S01.E02: The Big Three

[Randomosity]

8 hours ago, zumpie said:

1) Actually it was implied Jack works somehow in construction as a supervisor, that doesn't necessarily pay all THAT great (especially then). And plenty of office jobs pay like crap. Just because he wears a tie (as some jobs still mandated "back in the day" doesn't mean he's well compensated.

2) As were/are many other women. Particularly working class white women tend to (even now) be SAHMs more often than not (despite their family needing the money far more than better off counterparts). A spouse not working isn't always the sole indicator of the other spouse's ability to provide. Childcare would be prohibitive for three kids, BTW.

3) A) We don't know they own it, we just know they live in it. B) It's a dilapidated dump (and I say this as someone who likes older homes and lives in one). The cabinets are all scuffed up and dingy, there's little furniture and what's there is also old and worn. The rooms are generally minimally decorated and the kids seem to not have much stuff. Everyone's clothes look worn, faded and old.

4) My step-father was a raging alcoholic and thus frequently unemployed----he still managed to find the $$$ for drinking AND both he and my mom were pot heads. Even when we had no food (and were eventually evicted when they failed to pay the rent for almost a year/routinely had our electricity and phone shut off, etc), there was always money for that (it's called being an addict). Just because they had the cash that day to cover things doesn't mean they didn't regularly pay their rent late.

He could've run a tab at the bar (if you're a regular not unusual) or opened an instant credit account at Sears. Plus, she probably liked the necklace, so was willing to overlook that----and she's fiscally irresponsible enough to NOT get a part time job (which wouldn't incur childcare costs) to help out with the bills. Or to even paint or polish (or have Jack do so) the cabinets.

And this is all in a fairly low income/low cost, rust belt city.

I actually thought the set designers and costumers did an excellent job of depicting them as very lower middle class, not being able to quite make ends meet even at that and the pressures sending Jack to crawl into a bottle.

I didn't read them as poor or particularly low in the middle class at all. Granted, I wasn't scrutinizing appliances, cabinets, or furniture very closely, but nothing jumped out as out of the ordinary. I'm essentially the same age as the triplets. We had a 3 bedroom house (owned, not rented) in the suburbs of a medium city in the Northeast, and my father was a supervisor in a food production plant (no tie to work, that's for sure). My mother worked until my younger brother was born, then stayed home until he was 5 or 6. My father still owns the same house, and it still has brown kitchen appliances, beat up cabinets, red-orange carpets, and wood paneled walls in the family room from the '70s because everything is functioning and we didn't make the superficial appearance of our kitchen/couch a financial priority. So you'd probably have pinned us as poor based on looks. (Who knew I lived in a dump!) Our money just went to experiences instead. My brother and I played travel ice hockey ($$$), I danced competitively ($$$), and we both participated in other sports/activities that were not even close to free. We owned two cars at a time and took family vacations. Plus we had large dogs with large vet bills. We were solid middle middle class, not rich but not struggling.

You may well be right in thinking they're struggling financially if it comes out in future episodes; I just don't think the 'evidence' you provided was actually evidence. The kids had juice boxes and Froot Loops - likely luxuries for a very poor family, and not the routine they seemed to be. Regarding the 'stuff' the kids did or didn't have, kids back then played outside a whole lot more and had less stuff in general, given what I know of my family and my friends back then. My favorite possessions in the mid-80s were my bike and my books. Bike wouldn't have been in my bedroom for a TV audience to see and books don't take up much space.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

/my2cents

 

ETA: I re-watched the scenes in the '80s house. Still no indication whatsoever to me that they were poor. My first thought was "Hey, I think we had that vintage crockpot!" Randall even had what appeared to be a soccer trophy on the bookshelf next to his bed - seems Rebecca's a regular old middle class soccer mom. (I will concede that I noticed they were not brand-name Froot Loops, more like Fruitee-Os or something.)

Edited October 2, 2016 by Randomosity
Scene re-watch

[PRgal]

25 minutes ago, Randomosity said:

I didn't read them as poor or particularly low in the middle class at all. Granted, I wasn't scrutinizing appliances, cabinets, or furniture very closely, but nothing jumped out as out of the ordinary. I'm essentially the same age as the triplets. We had a 3 bedroom house (owned, not rented) in the suburbs of a medium city in the Northeast, and my father was a supervisor in a food production plant (no tie to work, that's for sure). My mother worked until my younger brother was born, then stayed home until he was 5 or 6. My father still owns the same house, and it still has brown kitchen appliances, beat up cabinets, red-orange carpets, and wood paneled walls in the family room from the '70s because everything is functioning and we didn't make the superficial appearance of our kitchen/couch a financial priority. So you'd probably have pinned us as poor based on looks. (Who knew I lived in a dump!) Our money just went to experiences instead. My brother and I played travel ice hockey ($$$), I danced competitively ($$$), and we both participated in other sports/activities that were not even close to free. We owned two cars at a time and took family vacations. Plus we had large dogs with large vet bills. We were solid middle middle class, not rich but not struggling.

You may well be right in thinking they're struggling financially if it comes out in future episodes; I just don't think the 'evidence' you provided was actually evidence. The kids had juice boxes and Froot Loops - likely luxuries for a very poor family, and not the routine they seemed to be. Regarding the 'stuff' the kids did or didn't have, kids back then played outside a whole lot more and had less stuff in general, given what I know of my family and my friends back then. My favorite possessions in the mid-80s were my bike and my books. Bike wouldn't have been in my bedroom for a TV audience to see and books don't take up much space.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

/my2cents

I didn't read the family as working class either.  When I think working class (at least from a TV perspective), I think the the Connors.  Jack/Rebecca/kids seemed more middle class - especially with their branded food (I saw cereal by Post (do they even exist anymore?  Everything seems to either be Kellogg's or General Mills now)).   However, with three kids and Rebecca not working (is she?), it would be a bit more of a struggle than with a dual income.  And with Jack drinking, it only makes things worse.  As for what *I* had as a kid back then - I'm an only child and both my parents worked in white collar type jobs at the management to upper-management level, so things were a bit different.  Money for me was spent on piano lessons ($$$) and I entered at least one competition annually ($$$) - not to mention my VERY TRADITIONAL Eastern European teacher expected ALL her kids to dress up for recitals (my mom always bought me a new dress for this, so more $$$).  I took skating and ballet for about a year ($$$) and was sent to Chinese school ($$$) until I was eight (circa 1988).  Later, they sent me to Kumon (then math only) and a tutor (circa 1990) because they wanted me to attend a private preparatory school ($$$$$). They also had to support my mom's parents, who were living with us ($$$).  I DID get some of the trendy toys (a Cabbage Patch and a few Care Bears, but no Teddy Ruxpin (mom thought he was a waste of money since it wasn't JUST the bear, but tapes, too.  And she probably thought he was downright CREEPY) or video games (much later, in 1990, I was SOOOO JEALOUS of my cousin's Gameboy.  I begged for one, but she said it would ruin my eyes due to the small screen.  Guess who loves to download games on her phone?  Clue:  NOT me)  She got the family a computer instead), but my favourite things were my crayons/art supplies (mostly sets of 48+ colours (including a lovely spinning crayon holder with a sharpener in the middle)) and my Sweet Valley Twins/BSC books.  We had a swing set in the backyard (one of those things you buy at Sears or Canadian Tire and have to assemble at home.  I don't think the set would be considered safe today) and I also owned a bike.  I mostly played in the backyard, but also went to the park across the street.  We had branded food at home, but little of the sugary stuff the kids on the show were eating.  Mind you, we've only seen one episode set in the 80s, so we don't know exactly what else they have in the home. 

[Randomosity]

3 minutes ago, PRgal said:

Rebecca not working (is she?)

Do we even know that for sure? I don't actually think it was said either way. Even if she was the primary care-taker of the kids, she still could have worked some. Some friends of mine growing up had moms that would work part time in school libraries or cafeterias so they'd have the same hours as the kids were in school and could go home when the kids went home.

I think we're getting way caught up in the details at this point. That said, I had Care Bears, Cabbage Patch Kids, Gameboy, and a swingset too. Ah, the good old days :D

[zumpie]

  59 minutes ago, Randomosity said:

I didn't read them as poor or particularly low in the middle class at all. Granted, I wasn't scrutinizing appliances, cabinets, or furniture very closely, but nothing jumped out as out of the ordinary. I'm essentially the same age as the triplets. We had a 3 bedroom house (owned, not rented) in the suburbs of a medium city in the Northeast, and my father was a supervisor in a food production plant (no tie to work, that's for sure). My mother worked until my younger brother was born, then stayed home until he was 5 or 6. My father still owns the same house, and it still has brown kitchen appliances, beat up cabinets, red-orange carpets, and wood paneled walls in the family room from the '70s because everything is functioning and we didn't make the superficial appearance of our kitchen/couch a financial priority. So you'd probably have pinned us as poor based on looks. (Who knew I lived in a dump!) Our money just went to experiences instead. My brother and I played travel ice hockey ($$$), I danced competitively ($$$), and we both participated in other sports/activities that were not even close to free. We owned two cars at a time and took family vacations. Plus we had large dogs with large vet bills. We were solid middle middle class, not rich but not struggling.

You may well be right in thinking they're struggling financially if it comes out in future episodes; I just don't think the 'evidence' you provided was actually evidence. The kids had juice boxes and Froot Loops - likely luxuries for a very poor family, and not the routine they seemed to be. Regarding the 'stuff' the kids did or didn't have, kids back then played outside a whole lot more and had less stuff in general, given what I know of my family and my friends back then. My favorite possessions in the mid-80s were my bike and my books. Bike wouldn't have been in my bedroom for a TV audience to see and books don't take up much space.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

/my2cents

I didn't read the family as working class either.  When I think working class (at least from a TV perspective), I think the the Connors.  Jack/Rebecca/kids seemed more middle class - especially with their branded food (I saw cereal by Post (do they even exist anymore?  Everything seems to either be Kellogg's or General Mills now)).   However, with three kids and Rebecca not working (is she?), it would be a bit more of a struggle than with a dual income.  And with Jack drinking, it only makes things worse.  As for what *I* had as a kid back then - I'm an only child and both my parents worked in white collar type jobs at the management to upper-management level, so things were a bit different.  Money for me was spent on piano lessons ($$$) and I entered at least one competition annually ($$$) - not to mention my VERY TRADITIONAL Eastern European teacher expected ALL her kids to dress up for recitals (my mom always bought me a new dress for this, so more $$$).  I took skating and ballet for about a year ($$$) and was sent to Chinese school ($$$) until I was eight (circa 1988).  Later, they sent me to Kumon (then math only) and a tutor (circa 1990) because they wanted me to attend a private preparatory school ($$$$$). They also had to support my mom's parents, who were living with us ($$$).  I DID get some of the trendy toys (a Cabbage Patch and a few Care Bears, but no Teddy Ruxpin (mom thought he was a waste of money since it wasn't JUST the bear, but tapes, too.  And she probably thought he was downright CREEPY) or video games (much later, in 1990, I was SOOOO JEALOUS of my cousin's Gameboy.  I begged for one, but she said it would ruin my eyes due to the small screen.  Guess who loves to download games on her phone?  Clue:  NOT me)  She got the family a computer instead), but my favourite things were my crayons/art supplies (mostly sets of 48+ colours (including a lovely spinning crayon holder with a sharpener in the middle)) and my Sweet Valley Twins/BSC books.  We had a swing set in the backyard (one of those things you buy at Sears or Canadian Tire and have to assemble at home.  I don't think the set would be considered safe today) and I also owned a bike.  I mostly played in the backyard, but also went to the park across the street.  We had branded food at home, but little of the sugary stuff the kids on the show were eating.  Mind you, we've only seen one episode set in the 80s, so we don't know exactly what else they have in the home. 

The Connors also typically had name brand food (as did my family generally and we were, at times, unquestionably poor) and beer in the fridge. And TBH, the Connors had more stuff, etc than Jack and Rebecca do, from what I could tell. They're definitely meant to be working class (and plenty of working class people DO own or rent houses---because working class/lower middle class isn't the same as "poor")----the set designers are very specific with that, particularly with old, worn and bare elements going on. And especially on TV, where ordinary middle class IS depicted as working class (at best) and borderline rich (in terms of home, etc) is middle class.

Nor is this simply looking at something that's 70's/80's versus now----cause I like classic 1970's interiors and never doubted the Foremans, for example, were meant to be anything other than middle class.

And what you've described is solidly middle class to even upper middle class---those are considerable luxuries (though much easier in a two income family with one kid, as I know personally in my current life)

[zumpie]

  18 minutes ago, PRgal said:

  1 hour ago, Randomosity said:

I didn't read them as poor or particularly low in the middle class at all. Granted, I wasn't scrutinizing appliances, cabinets, or furniture very closely, but nothing jumped out as out of the ordinary. I'm essentially the same age as the triplets. We had a 3 bedroom house (owned, not rented) in the suburbs of a medium city in the Northeast, and my father was a supervisor in a food production plant (no tie to work, that's for sure). My mother worked until my younger brother was born, then stayed home until he was 5 or 6. My father still owns the same house, and it still has brown kitchen appliances, beat up cabinets, red-orange carpets, and wood paneled walls in the family room from the '70s because everything is functioning and we didn't make the superficial appearance of our kitchen/couch a financial priority. So you'd probably have pinned us as poor based on looks. (Who knew I lived in a dump!) Our money just went to experiences instead. My brother and I played travel ice hockey ($$$), I danced competitively ($$$), and we both participated in other sports/activities that were not even close to free. We owned two cars at a time and took family vacations. Plus we had large dogs with large vet bills. We were solid middle middle class, not rich but not struggling.

You may well be right in thinking they're struggling financially if it comes out in future episodes; I just don't think the 'evidence' you provided was actually evidence. The kids had juice boxes and Froot Loops - likely luxuries for a very poor family, and not the routine they seemed to be. Regarding the 'stuff' the kids did or didn't have, kids back then played outside a whole lot more and had less stuff in general, given what I know of my family and my friends back then. My favorite possessions in the mid-80s were my bike and my books. Bike wouldn't have been in my bedroom for a TV audience to see and books don't take up much space.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

/my2cents

I didn't read the family as working class either.  When I think working class (at least from a TV perspective), I think the the Connors.  Jack/Rebecca/kids seemed more middle class - especially with their branded food (I saw cereal by Post (do they even exist anymore?  Everything seems to either be Kellogg's or General Mills now)).   However, with three kids and Rebecca not working (is she?), it would be a bit more of a struggle than with a dual income.  And with Jack drinking, it only makes things worse.  As for what *I* had as a kid back then - I'm an only child and both my parents worked in white collar type jobs at the management to upper-management level, so things were a bit different.  Money for me was spent on piano lessons ($$$) and I entered at least one competition annually ($$$) - not to mention my VERY TRADITIONAL Eastern European teacher expected ALL her kids to dress up for recitals (my mom always bought me a new dress for this, so more $$$).  I took skating and ballet for about a year ($$$) and was sent to Chinese school ($$$) until I was eight (circa 1988).  Later, they sent me to Kumon (then math only) and a tutor (circa 1990) because they wanted me to attend a private preparatory school ($$$$$). They also had to support my mom's parents, who were living with us ($$$).  I DID get some of the trendy toys (a Cabbage Patch and a few Care Bears, but no Teddy Ruxpin (mom thought he was a waste of money since it wasn't JUST the bear, but tapes, too.  And she probably thought he was downright CREEPY) or video games (much later, in 1990, I was SOOOO JEALOUS of my cousin's Gameboy.  I begged for one, but she said it would ruin my eyes due to the small screen.  Guess who loves to download games on her phone?  Clue:  NOT me)  She got the family a computer instead), but my favourite things were my crayons/art supplies (mostly sets of 48+ colours (including a lovely spinning crayon holder with a sharpener in the middle)) and my Sweet Valley Twins/BSC books.  We had a swing set in the backyard (one of those things you buy at Sears or Canadian Tire and have to assemble at home.  I don't think the set would be considered safe today) and I also owned a bike.  I mostly played in the backyard, but also went to the park across the street.  We had branded food at home, but little of the sugary stuff the kids on the show were eating.  Mind you, we've only seen one episode set in the 80s, so we don't know exactly what else they have in the home. 

The Connors also typically had name brand food (as did my family generally and we were, at times, unquestionably poor) and beer in the fridge. And TBH, the Connors had more stuff, etc than Jack and Rebecca do, from what I could tell. They're definitely meant to be working class (and plenty of working class people DO own or rent houses---because working class/lower middle class isn't the same as "poor")----the set designers are very specific with that, particularly with old, worn and bare elements going on. And especially on TV, where ordinary middle class IS depicted as working class (at best) and borderline rich (in terms of home, etc) is middle class.

Nor is this simply looking at something that's 70's/80's versus now----cause I like classic 1970's interiors and never doubted the Foremans, for example, were meant to be anything other than middle class.

And what you've described is solidly middle class to even upper middle class---those are considerable luxuries (though much easier in a two income family with one kid, as I know personally in my current life)

Oh also, about the juice boxes----pretty common and fairly cheap. We lived in a very economically diverse neighborhood (Portland's like that) and some of the really poor kids still had juice boxes. Just because money's tight doesn't mean you manage it effectively

[jennifer6973]

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

I didn't read the family as working class either.  When I think working class (at least from a TV perspective), I think the the Connors.  Jack/Rebecca/kids seemed more middle class - especially with their branded food (I saw cereal by Post (do they even exist anymore?  Everything seems to either be Kellogg's or General Mills now)).   However, with three kids and Rebecca not working (is she?), it would be a bit more of a struggle than with a dual income.  And with Jack drinking, it only makes things worse.  As for what *I* had as a kid back then - I'm an only child and both my parents worked in white collar type jobs at the management to upper-management level, so things were a bit different.  Money for me was spent on piano lessons ($$$) and I entered at least one competition annually ($$$) - not to mention my VERY TRADITIONAL Eastern European teacher expected ALL her kids to dress up for recitals (my mom always bought me a new dress for this, so more $$$).  I took skating and ballet for about a year ($$$) and was sent to Chinese school ($$$) until I was eight (circa 1988).  Later, they sent me to Kumon (then math only) and a tutor (circa 1990) because they wanted me to attend a private preparatory school ($$$$$). They also had to support my mom's parents, who were living with us ($$$).  I DID get some of the trendy toys (a Cabbage Patch and a few Care Bears, but no Teddy Ruxpin (mom thought he was a waste of money since it wasn't JUST the bear, but tapes, too.  And she probably thought he was downright CREEPY) or video games (much later, in 1990, I was SOOOO JEALOUS of my cousin's Gameboy.  I begged for one, but she said it would ruin my eyes due to the small screen.  Guess who loves to download games on her phone?  Clue:  NOT me)  She got the family a computer instead), but my favourite things were my crayons/art supplies (mostly sets of 48+ colours (including a lovely spinning crayon holder with a sharpener in the middle)) and my Sweet Valley Twins/BSC books.  We had a swing set in the backyard (one of those things you buy at Sears or Canadian Tire and have to assemble at home.  I don't think the set would be considered safe today) and I also owned a bike.  I mostly played in the backyard, but also went to the park across the street.  We had branded food at home, but little of the sugary stuff the kids on the show were eating.  Mind you, we've only seen one episode set in the 80s, so we don't know exactly what else they have in the home. 

Post Cereals still exist, because I have a box of Honeycombs I snack on.

[Marsupial]

Quote

I differ from most people here and I really like Toby.  He offers some fun and light-hearted joie de vive to Kate, who seems to be in a dark place right now,

Completely agree, I like Toby and think he and Kate are great together.

[Clawdette]

The highlight of the episode for me was when I heard the first two faint guitar notes as Blind Faith's "Can't find my way home," played out to the end. That song, for me, is so evocative of the times - it was released at the end of the 60s.  

"And I'm wasted and I can't find my way home."

[Big Mother]

I have a few words to say on this show: Great stories, TERRIBLE acting.

[Big Mother]

Whoa! This twist shocked me a lot more. My mind is blown.

[zumpie]

I have a few words to say on this show: Great stories, TERRIBLE acting.

I honestly think the exact opposite: the story lines are cliched, full of plot holes, etc....conversely, while the characters aren't terribly well written, the actors are really good and I feel kinda bad for them. Again, it's Parenthood 2.0 for me----a bunch of actors I previously adored, all in roles that quickly changed my opinions (except for Bonnie Bedelia's character, I still liked her)

[ChromaKelly]

Two episodes in and this might just be too schmaltzy for me. I kind of hate everyone, except Randall and his family. Too much stuff to handwave.

How did Jack and Rebecca bring home an infant to adopt with no homestudy, not even in the process of adopting? Yes, this was 36 years ago but these procedures were still in place. Plus, Randall was born to an addict, and even though not all children born addicted have cognitive deficits, they still have issues as infants. Particularly that they have addiction symptoms and have to go through withdrawal. I can't see anyone thinking to would be a good idea to send an addicted newborn home with parents of twins, who are also grieving the baby who didn't make it. And, I'm 43, I was born via emergency c-section. C-sections were definitely a thing, I don't know why the triplets were allowed to go vaginally. Bedrest was also a thing. If anything, 36 years ago a high-risk pregnancy like that would have been in the hospital.

Anyway, yeah Kevin I'm not having any sympathy for. Just do arty projects on the side. Kate, she's all right but I'm done with Toby. I don't like Jack and Rebecca much. "Be nice to your brother". Needed to be more forceful than that. Tell him exactly how hurtful and shitty he is being. Disclaimer - I'm a white adoptive parent with biological twins and an adopted son, although he's not an artificial triplet. I am interested to see how some of the race issues will play out, if they go there.

[Tiger]

I dont think weve either of the following yet:

Does anyone else think that Beth called Rebecca and asked her to "stop by" because she is still untrusting of William?

Does anyone else think there is a lot more to that temporary blindness story?

The way SKW played the scene was as if Beth realized she was revealing too much and changed and brushed over some major details.

[Clanstarling]

47 minutes ago, Tiger said:

I dont think weve either of the following yet:

Does anyone else think that Beth called Rebecca and asked her to "stop by" because she is still untrusting of William?

Does anyone else think there is a lot more to that temporary blindness story?

The way SKW played the scene was as if Beth realized she was revealing too much and changed and brushed over some major details.

It never occurred to me that Beth called Rebecca. At the most base level, it's kind of snitching to your MIL about your husband (who Beth seems fiercely protective of). On the other hand, maybe she does feel the need to pull in the big guns. Too early to say.

I absolutely thought there was more to the temporary blindness story. Coupled with the erratic behavior, I wondered if maybe he had a brain tumor, but then she said something that put that somewhat in the past, so I'm not sure. But as you pointed out, she may have been brushing over some details. I knew one person who had temporary blindness during a trip, and never went to see a doctor about it. I thought she was crazy for not doing that, but she seemed perfectly healthy years later (when she told me the story).

[Neurochick]

I didn't see Randall being hostile to Miguel.  I watched that scene a few times.  I think Randall sees Miguel as just that, Miguel, not dad.  Do we know if Rebecca has remarried?  Is this a new relationship for her?  I saw how she wore the necklace and I can't see her wearing the necklace if she and Jack divorced.  Perhaps Jack is dead or in a nursing home?  

But the question for me is, will we get to see Milo with old age makeup?

BTW, I thought they made Mandy Moore look TOO old; she's only supposed to be in her early 70's and they made her look like she was older than 80 to me.

Quote

Plus, Randall was born to an addict, and even though not all children born addicted have cognitive deficits, they still have issues as infants. Particularly that they have addiction symptoms and have to go through withdrawal. I can't see anyone thinking to would be a good idea to send an addicted newborn home with parents of twins, who are also grieving the baby who didn't make it.

Over twenty years ago, I volunteered in the neonatal unit in a city hospital; they needed people to feed and hold newborns born addicted to whatever drugs their mother was on.  Not all children born to addicted mothers have addiction symptoms, it depends on what drugs the mother was using and how often she did them; for all we know, Randall's mother could have done crack much later in her pregnancy.  The worst symptoms that I saw were fetal alcohol syndrome, and when the mother was cross addicted, oh and methadone was pretty bad too.  

As for them getting the infant so soon; what else would have happened to such a baby?  Remember this baby was abandoned, and really, if a family wanted said child, all it would have taken would be for them to be cleared by social services or something.  Remember, they also had basic things for a third newborn.  It would be better than going into an orphanage IMO.

I really like this show.  The thing is, I'm too used to watching shows on cable, that show the worst of humanity.  It's refreshing to see a show like this on TV that's not cynical about life.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Neurochick

[Clanstarling]

2 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

BTW, I thought they made Mandy Moore look TOO old; she's only supposed to be in her early 70's and they made her look like she was older than 80 to me.

To me, she looked more like the women I know who are in their early 70s, than the women I know in their 80s (live in a town with a very large retiree population). Then again, I was focused more on that wig...

[biakbiak]

19 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

I didn't see Randall being hostile to Miguel.  I watched that scene a few times.  I think Randall sees Miguel as just that, Miguel, not dad.  Do we know if Rebecca has remarried?  Is this a new relationship for her?  I saw how she wore the necklace and I can't see her wearing the necklace if she and Jack divorced.  Perhaps Jack is dead or in a nursing home?  

 

I didn't see the Randall as hostile to Miguel either, it seemed a warm ration just not as warm as response to his mother which makes perfect sense.

The kids called him grandpa (another indication that he isn't hostile to Miguel because parents usually decide what terms their children use to refer to other adukts) so I don't think it's that new of a relationship, I am guessing that they are married but I do know kids that refer to their grandparents long term partners as grandma or grandpa even if they are not actually married.

Edited October 2, 2016 by biakbiak

[ChromaKelly]

33 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

I didn't see Randall being hostile to Miguel.  I watched that scene a few times.  I think Randall sees Miguel as just that, Miguel, not dad.  Do we know if Rebecca has remarried?  Is this a new relationship for her?  I saw how she wore the necklace and I can't see her wearing the necklace if she and Jack divorced.  Perhaps Jack is dead or in a nursing home?  

But the question for me is, will we get to see Milo with old age makeup?

BTW, I thought they made Mandy Moore look TOO old; she's only supposed to be in her early 70's and they made her look like she was older than 80 to me.

Over twenty years ago, I volunteered in the neonatal unit in a city hospital; they needed people to feed and hold newborns born addicted to whatever drugs their mother was on.  Not all children born to addicted mothers have addiction symptoms, it depends on what drugs the mother was using and how often she did them; for all we know, Randall's mother could have done crack much later in her pregnancy.  The worst symptoms that I saw were fetal alcohol syndrome, and when the mother was cross addicted, oh and methadone was pretty bad too.  

As for them getting the infant so soon; what else would have happened to such a baby?  Remember this baby was abandoned, and really, if a family wanted said child, all it would have taken would be for them to be cleared by social services or something.  Remember, they also had basic things for a third newborn.  It would be better than going into an orphanage IMO.

I really like this show.  The thing is, I'm too used to watching shows on cable, that show the worst of humanity.  It's refreshing to see a show like this on TV that's not cynical about life.

This is the United States in 1979, there weren't orphanages. There were foster homes. That's what happens to abandoned babies. They call social services and they go to a foster trained home. Not a home where the parents are already going to have premature infant twins (Which, are a handful in and of themselves) PLUS a baby born addicted who may or may not have withdrawal symptoms. 
I know, I know, handwave. Just once I would like a show to get adoption right, at the very least the logistics of it.

[Neurochick]

8 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

This is the United States in 1979, there weren't orphanages. There were foster homes. That's what happens to abandoned babies. They call social services and they go to a foster trained home. Not a home where the parents are already going to have premature infant twins (Which, are a handful in and of themselves) PLUS a baby born addicted who may or may not have withdrawal symptoms. 
I know, I know, handwave. Just once I would like a show to get adoption right, at the very least the logistics of it.

What would happen if there weren't any families willing to take a newborn baby though?  I do remember an infant going to some kind of  foundling home because the mother surrendered her parental rights.

As for shows not getting things right; doesn't bother me at all.  I watched Law and Order and it NEVER got NYC or the grand jury system right.

[ShadowFacts]

10 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

This is the United States in 1979, there weren't orphanages. There were foster homes. That's what happens to abandoned babies. They call social services and they go to a foster trained home. Not a home where the parents are already going to have premature infant twins (Which, are a handful in and of themselves) PLUS a baby born addicted who may or may not have withdrawal symptoms. 
I know, I know, handwave. Just once I would like a show to get adoption right, at the very least the logistics of it.

I think that an emergency placement of an abandoned baby could have happened after social services did an expedited inspection, especially if the doctor/hospital and fire department gave a little push.  I don't find it too much to swallow, a quick Google search turned up a Pennsylvania document from 1980 that describes how it could have been done.  The Ob/gyn could have attested that these parents were ready and willing to take care of 3 newborns, and that would have carried some weight. 

[Neurochick]

4 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

I think that an emergency placement of an abandoned baby could have happened after social services did an expedited inspection, especially if the doctor/hospital and fire department gave a little push.  I don't find it too much to swallow, a quick Google search turned up a Pennsylvania document from 1980 that describes how it could have been done.  The Ob/gyn could have attested that these parents were ready and willing to take care of 3 newborns, and that would have carried some weight. 

I can see that happening.  I wonder how deep the show will get into this; but that depends on what the focus of the show will be.

I really dislike Kevin; he was a shit brother and IMO not much as changed as he's an adult.  What Kevin doesn't get is, he might think the sitcom he's on is "beneath" him, but there could be a person, somewhere going through hard times, an illness, a death and "The Manny" might be the only thing that makes them laugh.  You don't have to do "serious" TV/movies to make a difference.  

[Enigma X]

My sister is a foster parent, and I say the next thing as no reflection on her (she is a good one), but the standards and due diligence to be a foster parent and placing children in a home  is not high.

My widowed sister had three teenagers of her own. three foster children under 7, and was called to have two newborns placed in her custody for emergency placement.

Also, there is not one show being broadcast that gets it right because right would be called boring. I am ok with dramatic license being used.

[topanga]

20 hours ago, DollEyes said:

 

Two for two. This Is Us got off to a great start and this episode proves that last week's premiere wasn't just a fluke. If the premiere showed the foundations of Kevin, Kate & Randall's family, this episode showed some of the cracks.

 

ITA. I only watched the Pilot because I'm a SKB fan, but the whole show is working for me.

Umm...I know this is shallow...I've become a SKB fan, and I find him very attractive, but why are his lips always chapped? I understand that he and TV wife were standing out in the cold for their daughters' soccer game, probably filming that scene for hours. But his lips were also chapped when they were talking in bed. You'd think the make-up people--or the actress playing his wife--would mention this. I also saw SKB on a recent Carson Daly episode, and his lipped were also chapped. The man is an Emmy winner. Can we please give him some Vaseline before he goes on camera?

 

15 hours ago, Marsupial said:

Completely agree, I like Toby and think he and Kate are great together.

 

On September 29, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Corgi-ears said:

ther hand, I suspect that Chris Sullivan is padded for the role. Given this, and Kate's cranky comment at the gym about how she can't understand why Toby's losing weight and she's not, I have a guess about one direction their storyline might go

It's Tom Cleary (from 'The Knick'). The actor looked familiar, but I couldn't place him. Yeah, I like Toby. He's helping Kate see the lighter side of her situation (no pun intended). But he doesn't patronize her or try to minimize her feelings. And so far he's there for her throughout her family drama. Or maybe he just has a big crush on the Manny .

[random chance]

2 hours ago, ChromaKelly said:

"Be nice to your brother". Needed to be more forceful than that.

I know I'm biased because I have a nightmare of a brother and my whole life it was "be nice to your sister" with no followup and no enforcement, but yes, that is not enough. It's not even close to enough. I do wonder at this point, are we supposed to realize that or are we supposed to think "awww she's trying"? Because to me Kevin seems spoiled and self-centered, and it's not like they've gone out of their way to portray him as otherwise. It would be pretty refreshing if they were actually bad parents and this is the story of how they screwed up their kids.

[Clanstarling]

So I'm curious. I agree that "be nice to your brother" is kind of weak sauce. But if you think she's a bad parent - how do you think a good parent would handle it?

Having been on both sides of parenting, I've found that what works with one kid doesn't work with another. My experience has been that if I do what I thought my parents did right, it often backfires -  and if I do the opposite of what I thought they did wrong, it also often backfires.

One think I also think about in this particular case, is that Kevin was also an 8 year old boy, and the social pressures were hard on him as well. Not as hard, obviously, but still hard. How many 8 year kids have the strength of character to go against their friends?

Which doesn't mean I don't think grown Kevin is a bit douchey. I do.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Clanstarling

[jackjill89]

I have struggled with my weight my entire life. My much older sister put me on my first diet when I was 7. My mom bought into it. That stuff really screws with you. Kate telling her mom she'd been good and only eaten fruit all day. Oh lord, it broke my heart. Wanting to be the good daughter, being told you'll be happy if your thinner.  Flash forward 20+ years and she's still struggling. Yup. Show is getting that part right. 

[ShadowFacts]

2 hours ago, random chance said:

It would be pretty refreshing if they were actually bad parents and this is the story of how they screwed up their kids.

That made me laugh.  Here we are expecting a sweet/bittersweet family show, and what really happens is the Big 3 raise themselves while their parents' marriage flames out and one is an alcoholic and the other seeks comfort elsewhere.  It might be more interesting than some treacly stuff, but probably something in between The Waltons and train wreck is realistic. 

[random chance]

52 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

So I'm curious. I agree that "be nice to your brother" is kind of weak sauce. But if you think she's a bad parent - how do you think a good parent would handle it?

I'm not a parent either but I think a good start would be having actual consequences for your actions. If there are no consequences there's no reason for him to change his behavior. Also, assuming the kid isn't a sociopath, teaching him empathy couldn't hurt.

[Empress1]

3 hours ago, Enigma X said:

My sister is a foster parent, and I say the next thing as no reflection on her (she is a good one), but the standards and due diligence to be a foster parent and placing children in a home  is not high.

My widowed sister had three teenagers of her own. three foster children under 7, and was called to have two newborns placed in her custody for emergency placement.

Also, there is not one show being broadcast that gets it right because right would be called boring. I am ok with dramatic license being used.

My friend is a foster parent and I've known other people who are great foster parents, including some who adopted kids out of foster care (including transracial adoption - white parents adopting a black child), and ditto.

[Enigma X]

26 minutes ago, Empress1 said:

My friend is a foster parent and I've known other people who are great foster parents, including some who adopted kids out of foster care (including transracial adoption - white parents adopting a black child), and ditto.

My sister ended up adopting the kids (including the two "temporary" newborns) that I wrote about in my above post.

[queenanne]

On 9/28/2016 at 0:46 PM, luna1122 said:

I'm finding myself increasingly  annoyed by the fat girl storyline. It's as if it's her ONLY characteristic.   In this episode. she even SAYS 'the weight is everything, it's all i am', or something like that. Does she have a job? Friends? Pets? interests? Fat people manage to have all of the above, plus love interests, AND manage to not cry all the time, or only talk about food. I want to like her, and do like the actress, but so far she is strictly ONE dimenion: fat.

If Kate feels her entire life is built around obsessing about food and hating her size, then she feels it.  That's a valid point of view.  It may not be helpful or dramatically interesting and I don't necessarily condone it for a plot, but those people do exist. 

On 9/28/2016 at 4:53 PM, random chance said:

I agree with that. Lots of men hit their career strides in their thirties - like Chris Pratt and Benedict Cumberbatch. And he's a man so even after he isn't pretty enough anymore for a much younger romantic lead (which in Hollywood will be when he's dead), he's still got a long career ahead of him. Now if he were a 36 year old woman I'd say escape while you can, because it's almost too late.

I believe Jeremy Renner is a late bloomer/starter also, no?

On 9/29/2016 at 4:41 AM, Corgi-ears said:

On the other hand, I suspect that Chris Sullivan is padded for the role. Given this, and Kate's cranky comment at the gym about how she can't understand why Toby's losing weight and she's not, I have a guess about one direction their storyline might go.

 

On 9/29/2016 at 9:17 AM, random chance said:

What's your guess? I just figured it was a comment on how it's easier for men to lose weight.

I hope they do something like that because it would be too depressing to have her only storyline be losing weight, and then she never loses weight.

True and likely, but since it is true, I'm kind of surprised they didn’t just up and have Toby's character say it out loud.  That would strike me as more interesting and less self-defeatist.  Studies have even recently said that for severely overweight people to lose weight and keep it off, that's what it takes; being a vigilante about exercise and every calorie you put in your mouth.  You would have to be thinking about nothing but food.  Just because you'd be thinking about nothing but healthy food and it's the opposite of thinking about junk food, doesn't make it a different principle; your life still rotates around what you are and aren't putting in your mouth.  (Which is one of the prime reasons that despite gaining 35 pounds after I quit smoking, I've not yet signed up for the likes of a juicing delivery system etc.)

On 9/30/2016 at 10:18 AM, luna1122 said:

Wikipedia says Kate is Kevin's personal assistant. Hmm. We haven't seen any actual evidence of that. Yeah, you'd think she'd have been onset when he had his meltdown. At any rate, it doesn't seem like a great idea, being your brother's assistant. Or not, I don't know.

Maybe this was in an early script draft and they dispensed with it? I feel this largely because I feel Kate was pretty bald to Kevin in the bathroom scene, that she hates her job, which it seems off she would say that to her boss.  Plus, you would think he would lay on it as a point of order when trying to drag her to the agent's party.

[Clanstarling]

14 minutes ago, queenanne said:

Studies have even recently said that for severely overweight people to lose weight and keep it off, that's what it takes; being a vigilante about exercise and every calorie you put in your mouth.  You would have to be thinking about nothing but food.  Just because you'd be thinking about nothing but healthy food and it's the opposite of thinking about junk food, doesn't make it a different principle; your life still rotates around what you are and aren't putting in your mouth.

This. This is what it's like when you struggle with your weight all through your life. Getting down to "normal" doesn't make it go away, it keeps on. It's freaking exhausting. You can have all sorts of wonderful things in your life, but you have to always be on guard - parties, dinners out, baked goods in the snack room at work, walking down the aisles at the grocery store. It's a constant barrage.

[random chance]

10 minutes ago, queenanne said:

 Studies have even recently said that for severely overweight people to lose weight and keep it off, that's what it takes; being a vigilante about exercise and every calorie you put in your mouth.  You would have to be thinking about nothing but food.  Just because you'd be thinking about nothing but healthy food and it's the opposite of thinking about junk food, doesn't make it a different principle; your life still rotates around what you are and aren't putting in your mouth.

True, and that's forever, not just until you lose weight.

[Randomosity]

2 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

This. This is what it's like when you struggle with your weight all through your life. Getting down to "normal" doesn't make it go away, it keeps on. It's freaking exhausting. You can have all sorts of wonderful things in your life, but you have to always be on guard - parties, dinners out, baked goods in the snack room at work, walking down the aisles at the grocery store. It's a constant barrage.

Yep. What works best for me to lose/keep pounds off is counting every single thing I eat. I have a running document on google so I can enter things in my phone. If I end up eating something random, I log it and calories get looked up later. (Exercise also gets logged in a separate one.) I end up planning my daily menu weeks in advance, making a lot of portioned frozen meals (chili, soup, etc) so they're ready to go and harder to have seconds. Meals out mean looking at the restaurant's menu in advance to figure out what's most reasonable, even if it's just estimating calorie counts, as it's mostly just chains that have it posted. A random cookie someone brings to work means mentally calculating what you then have to drop from later in the day's menu. So I'm not always thinking about food - I've mitigated that by already having the day's food planned well in advance. I eat what my 'menu' says I can that day, with a little wiggle room for adjustments. I donate platelets every few weeks - those are my splurge days. Extra calories are not only allowed, but required so I don't pass out :)

So I have no problem with a plot that has Kate super-focused on food/exercise/weight. It's real.

[ChromaKelly]

3 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

So I'm curious. I agree that "be nice to your brother" is kind of weak sauce. But if you think she's a bad parent - how do you think a good parent would handle it?

Having been on both sides of parenting, I've found that what works with one kid doesn't work with another. My experience has been that if I do what I thought my parents did right, it often backfires -  and if I do the opposite of what I thought they did wrong, it also often backfires.

One think I also think about in this particular case, is that Kevin was also an 8 year old boy, and the social pressures were hard on him as well. Not as hard, obviously, but still hard. How many 8 year kids have the strength of character to go against their friends?

Which doesn't mean I don't think grown Kevin is a bit douchey. I do.

Telling him exactly why calling Randall "Webster" is hurtful, for starters. I have biological twins and an adopted black son, so my family makeup is very similar. I have been honest with them about how their brother feels at times being the only adopted child, the only child of color, the loss he has experienced in his life. My daughters have had other kids say things to them like "That can't be your brother" "Why are you hanging around that black boy?" and such. They always sticks up for him and I am so proud of them. Of course they have normal sibling disputes and they name-call and get on each other's nerves, but the girls have never teased him based on him being adopted. The impact of adoption on the bio siblings isn't something that generally gets explored on TV, so I am interested to see that. Granted, the mentality at the time was more like, let's pretend the child is not adopted so maybe that's why Rebecca didn't get into it further than "be nice".

[Empress1]

1 hour ago, Enigma X said:

My sister ended up adopting the kids (including the two "temporary" newborns) that I wrote about in my above post.

WOW - she adopted five kids? Bless her, for real.

[PRgal]

32 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

Telling him exactly why calling Randall "Webster" is hurtful, for starters. I have biological twins and an adopted black son, so my family makeup is very similar. I have been honest with them about how their brother feels at times being the only adopted child, the only child of color, the loss he has experienced in his life. My daughters have had other kids say things to them like "That can't be your brother" "Why are you hanging around that black boy?" and such. They always sticks up for him and I am so proud of them. Of course they have normal sibling disputes and they name-call and get on each other's nerves, but the girls have never teased him based on him being adopted. The impact of adoption on the bio siblings isn't something that generally gets explored on TV, so I am interested to see that. Granted, the mentality at the time was more like, let's pretend the child is not adopted so maybe that's why Rebecca didn't get into it further than "be nice".

I think kids need to be taught about adoption.  Actually, adults, too.  The whole "real parent" thing really bothers me as an awaiting mom.  I'd love to see how well Randall attaches to the family and vice versa (many adults don't "get" the attachment thing - I have had a family member tell me that younger (as in under 3) kids will do well - even if they're international and have been institutionalized in an orphanage - because they "don't remember."  Ummm, yeaahhhhh....).  I suppose that's what we'll be seeing in the upcoming episode and beyond. 

[Enigma X]

1 minute ago, PRgal said:

I think kids need to be taught about adoption.  Actually, adults, too.  The whole "real parent" thing really bothers me as an awaiting mom.  I'd love to see how well Randall attaches to the family and vice versa (many adults don't "get" the attachment thing - I have had a family member tell me that younger (as in under 3) kids will do well - even if they're international and have been institutionalized in an orphanage - because they "don't remember."  Ummm, yeaahhhhh....).  I suppose that's what we'll be seeing in the upcoming episode and beyond. 

Four were brothers (three with the same mother as the four are adopted by other people). She wanted to keep them all together.

[Negritude]

7 hours ago, topanga said:

Umm...I know this is shallow...I've become a SKB fan, and I find him very attractive, but why are his lips always chapped? I understand that he and TV wife were standing out in the cold for their daughters' soccer game, probably filming that scene for hours. But his lips were also chapped when they were talking in bed. You'd think the make-up people--or the actress playing his wife--would mention this. I also saw SKB on a recent Carson Daly episode, and his lipped were also chapped. The man is an Emmy winner. Can we please give him some Vaseline before he goes on camera?

Ha! People always used to say the same thing about Malik Yoba who has eczema. I'm thinking maybe SKB has the same issue. I have a mild case of it and I'm constantly re-applying lip balm all throughout the day. The struggle is real and I shudder to think what my skin would look like in HD. 

[fastiller]

14 hours ago, PRgal said:

I think kids need to be taught about adoption.  Actually, adults, too.  The whole "real parent" thing really bothers me as an awaiting mom.  I'd love to see how well Randall attaches to the family and vice versa (many adults don't "get" the attachment thing - I have had a family member tell me that younger (as in under 3) kids will do well - even if they're international and have been institutionalized in an orphanage - because they "don't remember."  Ummm, yeaahhhhh....).  I suppose that's what we'll be seeing in the upcoming episode and beyond. 

Me too (though not as an awaiting mom): I'm one of 29 first cousins on my Mum's side.  Of the 29, eight are adopted (including two sets of adopted twins by two separate aunts).  All 25 of my cousins are my REAL cousins.   One of my first cousins has adopted her two daughters: these two girls are my REAL cousins as well.

[topanga]

15 hours ago, ChromaKelly said:

Telling him exactly why calling Randall "Webster" is hurtful, for starters. I have biological twins and an adopted black son, so my family makeup is very similar. I have been honest with them about how their brother feels at times being the only adopted child, the only child of color, the loss he has experienced in his life. My daughters have had other kids say things to them like "That can't be your brother" "Why are you hanging around that black boy?" and such. They always sticks up for him and I am so proud of them. Of course they have normal sibling disputes and they name-call and get on each other's nerves, but the girls have never teased him based on him being adopted. The impact of adoption on the bio siblings isn't something that generally gets explored on TV, so I am interested to see that. Granted, the mentality at the time was more like, let's pretend the child is not adopted so maybe that's why Rebecca didn't get into it further than "be nice".

It sounds like you taught your kids well--and followed through on what you taught. But I wonder how much the boys have talked to their parents about what the other kids say at school, and how Kevin responds. Boys tend to share less with their parents in general (I know mine do), so unless Milo and Mandy are sitting their boys down and asking them specifically about things that happen at school, I have a feeling they'd never know the extent of Randall's teasing. And Kevin's non-response to it. 

BTW, calling black boys Webster and Arnold was a very real thing in the '80s, not just for adopted kids. Many white kids at our school used to call my brother Webster and Arnold, and he looked like neither actor! I guess the kids hadn't interacted with many people of color in their loves, so the only ones they had experience with were the few black kids at their school and the ones on television. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by topanga

[ChromaKelly]

48 minutes ago, topanga said:

It sounds like you taught your kids well--and followed through on what you taught. But I wonder how much the boys have talked to their parents about what the other kids say at school, and how Kevin responds. Boys tend to share less with their parents in general (I know mine do), so unless Milo and Mandy are sitting their boys down and asking them specifically about things that happen at school, I have a feeling they'd never know the extent of Randall's teasing. And Kevin's non-response to it. 

BTW, calling black boys Webster and Arnold was a very real thing in the '80s, not just for adopted kids. Many white kids at our school used to call my brother Webster and Arnold, and he looked like neither actor! I guess the kids hadn't interacted with many people of color in their loves, so the only ones they had experience with were the few black kids at their school and the ones on television. 

True, about boys not sharing as much. My daughters tend to tell me everything (I think) and one can be kind of a mother hen to her brother.  My son started getting embarrassed about being seen with me at school last year. He didn't want everyone to know he was adopted. I was hurt at first, but I understood. This year he's back to being fine with it.
This show has so much possibility in exploring topics we don't see much on TV, I hope they don't get mired down in the schmoopiness. I would really like to see them explore the impact of transracial adoption on Randall. Was it hard for him to fit in with other black kids? Did his hair look like crap because he white parents didn't know what to do with it? (bigger issue with adopted black girls, boys can get away with short hair) Did he get teased for "talking white"? What was it like when he was a teen and out of the umbrella of his parents' white protection (getting followed by store security, etc)?

 

[PamelaMaeSnap]

On October 1, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Negritude said:

I see Bubbles from "The Wire. "

Ditto! But there's still someone else he reminds me of and I can't think who it is ... I think he may be an amalgam of a few folks from the Wire because there's the tiniest bit of Clarke Peters there.

[PamelaMaeSnap]

On October 1, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Clawdette said:

The highlight of the episode for me was when I heard the first two faint guitar notes as Blind Faith's "Can't find my way home," played out to the end. That song, for me, is so evocative of the times - it was released at the end of the 60s.  

"And I'm wasted and I can't find my way home."

My first thought was that they were implying (or for a moment I inferred) that that was "their song" but since I don't think there's a reference to the moon in it, I realized pretty quickly that in fact the part you quoted is what was being subtly insinuated.  But now I wonder what "their song" WAS.

[PRgal]

10 hours ago, topanga said:

It sounds like you taught your kids well--and followed through on what you taught. But I wonder how much the boys have talked to their parents about what the other kids say at school, and how Kevin responds. Boys tend to share less with their parents in general (I know mine do), so unless Milo and Mandy are sitting their boys down and asking them specifically about things that happen at school, I have a feeling they'd never know the extent of Randall's teasing. And Kevin's non-response to it. 

BTW, calling black boys Webster and Arnold was a very real thing in the '80s, not just for adopted kids. Many white kids at our school used to call my brother Webster and Arnold, and he looked like neither actor! I guess the kids hadn't interacted with many people of color in their loves, so the only ones they had experience with were the few black kids at their school and the ones on television. 

 I would like to see that too.  My husband and I aren't adopting a black child, but Vietnam is still a different culture from China, no matter how much Confucian influence the former (still) has.  I think every kid was called SOMETHING in elementary school - kids often called me Cyndi Lauper thanks to my name (Cindy/Cynthia).  I HATED that (looking back, maybe being called Cyndi Lauper wasn't SUCH a bad thing). However, being called Webster or Arnold is way worse.  Was your brother later called Carlton - especially by black kids? 

[Cardie]

3 hours ago, PamelaMaeSnap said:

Ditto! But there's still someone else he reminds me of and I can't think who it is

Do you watch Mr. Robot? He played Romero.

I adopted not a black child but a black bichon/cocker spaniel mix (in 2008) and the rescue organization had named him Webster, I suppose because of his black curly hair. They thought they were being very clever and not the least bit racist. I changed that name to Brewster right away, let me tell you.

[KaveDweller]

3 hours ago, PamelaMaeSnap said:

My first thought was that they were implying (or for a moment I inferred) that that was "their song" but since I don't think there's a reference to the moon in it, I realized pretty quickly that in fact the part you quoted is what was being subtly insinuated.  But now I wonder what "their song" WAS.

Since it looks like we are flashing back to when the triplets were younger, I wonder if we will see a reveal about their song then.  That's one of the cool things about shows that play with time like this.

[Babalu]

One thing that stuck out for me, and I don't think has been mentioned yet, was Miguel specifying he was leaving a message for Jack at work. I know this was in the day before cell phones or texts, but the first thing I always think when someone leaves a phone message on TV or in movies is "that person didn't get it."

Spoiler

So now I'm wondering if Jack was killed in a car accident or something on his way to work that very morning and the scene of all of them piling onto each other was their last happy moment as a family.

[random chance]

1 minute ago, Babalu said:

One thing that stuck out for me, and I don't think has been mentioned yet, was Miguel specifying he was leaving a message for Jack at work. I know this was in the day before cell phones or texts, but the first thing I always think when someone leaves a phone message on TV or in movies is "that person didn't get it."

  Reveal hidden contents

So now I'm wondering if Jack was killed in a car accident or something on his way to work that very morning and the scene of all of them piling onto each other was their last happy moment as a family.

 

Good point! Also, they have to work a lot harder at it these days but they still manage to have people leave messages that nobody got. (They lost their phone! The battery died and the electricity was out! They couldn't get a signal!) It's kind of amusing, like the many ways Star Trek found to break the transporter when it would have solved everyone's problems.

[topanga]

On 10/3/2016 at 7:02 PM, PRgal said:

 I would like to see that too.  My husband and I aren't adopting a black child, but Vietnam is still a different culture from China, no matter how much Confucian influence the former (still) has.  I think every kid was called SOMETHING in elementary school - kids often called me Cyndi Lauper thanks to my name (Cindy/Cynthia).  I HATED that (looking back, maybe being called Cyndi Lauper wasn't SUCH a bad thing). However, being called Webster or Arnold is way worse.  Was your brother later called Carlton - especially by black kids? 

No he wasn't, but I got called Hillary a few times by black kids who said I "talked white." Ah, youth. 

The good thing was that my little brother wasn't teased like Randall was. It was mostly girls who were all, "You're so cute. You look just like Webster!" He was cute. But no, he didn't look like Webster.