire. I think the Kardashian fame says a lot of really depressing stuff about our society though. A lot.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Jel

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

I think there needs to be a character to root for, a character that's good and a character who mirrors the audience/public's resistance to believe OJ did it at first, but who eventually can't escape that he probably did do it.  There needs to be at least one character on the defense side who can be at least somewhat "likeable" and not seem like a slimy defense attorney.  

This character is Robert Kardashian - a fictionalized version of the real Robert Kardashian. 

 

I've given up debating in my mind what did or didn't happen with Kardashian and his family and OJ and Kardashian, etc. and decided to just take Kardashian in this show as a character that the writers specifically wrote to be relatable to the audience.  I just keep reminding myself this isn't the real Kardashian we're seeing anymore than the Evita character in the play/movie was the real Eva Peron.

[BBDi]

I watched the trial. I was young, but I followed every step and when the Kardashians got famous, I literally didn't remember Robert K, so I agree with you that in real life he wasn't an important figure to the trial proceedings. That could be why the writers are using him as a window. He isn't a showy personality and despite his very famous family, he's not a known "character" the way Cochrane, AC, Shapiro or anyone else tied to the trial was. Stories need main characters to drive the action. Picking Robert K because he was a blank canvas for most viewers and then using him to push the themes is a very good plan, in my opinion, to making an entertaining and engaging TV show. It's not a documentary. There are so many of those out there already. It's a fiction, based on a real event, but still fiction and because of that I'm okay with the writers picking POV characters for the audience.

Yeah, I think the blank canvas idea must have been part of his appeal to the writers and there's no living 2016 version of him to invite comparisons. I grudgingly accept that this is just the choice the writers made to hang the story on.

I do object to the idea of him as some kind of moral center to the story. He was more of a stooge in my opinion. That might make him a reasonable stand-in for the viewer, in that so many people have OJ far more credit than he deserved based on his football prowess, looks, and fame.

[Jel]

Yes, perhaps it's a perspective issue, and I don't need anyone to relate to because (in an odd, indirect way) I was there. 

 

I should have stayed out of this thread, and not read the writers' take on why RK was selected (which, I call BS on), and just left it at the lower, eye rolling phase of annoyance.  As it stands now, we might never see a K again for the rest of the series, and I will still have my knickers in a knot over it.

[Umbelina]

Yes, lots of good points.

 

I was unaware AC even had children.  He will be in the show, hell, he already has been, but was he even married at the time? 

 

RK and KK being on completely opposite sides of this narrative does make a story, and it was true.  The kids caught in the middle of that was also true. 

 

I agree, we need to see the whole series before we will know exactly what they are doing with this story, I tend to think I know where they are going and that for a dramatic story makes sense to me.  I could be wrong too, they could surprise me with even a better place to go, or disappoint me and confirm this is all about a K tie-in that some here suspect.  Either way, this couple, divorced or not, WERE heavily involved in this story, and they knew Nicole and OJ extremely well, and their kids played together as well.  It's our insider peek.

 

I feel like throwing up the equivalent of a cross every time a Kardashian kid show up (which seriously, has been negligible in this so far) while understandable, is also just a tad OTT.  I'm sick of them as well, but on this show I'm really liking it so far (other than the chanting, that was a WTF?)

[DangerousMinds]

Has anyone else ever heard that Robert Kardashian disapproved of his daughters dating black men? But one of his best, beloved friends was OJ? Maybe the rumor just isn't true.

Yes, lots of good points.

 

I was unaware AC even had children.  He will be in the show, hell, he already has been, but was he even married at the time? 

 

RK and KK being on completely opposite sides of this narrative does make a story, and it was true.  The kids caught in the middle of that was also true. 

 

I agree, we need to see the whole series before we will know exactly what they are doing with this story, I tend to think I know where they are going and that for a dramatic story makes sense to me.  I could be wrong too, they could surprise me with even a better place to go, or disappoint me and confirm this is all about a K tie-in that some here suspect.  Either way, this couple, divorced or not, WERE heavily involved in this story, and they knew Nicole and OJ extremely well, and their kids played together as well.  It's our insider peek.

 

I feel like throwing up the equivalent of a cross every time a Kardashian kid show up (which seriously, has been negligible in this so far) while understandable, is also just a tad OTT.  I'm sick of them as well, but on this show I'm really liking it so far (other than the chanting, that was a WTF?)

Me too. Especially when the focus thus far seems to be on little Kimmy, not the others.

[vibeology]

Yes, perhaps it's a perspective issue, and I don't need anyone to relate to because (in an odd, indirect way) I was there. 

 

I should have stayed out of this thread, and not read the writers' take on why RK was selected (which, I call BS on), and just left it at the lower, eye rolling phase of annoyance.  As it stands now, we might never see a K again for the rest of the series, and I will still have my knickers in a knot over it.

 

Just to clarify, what I've said isn't coming from the writers, just my interpretation of their choices based on what we've seen so far. They could be doing it because of the Kardashian popularity or because they love David Schwimmer or any other reason. I'm just making a best guess based on what we've seen so far and basic storytelling principles.

 

I do object to the idea of him as some kind of moral center to the story. He was more of a stooge in my opinion. That might make him a reasonable stand-in for the viewer, in that so many people have OJ far more credit than he deserved based on his football prowess, looks, and fame.

 

Instead of a moral center, think of him more as an emotional center. He's going to undergo the emotional arc from blindly loyal to OJ (after all we saw Faye and Kris mention that the whole group knew OJ beat Nicole) to questioning his beliefs and judgments and seeing how his own actions have changed himself and the people around him. That doesn't make him a moral character, but it does make him emotionally engaging. And again, this is just based on the foreshadowing we've gotten so far and my knowledge of where this story has to go factually. For all I know the show could take a hard right next week and turn Ito into the center of the show or something crazy. But I think, knowing that OJ will be found not guilty, we need someone on his side to feel disgusted by the verdict and Robert K seems like the most obvious choice and a good story can't jump from "I love the Juice" to horror at his walking free without some sort of journey from one place to another.

[Jel]

Yes, lots of good points.

 

I was unaware AC even had children.  He will be in the show, hell, he already has been, but was he even married at the time? 

 

RK and KK being on completely opposite sides of this narrative does make a story, and it was true.  The kids caught in the middle of that was also true. 

 

I agree, we need to see the whole series before we will know exactly what they are doing with this story, I tend to think I know where they are going and that for a dramatic story makes sense to me.  I could be wrong too, they could surprise me with even a better place to go, or disappoint me and confirm this is all about a K tie-in that some here suspect.  Either way, this couple, divorced or not, WERE heavily involved in this story, and they knew Nicole and OJ extremely well, and their kids played together as well.  It's our insider peek.

 

I feel like throwing up the equivalent of a cross every time a Kardashian kid show up (which seriously, has been negligible in this so far) while understandable, is also just a tad OTT.  I'm sick of them as well, but on this show I'm really liking it so far (other than the chanting, that was a WTF?)

They were heavily involved in it, but privately and behind the scenes. Heavily involved in it from their POV and in their lives, but not for the rest of us gawkers.

 

But I was also (in a weird and personal way) heavily involved in if from the comfort of my sofa.I remember Cochran and Shapiro and Clark and Darden and Kato and F Lee Baily and etc... and etc, but I don't remember the Kardashians (Robert and his hair, being the single exception, but a pretty trivial one to me).  Any one of those other people being featured as the thread that ties it all together would be far more palatable, because they were and a part of my life. Again, perspective.

 

I don't know if AC had kids -- I just used that example. Creative licence. If it's good enough for the writers of the American Crime Story... ;) 

 

I'm buying the entire thread drinks next week if there's no mention of or reference to, the Ks!  

[Umbelina]

I was reading Dominick Dunne's essays, so I knew about Kris Kardashian's involvement from those.  In earlier times they would have been called soirees, or her "salons."  People who felt OJ guilty gathered together, at little "trial parties."  Even the very rich, for example, Betsy Bloomingdale had them, and Kris was invited to some as their dancing puppet for the night, she always tried to get at least one insider for her rich friends.  I think in Kris' case they started more as friends of Nicole and OJ, gathering together to share, to talk, and vent.  Hiltons, Faye, etc.  They were the true "insiders."

 

Dominick made the rounds at these parties in his writer for Vanity Fair capacity, and because he had Hollywood connections of his own. 

 

Robert?  I saw him read that "suicide letter" and I saw him every single day sitting in that trial, maybe it was camera angles, but he was there.  His reaction to the verdict was chilling, BECAUSE he was on OJ's team.  The Brown's reaction was more heart punching, but that was expected.  RK?  Was sitting with OJ, on HIS side, and couldn't hide his shock, he almost looked like he was going to throw up.  It's a lasting image for me.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Umbelina

[ByTor]

I watched the trial. I was young, but I followed every step and when the Kardashians got famous, I literally didn't remember Robert K

It's so funny how different people's memories can be. When the Kardashians became "famous", my first thought was that I wondered whether they were related to "that OJ lawyer".

[Kromm]

Yeah, I think the blank canvas idea must have been part of his appeal to the writers and there's no living 2016 version of him to invite comparisons. I grudgingly accept that this is just the choice the writers made to hang the story on.

I do object to the idea of him as some kind of moral center to the story. He was more of a stooge in my opinion. That might make him a reasonable stand-in for the viewer, in that so many people have OJ far more credit than he deserved based on his football prowess, looks, and fame.

See that's the thing. A few people have talked about not remembering him and how that makes him the perfect gateway character/viewers stand in, but I actually do somewhat remember him and my impression (borne out by what I've heard others say over the years) that he was a total stooge/sycophant, and a bit slimy. The notion I talked about on another thread that he might have been an accomplice after the fact (helping to hide or dispose of the murder weapon) didn't come out of the blue. The Goldmans certainly believe that's possible, and while they're hardly objective they didn't get this idea from nowhere either.

It's so funny how different people's memories can be. When the Kardashians became "famous", my first thought was that I wondered whether they were related to "that OJ lawyer".

Bingo. Me too. Although they were apparently marginally "known" (if not quite famous) before most of us became aware of it, because Kris and a few of the kids were seen at Bruce's side for years, and they used those connections to get Kim a job working for Paris Hilton.

[Umbelina]

Probably because of what I was saying before, ANYONE with a connection to OJ/Nicole was suddenly a 'get' as friend or party guest.  Kathy Hilton was just one of many (pretty much everyone in LA, and quite a bit of the country) so she became friends with Kris and Faye.  Did they know each other before?  Maybe in passing, but I kind of doubt they were the friends they are today.

 

ETA I think the reason people leave Ron's name out isn't that we've forgotten him or he didn't matter.  I think it's because Nicole was the reason for the murders.  If Ron had been the target and Nicole the unlucky one who just was there, maybe people would say his name first.  A celeb killing Ron probably wouldn't have had this much attention, for obvious reasons, but ...

Edited February 18, 2016 by Umbelina

[OSM Mom]

Am I the only one who didn't know there is a K boy? I only know all the stupid K girls.

[RedheadZombie]

I'm not a fan of the Kardashians, but I don't hate them either.  My disgust with the K children being unnecessarily inserted into this show has nothing to do with the K's and everything to do with the show runners decision to include them.

 

Not to mock anyone's opinions, but I think the suggestion that the children are included to remind people who their parents were is a little silly.  Also pointing out that Shapiro and Cochran's wives and Marcia's children are shown, is a false equivalency.  Every scene with the wives is about the husbands, and the kids are about their mother - you know, the people who are actually part of this story.  These home scenes are to advance the stories of the attorneys. 

 

The scenes are so cloying to me, almost as if they are winking at the audience.  What's next?  Kris will be whispering to Fay that Bruce is shaving his legs and wearing her underwear - what can that possibly mean?  I mean Kaitlin is just as important to the world as the K's, right? 

 

I see the Kardashian inclusion as an incredible suck up.  Robert Kardashian could not be portrayed more saint-like.  Oh, the importance of a virtuous soul (said by the man whose best friend has beaten his wife for years, and everyone knew it).  The scene of the children is so incredibly twee, and clearly written to star Kim.  Kourtney is the eldest, yet Kim is the constant mouthpiece.  Kim is the only one they clearly casted and styled to look exactly like Kim.  The children are so naïve and unaffected, all that's missing is their nanny Mary Poppins.  Kim is fourteen at this period in her life, and she has talked openly about being sexually active with an older man and already placed on birth control by her mother.  She wasn't glued to the TV with her siblings, wearing footie pajamas, hugging teddy bears, and discussing virtuous hearts.  It's just too much.

[Kromm]

Am I the only one who didn't know there is a K boy? I only know all the stupid K girls.

Krob?

 

I mean it throws people off his name doesn't ACTUALLY start with K.  It's the same as his Dad's name (Robert).

[ennui]

ETA I think the reason people leave Ron's name out isn't that we've forgotten him or he didn't matter.  I think it's because Nicole was the reason for the murders.  If Ron had been the target and Nicole the unlucky one who just was there, maybe people would say his name first.  A celeb killing Ron probably wouldn't have had this much attention, for obvious reasons, but ...

It's the truth. It's the same for the four people killed along with Sharon Tate.

[Umbelina]

I hadn't thought of that.  The stunning blonde will always get first billing I guess.  Or stunning woman.

[OSM Mom]

Krob?

I mean it throws people off his name doesn't ACTUALLY start with K. It's the same as his Dad's name (Robert).

Ty! =)

[Dev F]

Instead of a moral center, think of him more as an emotional center. He's going to undergo the emotional arc from blindly loyal to OJ (after all we saw Faye and Kris mention that the whole group knew OJ beat Nicole) to questioning his beliefs and judgments and seeing how his own actions have changed himself and the people around him. That doesn't make him a moral character, but it does make him emotionally engaging. And again, this is just based on the foreshadowing we've gotten so far and my knowledge of where this story has to go factually. For all I know the show could take a hard right next week and turn Ito into the center of the show or something crazy. But I think, knowing that OJ will be found not guilty, we need someone on his side to feel disgusted by the verdict and Robert K seems like the most obvious choice and a good story can't jump from "I love the Juice" to horror at his walking free without some sort of journey from one place to another.

 

Yep. In fact, I think it's highly likely that RK's whole storyline for the series was built around his expression of stunned bafflement when the verdict was read. That one moment suggests an entire arc for the character that could quite reasonably incorporate his evolving opinion of the value of decency versus the power of fame, and his anxiety over the sort of legacy he's leaving for his children.

 

I'm not saying they couldn't just as easily have conceived of a different arc for the character, or an alternate version of the series that barely involves the Kardashians at all. I just don't see anything wrong with the path the writers did choose to go down, any reason why this potentially rich and dramatic avenue should've been discounted out of hand just because the Kardashians are gross or whatever.

 

But I also wonder whether some folks are holding this particular docudrama to an unusually high standard for fidelity because the story that inspired it was such a public phenomenon that it became almost a personal experience for a lot of people. I mean, Heavenly Creatures didn't get a lot of flack because Peter Jackson invented elaborate fantasy sequences for Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme that he couldn't possibly have been privy to. People don't slam Man on the Moon because it reversed the order of Andy Kaufman's cancer diagnosis and Carnegie Hall appearance so the latter could be framed as a redemptive feel-good performance that he conceived in response to his impending death. And Ed Wood is still highly regarded even though it invented a completely preposterous scene in which Orson Welles convinces Ed to finish Plan 9 from Outer Space. But the OJ case was such a huge cultural experience that people seem to feel a proprietary interest in how it's portrayed -- a sense that the series is taking liberties not just with some random true story but with their own memories of that story.

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I just find it interesting and unexpected, as it's not a feeling that would ever have occurred to me.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Dev F

[Jel]

So many good, thought-provoking posts in this thread. Thank you everyone; I am really enjoying it.

 

Dev F, I think you nailed it when you said, "But the OJ case was such a huge cultural experience that people seem to feel a proprietary interest in how it's portrayed -- a sense that the series is taking liberties not just with some random true story but with their own memories of that story." That is certainly true in my case, but that's not my only problem with it.

 

The series is called "The People VS OJ Simpson". (a recent historical, and to some degree, weirdly personal event). It's based on a work of non-fiction. I was, therefore, not expecting a lot of fictionalizing going in; so perhaps some of my disappointment lies in my own expectations. I'll own that.

 

I cannot budge from my view that the writers' choice of RK as the "heart" (their words) of the story  was, let's say, a convenient one, and my belief that if his kids weren't famous, he'd have been listed as an "also ran", like he was in the book on which this story was based. To say he was chosen for any reason other than that comes across, to me, like special pleading.  

 

This was such a huge event, and it raised some questions and shed a lot of light on society. I'd say fame factored in, but in a small way and it was way, way, way overshadowed by race, racism and the legacy of racism. To place a strong emphasis on fame in this story does a disservice to both the truth and to the greater lessons we learned from that tragedy.

 

Vibeology, your description of RK as the "emotional center" of the story is by far the most palatable to me, with his evolving view on OJ's guilt (and DevF, if they didn't lay it out as you described, they missed an opportunity) , but I object to him as the writers' choice for even that because it's not a good reflection of what was happening at the time. People were divided almost immediately (within the first few weeks I'd say) on their views of his guilt or innocence and to use RK as a reflection of how we, as a society, could go from thinking he was innocent to guilty is dishonest because I don't believe that was what happened. Most people picked a side and stuck with it. 

 

With respect to writers liberties in this story, I think the crux of our disagreement lies in the age old "historian v. artist" issue.  To use an extreme example, let me ask -- If the writers have a very good, amazingly good, giant mirror to society, jaw droppingly beautiful, artistic, dramatic-based reason for changing the ending and making it so OJ is found guilty would that be within bounds? I think most people would say no for this particular tv show, yes to a work of fiction, but no to this one because the history will trump the creative license, because ultimately this is a work of non fiction. Making RK the centre of this story, in any capacity, is too much artistry and not enough history. 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Jel

[charmed1]

Has anyone else ever heard that Robert Kardashian disapproved of his daughters dating black men? But one of his best, beloved friends was OJ? Maybe the rumor just isn't true.

.

No, but I remember that particular little factoid about Nicole Brown Simpson's father's feelings about black people. That was until OJ got him that Hertz hook up though. Edited February 19, 2016 by charmed1

[Jel]

Has anyone else ever heard that Robert Kardashian disapproved of his daughters dating black men? But one of his best, beloved friends was OJ? Maybe the rumor just isn't true.

I had not heard that before, but I did find this:

 

http://bossip.com/1096432/kanye-rob-kardashian-kim-kardashian-black-baby/

 

The first comment (that's as far as I read in the comments) says that Kim had said on her blog that her dad wanted her to date Armenian men, fwtw.

[DangerousMinds]

Sure Kanye, Robert Kardashian was the "genius" behind OJ's "dream team." SMDH.

[RedheadZombie]

ETA I think the reason people leave Ron's name out isn't that we've forgotten him or he didn't matter.  I think it's because Nicole was the reason for the murders.  If Ron had been the target and Nicole the unlucky one who just was there, maybe people would say his name first.  A celeb killing Ron probably wouldn't have had this much attention, for obvious reasons, but ...

  

It's the truth. It's the same for the four people killed along with Sharon Tate.

 Except Sharon Tate wasn't the target. Manson wanted Candice Bergen's boyfriend killed, but he no longer owned the house. It was a total fluke.

 

I hadn't thought of that.  The stunning blonde will always get first billing I guess.  Or stunning woman.

I'm sure her looks played a part,'but I think the fact that she was pregnant and married to a very famous director turned it into a media circus.

[Umbelina]

 

RK doesn't seem upset about the verdict in this interview.

[Jel]

OMG Umbelina! I cannot believe you posted that -- I remember that interview!  When he said :

 

"For a man who spent 15 months in prison and, uh, was found innocent."

 

I remember thinking at the time, "why didn't he say,  'a man who spent 15 months in jail for a crime he didn't commit'" if he really believed "the Juice" was innocent.

 

Something about it seemed off, still does.

[Avaleigh]

I'm enjoying all of the posts in this thread and on this series. 

 

As far as my opinions on the Kardashians--

 

I'm fine with the decision to include in a minor capacity but it seems like they're going to be included in every episode and I'm not quite sure why it's necessary. The chanting of the Kardashian name (as if people don't hear the name enough) seemed like a universal eyeroll moment where even the Kardashians would be cringing. I'm amazed that the chanting bit was apparently okayed by multiple people. 

 

The other point that I keep returning to is how minimal the story of Sydney and Justin (or the Brown and Goldman families) is in favor of focusing on the Kardashian children. The Simpson kids would have been a lot more effected so it seems like there should be a little more of that than what we're seeing of the K kids. That isn't to say that I think every episode should have scenes of the Simpson children just that I find it puzzling that there'd be less emphasis on the children who were directly effected by the tragedy and trial. JMO. 

[Jel]

I'm enjoying all of the posts in this thread and on this series. 

 

As far as my opinions on the Kardashians--

 

I'm fine with the decision to include in a minor capacity but it seems like they're going to be included in every episode and I'm not quite sure why it's necessary. The chanting of the Kardashian name (as if people don't hear the name enough) seemed like a universal eyeroll moment where even the Kardashians would be cringing. I'm amazed that the chanting bit was apparently okayed by multiple people. 

 

The other point that I keep returning to is how minimal the story of Sydney and Justin (or the Brown and Goldman families) is in favor of focusing on the Kardashian children. The Simpson kids would have been a lot more effected so it seems like there should be a little more of that than what we're seeing of the K kids. That isn't to say that I think every episode should have scenes of the Simpson children just that I find it puzzling that there'd be less emphasis on the children who were directly effected by the tragedy and trial. JMO. 

I find that puzzling, too. Perhaps we'll see more of them and less of the Kardashian kids as the story rolls along. We can hope, right?

 

And the chanting bit was approved by multiple people!? Deets, please, Avaleigh!

[Avaleigh]

I find that puzzling, too. Perhaps we'll see more of them and less of the Kardashian kids as the story rolls along. We can hope, right?

 

And the chanting bit was approved by multiple people!? Deets, please, Avaleigh!

I meant through the script writing process, the shooting process, and the editing process it seems like choice to include these Kardashian scenes isn't the decision of just one person. 

[Jel]

I meant through the script writing process, the shooting process, and the editing process it seems like choice to include these Kardashian scenes isn't the decision of just one person. 

<Smacking my forehead> That makes sense.

 

Can't lie -- was kinda hoping for a Konspiracy.

[Mittengirl]

I don't think we will see much of the Simpson kids because they were very sheltered by the Browns. I don't recall seeing them much in the time covered by the show. I am not sure what they could show that could be corroborated by anyone outside of the family. And frankly, I don't want to see anything based on speculation. Those kids (adults, now) don't deserve to have their lives exploited for mass media.

[Kromm]

I don't think we will see much of the Simpson kids because they were very sheltered by the Browns. I don't recall seeing them much in the time covered by the show. I am not sure what they could show that could be corroborated by anyone outside of the family. And frankly, I don't want to see anything based on speculation. Those kids (adults, now) don't deserve to have their lives exploited for mass media.

About 2/3rds of what we've seen so far is largely uncorroborated. 

[Mittengirl]

Sure, but I am talking specifically about the Simpson kids. They don't deserve to have people making up things about the biggest tragedy of their very young lives.

[7isBlue]

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.

The lasting impression I have of Robert Kardashian is of someone who, I believe, helped OJ to hide or destroy evidence. He was a shady character to me then and now. It bugs me to see him portrayed as a morally "pure" person. I think it was (he was) much more complicated.

[Dejana]

The other point that I keep returning to is how minimal the story of Sydney and Justin (or the Brown and Goldman families) is in favor of focusing on the Kardashian children. The Simpson kids would have been a lot more effected so it seems like there should be a little more of that than what we're seeing of the K kids. That isn't to say that I think every episode should have scenes of the Simpson children just that I find it puzzling that there'd be less emphasis on the children who were directly effected by the tragedy and trial. JMO. 

 

I wonder if there was a deliberate creative decision to limit the portrayals of the Simpson and Brown families here. The previews for next week showed a clip of Fred Goldman, but in the context of interacting with Marcia Clark. Jordana Brewster filmed the funeral scene and will probably appear again when Denise testifies at the trial. I believe a girl has been cast to play Sydney, but IDK if this series is ever going to do a lot of scenes with the families at home, grieving or venting about the case. If we see them in the series, maybe it will only be when they're around the figures this show has chosen to elevate.

 

The families weren't consulted and don't seem to like the concept of the series at all. Perhaps their objections would be getting even more attention if they were major "characters" in the show. For every viewer saying that stories of the Goldman/Brown families are more essential to the narrative than that of the Kardashians, another might find it super exploitative or going "too far" to show scenes where the Goldmans are notified, or Sydney and Justin are told their mother is never coming back, or ask the grown-ups, "Where's Daddy?" For better or worse, the remaining Kardashains have chosen to live their lives in the limelight; the same isn't true for Sydney and Justin.

 

The series does seem to portray the Kardashian kids as more youthful and naive than they would have been at the time. Kourtney was 15, Kim, a rising freshman in high school, and Khloe, almost 10. All certainly old enough not to run around, noisily playing at a funeral for a close family friend, or for the takeaway from Dad reading Uncle Juice's suicide note on TV as OJ is accused of double murder to be, "Yay, Daddy's on TV, now let's show some family pride!" If I tilt my head and squint, maybe it's meant to be a sly commentary on how they're now the sort of people who seem to thrive on getting their names out there and see all publicity as good, regardless of the context?

Edited February 20, 2016 by Dejana

[DangerousMinds]

OMG Umbelina! I cannot believe you posted that -- I remember that interview!  When he said :

 

"For a man who spent 15 months in prison and, uh, was found innocent."

 

I remember thinking at the time, "why didn't he say,  'a man who spent 15 months in jail for a crime he didn't commit'" if he really believed "the Juice" was innocent.

 

Something about it seemed off, still does.

As a lawyer, he should know that "not guilty" does not equal innocent.

[BBDi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNHwQLidAzE

RK doesn't seem upset about the verdict in this interview.

Well he certainly sounds like he has convinced himself that OJ is innocent in that interview. If so, I wonder at what point he stopped believing?

Watching that interview reminded me why I had such a low opinion of him.

Edited February 20, 2016 by BBDi

[Dev F]

With respect to writers liberties in this story, I think the crux of our disagreement lies in the age old "historian v. artist" issue.  To use an extreme example, let me ask -- If the writers have a very good, amazingly good, giant mirror to society, jaw droppingly beautiful, artistic, dramatic-based reason for changing the ending and making it so OJ is found guilty would that be within bounds? I think most people would say no for this particular tv show, yes to a work of fiction, but no to this one because the history will trump the creative license, because ultimately this is a work of non fiction. Making RK the centre of this story, in any capacity, is too much artistry and not enough history. 

 

Yeah, I think this is definitely the heart of our disagreement. To me, this series is not nonfiction; it's "based on a true story." It's not history; it's literature. I wouldn't look to it for a scrupulous factual narrative anymore than I'd read Macbeth to learn the true history of the kings of Scotland.

 

That doesn't mean I think the writers have carte blanche to change anything they feel like. Heck, even if the series were based on a fictional story, I would expect it not to betray everything the original story was trying to say. In that sense, I think changing the story of OJ Simpson so that he's found guilty in the end would be just as egregiously stupid as, say, changing the ending of The Scarlet Letter so that Hester and Dimmsdale are rescued by Indians and ride off together into the sunset. But I'm totally fine with smaller changes, as long as they remain true to the spirit of the actual events.

 

Of course, everyone has his or her own opinion about where the line is, what represents reasonable dramatic liberty and what would be straying too far. That's true regardless of whether the source material is fiction or nonfiction -- as the arguments over in the Game of Thrones folder make pretty clear. :p

Edited February 22, 2016 by Dev F

[smiley13]

IMO, unless one of the children was a witness at the trial, there is no reason at all for them to be shown again.  Enough is enough.

 

I guess we will have to suffer through more of "Kris", but she really was at the trial.  So will we see Bruce at her side?

[helenamonster]

I don't think they bothered casting Caitlyn-formerly-Bruce. Probably for the best, you know if they did they wouldn't be able to resist some prescient transgender joke.

[ennui]

I had a thought tonight. I was watching Entertainment Tonight, and they had a clip of Kris being booed at the I[heart]Radio concert. Maybe this “a-ha” connection (Kardashian, OJ Simpson) will result in some sort of backlash, even though Kris believed OJ was guilty. Maybe we’re set for a collective, “Oh. THAT Kardashian.”

[7isBlue]

I had a thought tonight. I was watching Entertainment Tonight, and they had a clip of Kris being booed at the I[heart]Radio concert. Maybe this “a-ha” connection (Kardashian, OJ Simpson) will result in some sort of backlash, even though Kris believed OJ was guilty. Maybe we’re set for a collective, “Oh. THAT Kardashian.”

One can only hope!

[smiley13]

I had a thought tonight. I was watching Entertainment Tonight, and they had a clip of Kris being booed at the I[heart]Radio concert. Maybe this “a-ha” connection (Kardashian, OJ Simpson) will result in some sort of backlash, even though Kris believed OJ was guilty. Maybe we’re set for a collective, “Oh. THAT Kardashian.”

I find it hard to believe that people have not been aware of the OJ/Kardashian connection all of these years.  This is not a new revelation. As much as I dislike Kris and the spawn, I am not sure why this would cause a "backlash."  

[MargotWendice]

I find it hard to believe that people have not been aware of the OJ/Kardashian connection all of these years.  This is not a new revelation. As much as I dislike Kris and the spawn, I am not sure why this would cause a "backlash."  

Surely most of their fans are in their early/mid-20s, right? I can believe many of them have no idea who Robert Kardashian was. Heck, I was sitting next to three 22ish aged guys the other night and they were talking about this show. They did not seem to know it was based on real events (!). 

But I do agree that any kind of anti-Kardashian backlash is unlikely.

[RedheadZombie]

I wonder how the Kardashian kids feel about their father's portrayal. They, along with Kris, have always portrayed him as almost Saint-like. The show portrays him more as a charicature. He's almost buffoon-like, dumb as a post, naive, blindly loyal, and prone to life lesson speeches about virtuous hearts. Sure he's portrayed as sweet and kind, but also an imbecile. What do they think? He had to have been a decent guy, because Kris throws all exes of the family under the bus - except him.

[BBDi]

I wonder how the Kardashian kids feel about their father's portrayal. They, along with Kris, have always portrayed him as almost Saint-like. The show portrays him more as a charicature. He's almost buffoon-like, dumb as a post, naive, blindly loyal, and prone to life lesson speeches about virtuous hearts. Sure he's portrayed as sweet and kind, but also an imbecile. What do they think? He had to have been a decent guy, because Kris throws all exes of the family under the bus - except him.

He sounds like he was a caring and loving father, and I think that's how they remember him.

I don't take anything Kris J says at face value, though. I think maybe because Robert was a regular guy with a professional job KJ uses him to lend an air of respectability to the family. (Like, he actually worked for a living.)

At the same time, KJ gets the benefit of being able to claim a certain moral superiority bc she stood up for Nicole while he defended a murderer.

I am guessing the kids really loved him and that his memory is useful to KJ.

[choclatechip45]

I saw a clip floating around from Khloe's new show she claimed she hadn't watched it. She also mentioned in the same clip she felt bad for Sydney and Justin about the show airing. I believe Khloe/Rob would play with Sydney/Justin when they were younger.

[Umbelina]

The two families also took vacations together, as the show mentions, OJ was even Godfather to one of their kids.  They were close, both kids, and adults.