S01.E12: The Big Day

[topanga]

9 hours ago, DebbieM4 said:

Waiting a whole week and not seeing grown-up Randall, Kate, and Kevin was disappointing.  This episode seemed like a throwaway to me.  

 

On 1/15/2017 at 10:50 AM, Tiger said:

I think we're getting an episode mostly focusing on side characters because each episode is taking a long time to produce (12 days as opposed to the usual 8), and despite the shorter episode order NBC wants to air all 18 by the end of Feb.  

Yeah, not my favorite. I understand that the writers/showrunners wanted to show us the day the triplets were born and the story behind Randall's adoption, but making the entire episode a flashback was a bit much for me. 

Maybe it's because there was no dramatic tension. We already knew exactly what was going to happen to Dr. K, to Jack and Rebecca, and to the Big Three. I didn't wonder about anything. And the "getting there" of it all wasn't interesting enough to hold my attention. 

If there was at least one scene with the adult Big 3 at the beginning of the episode, maybe I'd be fine.  Or maybe I needed to learn something about the triplets that I didn't know before. Maybe there needed to be more conflicts among the characters that actually meant something. Or in the words of Morgan Freeman, "I guess I just miss my friend(s)."

Edited January 18, 2017 by topanga

[ClareWalks]

This episode definitely felt like they just cobbled one together out of a bunch of pieces of "story holes" from earlier in the season. It was pretty good. I loved Rebecca in this episode. Yes, she was a shrill, emotional harpy, but anyone who has been hugely pregnant could relate to it. Loved how 2nd-trimester Rebecca was like "I love being pregnant," too. Most women do in their 2nd trimester. Then she went from adorably huge to TOO huge and it wasn't fun anymore.

I've normally been very easy on Miguel but dude. Taking Jack, who hates golf, golfing, then telling him to buy specific clothes for golf, which is an activity he will probably never do again? When he has triplets on the way and needs to save his money? Miguel was a real idiot this episode.

Oh, and I didn't like Dr. K's son being all "it's been 14 months, you have to move on." That isn't a super long time to get over your wife's death, especially being married over 50 years. I'm glad Dr. K felt ready to move on in the end, but it was insane that his kids were badgering him to date and stuff.

Edited January 18, 2017 by ClareWalks

[LaJefaza]

Just saw the promo for next week with Jack, at some undisclosed time, suggesting to Rebecca that they could maybe have another kid, and a pretty thunderous look on Rebecca's face in response. Maybe this is how he dies?

[ClareWalks]

5 minutes ago, LaJefaza said:

Just saw the promo for next week with Jack, at some undisclosed time, suggesting to Rebecca that they could maybe have another kid, and a pretty thunderous look on Rebecca's face in response. Maybe this is how he dies?

Ha! I wouldn't blame her. I thought that promo was really strange. They had better not have some "twist" that they ended up having a 4th kid at some unspecified time in the triplets' childhood, that they just coincidentally haven't mentioned yet, or shown in flashbacks because the 4th kid was just out of frame. I worry that this is the sort of "shocking twist" that this show's writers would cream their jeans over. :(

[Guest]

8 hours ago, HeyThere83 said:

Do you think it is going to come up again? I have wondered if the issues between Kevin and Randall, Randall and Rebecca, etc. will come up again. They just seem to move on from them. The drinking might come up again, but I can easily see it not. And I can easily see Jack's perfection being built up simply to have a greater impact (in other words, more tears) when the episode with his death occurs, and for Miguel/Rebecca to never ever overshadow the couple. That's why Miguel gets the edit he does. 

I do think it'll come up again.  The first half of the first season especially they have the job of laying the groundwork of who these people are and what their main struggles are.  I think since Jack is going to die young, most likely as a martyr to draw the most tears, alcohol will be related.  People love a callback to dialog or scenes earlier in a show.  And this cast is too large for throwaway lines.  Maybe it'll be liver disease and we'll feel even more sorry for him since he quit drinking before his habit got bad.  Or maybe it'll be a drunk driver and we'll feel more sorry since he never indulged anymore.   Or maybe he'll have one relapse and get drunk and die, and he'll finally feel flawed and human, making his death hurt worse.   Though the kids drink so I'm guessing drunk driver might be most likely.  Hopefully it's something totally out of left field and they surprise us.  That is part of their M.O., too.  Maybe it'll come up as a fake-out, like they'll make us think Jack was the drunk driver and it'll turn out it was the other guy, or something.  

[Lady Calypso]

6 hours ago, Racj82 said:

The hate for Miguel just makes me laugh. The man could be nothing from a saint from here on out but it wouldn't matter. Him and Toby can't win. Someone being flawed doesn't make them awful. I've seen nothing from either of them that would make me dislike them as much as it has others.

The most we've seen of Miguel has shown a supportive if somewhat misguided friend, beloved step grandfather and good colleague. His thoughts on how to help Jack with Rebecca's mood swings didn't fit who Jack is but it wasn't this terrible/awful idea. Plenty of people develop ways to cope with the pressures of marriage. It might not be right for everyone but it's not terrible. He didn't tell the guy to go hit a strip club or cheat on Rebecca. He took him golfing. He brought into a group of friends that have went through the stresses Jack is going to and found a way to deal with it. It wasn't right Jack. That's all.

I genuinely don't mind Toby, so he's definitely not an issue for me. I don't find Miguel awful, per say. I just think he's a little bit sleazy and a jerk. The issue is that we don't know Miguel outside of his scenes with Jack and Rebecca. We don't know how his marriage ended, we don't know what his present day situation with his kids are, and we don't really know Miguel's motivations. All we know is that he marries Rebecca after Jack's death, and he seems to enjoy being the patriarch of his first family. He seems to be fine with flirting with other women (that secretary from that earlier episode) and his comments, at times, border on inappropriate. 

For me this episode, the issue with Miguel wasn't that he tried to get Jack to relax on his birthday. It wasn't that he wanted to introduce a hobby into Jack's life like golfing. It's that his assumption that it would be an escape from the "crazy wife and kids", so to speak. His intentions were not to give Jack a great birthday. His intentions seemed to be to teach Jack what he does and what his friends do when things get stressful at home, which is to leave the wife to take care of their kids while they go golfing to laugh it off and escape. That's not exactly the lesson that Jack should be learning as a new parent, that it's ok to just leave. It's what made Jack realize that it's not what he wants to do either. 

Miguel's advice to remind Jack that he can buy things for himself too was just fine. It's everything else that's the problem with Miguel. Again, Miguel almost has good intentions, until he says something that makes me retract that thought. This episode, he was agreeing with his other douchebag friend who was blaming the wives for nagging them, heavily implying that the wives are the main reason for the escape. 

1 hour ago, Squirrely said:

Yeah, I guess the calendar in this episode says 1980, though I could swear in was 1979 in the pilot. 

I think in the pilot, it was implied to be 1979, probably due to when the pilot was first pitched/written, which would have been late 2015. But since then, they corrected it to be 1980. Things can change after the pilot, so I never take everything in the pilot at face value. 

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

Then Rebecca should already have been pregnant by Superbowl 1980.  Dates don't add up.  As for the kids' birthdays - they're ALMOST EXACTLY ONE YEAR YOUNGER THAN ME!!!  Short of ONE DAY. 

As others have mentioned, I think it does add up. I questioned the math too, but then realized that if the Superbowl was in late January 1980, then Rebecca's due date would have been in October. Because the triplets were six weeks early, then it does fit. 

[PRgal]

4 minutes ago, Lady Calypso said:

 

As others have mentioned, I think it does add up. I questioned the math too, but then realized that if the Superbowl was in late January 1980, then Rebecca's due date would have been in October. Because the triplets were six weeks early, then it does fit. 

I did the math and it does fit - they were around 33/34 weeks at the time.  Looks like the writers actually DID the math for dates.  Didn't think they'd go into detail like that. 

[nutty1]

50 minutes ago, LaJefaza said:

Just saw the promo for next week with Jack, at some undisclosed time, suggesting to Rebecca that they could maybe have another kid, and a pretty thunderous look on Rebecca's face in response. Maybe this is how he dies?

She murders him?? ;)

[grayson]

Quote

McRaney and Mandy Moore were the standouts in this episode.  I didn't care so much for the back stories of either Dr K or the fireman, but GM acted the hell out of those scenes.  The catch in his voice when he spoke to his wife... got me.

His portrayal of Dr. K was really the first time that I noticed Gerald McRaney. Now I am a huge fan. He is a powerful performer. I welcome every opportunity to watch this venerable actor command any scene.

Edited January 18, 2017 by grayson

[Clanstarling]

11 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

It's kind of sad to watch that speech from the pilot that the doctor gave Jack and realize that Jack is never going to man in his 70's like the doctor. (The wife died at 70 so I'm assuming the doctor is somewhere around there.) If we go with the idea that Jack is dead by 2006, the oldest he's getting is his early 60's.

So the birthdate for the triplets is August 31st, 1980. I always thought their birthday was October. The pilot had such a fall feel to it.

Not to nitpick, but the Empire Strikes Back came out in May, and Ordinary People came out in mid-September. Oh, well. I mean, the movie still had to be in the theaters then, and there could have always been previews for Ordinary People.

I didn't notice the calendar - but I did pause the recording when Dr. K went to the graveyard and calculated. He said his wife had been dead 14 months, and her death date was July 2, 1979. So August 31, 1980 does track (for once.)

9 hours ago, Cardie said:

I did like that wise old Dr. Folksy Charm was faking it to some extent, that he gives his lemons/lemonade speech just as he's been considering suicide.

As the saying goes, fake it 'till you make it.

4 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

My dad passed away almost three years ago and my mom still hasn't gotten rid of his stuff. She still has his clothes, his medication, etc. Part of me wishes she would get throw away at least some of it (do you really need to keep his old expired medication?) but the other part of me knows that people mourn differently and there's no set timeline. If you have room in your house for that stuff, then feel free to keep it if that makes you feel better. And like Dr. K, my mom still talks to my dad out loud.

I don't know why Dr. K felt weird about still wearing his wedding band. Mr. EB's dad passed away almost twenty years ago and Mr. EB's mom still wears her ring. It doesn't mean she's stuck in the past or not moving forward or crying herself to sleep every night.

 

Having gone through this with my Dad when my Mom died, I found this very moving. Our experience was quite different, but it still resonates. I don't know why anyone would expect a widow(er) to remove the ring. I'd keep mine on.

Rebecca's speech to her babies was the first time I've actually connected with her. Oddly, on the Halloween costume thing. I hated Halloween (still do), and yet learned to sew and killed myself to make my kids Halloween costumes each year until they weren't interested.

[Aloeonatable]

I liked the episode. I think we are going to see many episodes (that is if this stays on the air for several years) where we will see minor characters' stories as well as the main characters. I think one of the main themes of this show is how we, not just the Pearsons, are all connected. Of course, the Pearson family is and will always be at the center, but the people who's lives they touch will also be explored. 

[topanga]

8 minutes ago, Aloeonatable said:

I liked the episode. I think we are going to see many episodes (that is if this stays on the air for several years) where we will see minor characters' stories as well as the main characters. I think one of the main themes of this show is how we, not just the Pearsons, are all connected. Of course, the Pearson family is and will always be at the center, but the people who's lives they touch will also be explored. 

And that might be, but is there a way to make the stories more interesting? Or funny sometimes? Or more dramatic? I find myself laughing at Randall, Beth, Kate, and Kevin. Even Toby makes me laugh sometimes. 

Dr. K is supposed to be funny, I guess, but he doesn't make me laugh. I care about his grief, but there's nothing dramatic or compelling about it. And the firefighter's story, while somewhat interesting, doesn't grab me and make me want to follow it any farther. Same with William's story. 

[Guest]

I didn't like it.  I liked the Rebecca/Jack stuff, but the rest felt like filler. I wanted to see present day triplets.  They would have filled the space a lot better than the firefighter that I didn't care about and Dr. K who I only marginally cared about.

[Indy]

I didn't totally love this episode, mostly because of the excess schmaltz and no grown-up Randall and no Beth. But it wasn't bad (no Toby and no Olivia!!). I both loved Jack's reaction to the golf dads and also kind of rolled my eyes as the halo over Jack is getting bigger and bigger. 

The babies are exactly one day younger than I am.  No wonder I like them :)  For some reason, based on Kevin's Challenger disaster conversation, I had them placed as '79 babies but apparently not.  As for what generation we fit in, we early 80s and late 70s babies are part of the Oregon Trail generation - https://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2015/04/oregon-trail-generation/. Not quite Gen X, not quite Millennials. We're the weird lunch meat in the generation sandwich. 

[Sandman]

2 hours ago, nutty1 said:

I didn't get the idea that he was considering suicide. even though he told he wife he didn't know if he could go on. I thought the pills were just another part of her that he couldn't get rid of.

There was something about the way he couldn't quite bring himself to say "I stare at all your [painkillers?] ... " that suggested to me he was thinking of making use of them. And he asked her not to be mad at him -- to me that says more than "I'm not ready to move on."

Edited January 18, 2017 by Sandman

[Randomosity]

10 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

No, Kevin said that 15 is a rough age, and we've assumed that means that Jack died when they were 15. Right now we haven't seen any scenes with Jack and the triplets being older than 15, so it's the guess that he died then.

The triplets are actually kind of in this weird between stage between Gen Xers and Millennials. I have relatives and friends around their age and they never quite feel like they're in my generation- I think to be an actual Millennial, you couldn't have graduated high school before 2000. Born in '85, but I feel like I have more in common with people born in 1989/1990 than I do with people born in 1979/1980.

 

10 hours ago, Cardie said:

In 1980 there was a mini-baby boom and those born then and thereafter were originally called Gen Y. That term later dropped out of usage and Millennial was coined for those who came of age at the turn of the Millennium. So I see the Big Three as the leading edge of Millennials, sort of like Boomers born in 1946. (I'm a retired college professor and am particularly tuned into how 18-year-olds have changed over the decades.)

 

10 hours ago, Court said:

I was born in 83 and I do not consider myself a millennial or Gen X? It is a weird in between one for anyone born between 1980-83/84. I don't fit in either. We didn't have internet until I was a teen and when we did it was dialup. 

We had pagers, not phones. When we did have phones, they were the Nokia bricks. I bought my first phone and paid the bill myself at 18. 

But technology doesn't baffle us either. 

 

16 minutes ago, Indy said:

The babies are exactly one day younger than I am.  No wonder I like them :)  For some reason, based on Kevin's Challenger disaster conversation, I had them placed as '79 babies but apparently not.  As for what generation we fit in, we early 80s and late 70s babies are part of the Oregon Trail generation - https://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2015/04/oregon-trail-generation/. Not quite Gen X, not quite Millennials. We're the weird lunch meat in the generation sandwich. 

Thank you, Indy - I just came to say exactly that. We're Oregon Trail! I'm an '82, and don't fit into either X or Millennial. I teach now, and man, these 20 year olds have not had the same experiences I did. There's no way I should be grouped as the same 'generation' as them. The Oregon Trail generation is the group that grew up not just with computers, but grew up as computers were growing up. Cell phones, mp3 players, the internet, email - they all showed up en masse as we were on the brink of adulthood, in high school or college. But we plonked out our math exercises on ancient Macs in elementary school. We made mix tape cassettes and had to 'be kind, rewind' with rental video tapes. Hell, I had records when I was very young! (They even gave them out as the McDonald's happy meal toy.) We had old school Nintendo and Atari but were largely 'too old' when Pokemon cards first came out. I think what generation you feel like is also partially related to your sibling order. If you were born in 82 like me, but had had siblings from the 1970s, you might feel more like an X. If you were an 84 with younger siblings up through the 90s, you may feel more millennial. I think the Oregon Trail cutoff is 83 or 84. I have a sibling who is 85, and even that three year gap made enough of a difference for what age email/internet/etc showed up and when records/cassettes/Atari faded out that 85 is closer to millennial. But I digress :)

Actually related to the show, I didn't care much about the firefighter's wife, but wow, for some reason she stuck out as the most authentically styled 1979/1980 person on the show yet. The hair, the sweater, etc.... it looked like she stepped out of the pages of my parents' old photo albums. Everything else so far has all had the air of 2016 trying to look like 1979/1980.  Did anyone else notice that? Just me?

[ShadowFacts]

2 hours ago, milner said:

At the risk of being a crouch I wish the conversation here was more about the show and less about who is or isn't a millennial.

It may be a bit of an indication that the episode didn't have as much to delve into that previous ones have, when the topic gets derailed so early.   I don't know, maybe it's just me.

As to the episode, what kept it from being ruined as too maudlin for me was the fact that the grief of Dr. K., and the pregnant peevishness of Rebecca resonated with me, so I imagine the super-quick reconciliation of the fireman and his wife must resonate with others.  Overall I thought the "miracle" of William leaving Randall at the firehouse changing all of the lives in dramatic fashion was overkill.  I never like anvils and this show is full of them.  Yet it retains some things that keep me coming back, and maybe I now realize it is the present action more than the flashbacks. 

[BoogieBurns]

I'm trying to read everything before I comment, but you guys have so much to say I'll forget my comment. I'll edit if I see it later.

This episode revealed something that truly explains the Big Three so much better. Their birth order is in line with their personalities. Randall is the oldest, he was born HOURS before the others. This explains his responsible, sturdy personality with regard to the siblings. Kevin is the middle, the forgotten child who searches for outside validation his entire life. Kate is the baby, she is just treated a bit different, she is also the only girl. The results of parenting Kate ended up quite different than for the guys. 

I mentioned it in a much older episode, but my 2 siblings and I are similar to the big three, and now we match the birth order. It really does make so much more sense knowing Randall is older. Even if it's mere hours. I'm Kate, and I dated a Toby, so I do not like him.

[TobinAlbers]

40 minutes ago, Indy said:

The babies are exactly one day younger than I am.  No wonder I like them :)  For some reason, based on Kevin's Challenger disaster conversation, I had them placed as '79 babies but apparently not.  As for what generation we fit in, we early 80s and late 70s babies are part of the Oregon Trail generation - https://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2015/04/oregon-trail-generation/. Not quite Gen X, not quite Millennials. We're the weird lunch meat in the generation sandwich. 

Seriously, thank you for this. Born in 1977 I've been in this weird gap, too!

[ClareWalks]

For my fellow Oregon Trail Generation kids, it is playable for free online. I frequently kill an hour (and dozens of buffalo) going down the trail, myself.

[Randomosity]

3 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

For my fellow Oregon Trail Generation kids, it is playable for free online. I frequently kill an hour (and dozens of buffalo) going down the trail, myself.

There is also now a card game based on the computer one. Available at Target, at least. Not sure where else. Made multiple appearances at my family Christmas.

[OtterMommy]

5 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

For my fellow Oregon Trail Generation kids, it is playable for free online. I frequently kill an hour (and dozens of buffalo) going down the trail, myself.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who does this!

You can also get the card game version...however the amusement level of that game directly correlates with your blood alcohol level.

[shoovenbooty]

Adding to the triplets' birthdate timeline convo...does anyone have access to S1 E6, "Career Days"? Rebecca was looking at the kids' report cards and it showed Randall's with poor grades. At the top of his report card, it says his birthday is in June 1980. I distinctly remember because the date was the same day as my dad's birthday (different year). I tried to go back on NBC.com and look up the episode, but it says my cable provider doesn't support online viewing anymore.

Edited January 18, 2017 by shoovenbooty

[ohjoy]

3 hours ago, againstthewind said:

I remember recording things off the radio onto cassette tapes and writing lyrics on legal pads.

Born in '83, and this was hours of my childhood.

10 minutes ago, Randomosity said:

The Oregon Trail generation is the group that grew up not just with computers, but grew up as computers were growing up. Cell phones, mp3 players, the internet, email - they all showed up en masse as we were on the brink of adulthood, in high school or college. But we plonked out our math exercises on ancient Macs in elementary school. We made mix tape cassettes and had to 'be kind, rewind' with rental video tapes. Hell, I had records when I was very young! (They even gave them out as the McDonald's happy meal toy.) We had old school Nintendo and Atari but were largely 'too old' when Pokemon cards first came out. I think what generation you feel like is also partially related to your sibling order. If you were born in 82 like me, but had had siblings from the 1970s, you might feel more like an X. If you were an 84 with younger siblings up through the 90s, you may feel more millennial. I think the Oregon Trail cutoff is 83 or 84.

I was the youngest in my family, but most of my school peers were the oldest in theirs, so that's an interesting observation.

11 minutes ago, BoogieBurns said:

This episode revealed something that truly explains the Big Three so much better. Their birth order is in line with their personalities. Randall is the oldest, he was born HOURS before the others. This explains his responsible, sturdy personality with regard to the siblings. Kevin is the middle, the forgotten child who searches for outside validation his entire life. Kate is the baby, she is just treated a bit different, she is also the only girl. The results of parenting Kate ended up quite different than for the guys.

I agree that Randall's personality is that of a first-born, and Kevin is very much second-born son & middle child combined, but I don't know that the show is treating it that way.  On previous episodes Randall is referred to in the family as the "little" brother. The Big Three mantra seems to indicate the birth order in which Jack and Rebecca raised them, even if the reality of their births line up with what you stated.

 

OT: I liked the episode, but didn't love it. I guess I'm really here for The Big Three (plus Beth, minus Toby.) I like the flashbacks of Jack & Rebecca - with the kids.

[OtterMommy]

7 minutes ago, shoovenbooty said:

Adding to the triplets' birthdate timeline convo...does anyone have access to S1 E6, "Career Days"? Rebecca was looking at the kids' report cards and it showed Randall's with poor grades. At the top of his report card, it says his birthday is in June 1980. I distinctly remember because the date was the same day as my dad's birthday (different year). I tried to go back on NBC.com and look up the episode, but it says my cable provider doesn't support online viewing anymore.

Really?  June?  On the calendar that Rebecca looked at in this episode, it looked like Jack's birthday was on the 31st of whatever month....

[Sandman]

Doesn't Rebecca refer to Randall as Kevin's "little brother" at least once or twice? I thought I remembered that. It doesn't derail Boogie Burns' theory altogether, of course, but if Randall is treated as something other than oldest throughout their childhood, would the chronological order of the "triplets'" birth have as big an impact? (And is order of, uh, exit as meaningful in cases of multiple births? I honestly have no idea.)

Edited January 18, 2017 by Sandman
Because RandomMe noticed that as well

[Neurochick]

13 hours ago, Amethyst said:

I can't say the same for Miguel.  Unfortunately, knowing that he eventually ends up with Rebecca puts a poor light on his character no matter what he does.  He and his golf buddies came off as jerks, and he doesn't need the help looking worse.

I didn't think Miguel or his friends came off as jerks.  There was a time when couples weren't joined at the hip and you didn't marry your best friend.  People do have interests and friends outside of the marriage.  They told Jack right, that after the babies were born his time wasn't going to be his own; he would have to put his children first. 

I missed the adult "big three" in this episode.  It was okay, but just okay.

[Ms Blue Jay]

3 hours ago, milner said:

At the risk of being a crouch I wish the conversation here was more about the show and less about who is or isn't a millennial.

I'm with you.  I already went through this on the Survivor boards.  It's not up to the individual to decide the label.  You're either part of a generation or you're not, and it's based on year of birth, and it's not an insult, it's just a societal fact.  ( If someone is upset because of their generational label, I think it's because they're assigning a characteristic to a generation that they don't like, and that's pointless, because there's millions of people that are part of it.  Of course they're all going to be different.)  And it's not even remotely on topic - at least with Survivor it kind of was!

On topic, one complaint I have about this show is that it forces you to wait for the death of (in my case) my favourite character.  That really sucks.  I hate it.   I'm waiting every episode for it.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Ms Blue Jay

[Primetimer]

Can one Randall save them all?

View the full article

[atiyah9369]

12 hours ago, elle said:

Wasn't he having dinner with the lady he spoke to at the supermarket?

I started calling her Blanche Devereaux, she was eyeing him up big time.

[ohjoy]

25 minutes ago, Sandman said:

Doesn't Rebecca refer to Randall as Kevin's "little brother" at least once or twice? I thought I remembered that. It doesn't derail Boogie Burns' theory altogether, of course, but if Randall is treated as something other than oldest throughout their childhood, would the chronological order of the "triplets'" birth have as big an impact? (And is order of, uh, exit as meaningful in cases of multiple births? I honestly have no idea.)

From studies I've read and people I've seen (sets of twins in both friends and family) birth order still seems to have an impact. One child is "older" and one is "younger", and they act accordingly when certain situations arise. It seems fairly obvious with fraternal twins, but I've seen it occasionally even with identical twins. (Birth order is fascinating.)

I do think it's interesting, because it's seems as though the childhood birth order dynamic was Kevin-Kate-Randall, but the adult birth order dynamic is Randall-Kevin-Kate.

[topanga]

3 minutes ago, RandomMe said:

From studies I've read and people I've seen (sets of twins in both friends and family) birth order still seems to have an impact. One child is "older" and one is "younger", and they act accordingly when certain situations arise. It seems fairly obvious with fraternal twins, but I've seen it occasionally even with identical twins. (Birth order is fascinating.)

I do think it's interesting, because it's seems as though the childhood birth order dynamic was Kevin-Kate-Randall, but the adult birth order dynamic is Randall-Kevin-Kate.

When you look at flashbacks, their order as children does seem to be Kevin-Kate-Randall. Kevin was always teasing and noodling Randall, as big brothers do. Randall was babied by his parents, and he was always whining and tattling. I know that Kevin was often the forgotten child at home, but this could have been because his parents assumed everything was good with him. He was popular at school, which older siblings often are, and he didn't want his "little" brother tagging along with him. 

And Kate was often caught in the middle, playing mediator with her two brothers. 

[BoogieBurns]

38 minutes ago, RandomMe said:

I agree that Randall's personality is that of a first-born, and Kevin is very much second-born son & middle child combined, but I don't know that the show is treating it that way.  On previous episodes Randall is referred to in the family as the "little" brother. The Big Three mantra seems to indicate the birth order in which Jack and Rebecca raised them, even if the reality of their births line up with what you stated.

Oh, I know this, it just never actually matched their personalities. Nothing about Randall is the youngest, so for me this episode revealed the "nature" of their birth order, regardless of the birth order they were "nurtured" into. The writers have always written Kevin as the typical middle child, and yet referred to him as the oldest. This episode shows why they fit in a different order than the Big Three chant. That's all guys. My suspicions were confirmed.

4 minutes ago, topanga said:

When you look at flashbacks, their order as children does seem to be Kevin-Kate-Randall.

So true, how funny that they wrote it in such a way. I'm the youngest, and I was just the carefree sister while the other two fought. Never bothered mediating. Still haven't, and we are in our 30s.

[ShadowFacts]

16 minutes ago, atiyah9369 said:

I started calling her Blanche Devereaux, she was eyeing him up big time.

I felt like she was being fairly low-key, she didn't push when he said he gets interrupted by babies wanting to be born.  At any rate, she may not be much more than a friend because she wasn't there for him nor mentioned when he is supposedly near death at the Christmas episode.  Sometimes after the death of a life-long partner, friendship is all that ever ensues.  But, since she was a recognizable guest star, we might see her again.  And I would bet we will see the firefighter again.  Probably trying to save a life. 

[Court]

I could buy Miguel doing something nice for his best friend had he taken Jack somewhere he would actually enjoy. He took him golfing, knowing Jack doesn't like it. Shut up, Miguel.

[photo fox]

The Social Issues topic would be a great place for all of this "Millennials vs. Gen Xers" talk, y'all.  It's not really on topic for this episode.

Cheers!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, shoovenbooty said:

Adding to the triplets' birthdate timeline convo...does anyone have access to S1 E6, "Career Days"? Rebecca was looking at the kids' report cards and it showed Randall's with poor grades. At the top of his report card, it says his birthday is in June 1980. I distinctly remember because the date was the same day as my dad's birthday (different year). I tried to go back on NBC.com and look up the episode, but it says my cable provider doesn't support online viewing anymore.

It says 6/27/81.  

Edited January 18, 2017 by Guest

[3 is enough]

Count me in as one who does not think the good doctor was contemplating suicide.  My impression was that he could not bring himself to get rid of his wife's belongings, and had no interest in meeting someone new- that he couldn't "move on".  

Removing the ring?  Why should he?  My father has been gone for 10 years now and my mother still wears her ring- she has no intention of stopping.  She did get rid of all of his clothes pretty quickly, and I remember walking down to the pharmacy with her with a bag full of his pills, but everyone is different.  My sister-in-law's mother died 12 years ago and her dad got rid of nothing.  Everyone grieves in their own way.

Honestly, I quite enjoyed this episode and not seeing the kids did not bother me.

[roughing it]

Quote

I didn't get the idea that he was considering suicide. even though he told he wife he didn't know if he could go on. I thought the pills were just another part of her that he couldn't get rid of. Suicide just never crossed my mind. I could be totally wrong though.

I definitely got the vibe that Dr. K was contemplating suicide by using his wife's pills.  (I'm currently reading "A Man Called Ove" that explores the same topic, a man contemplating suicide in response to grieving his wife, however it doesn't go so well.  It's a good read, not depressing at all!)

I enjoyed this backstory of the Big Three with more of Dr. K and the introduction of the firefighter and his wife.  It takes a village, as they say, and these other characters were influential in the forming of the Pearson family. 

[Tikichick]

I took the Miguel scenes a bit differently.  I felt Miguel was trying to act as the more experienced friend in the married with kids arena and show Jack the ropes.  I felt it ended up with Miguel looking on as his friend seemed to have a better grasp on the situation and trying to figure out how to get what Jack seemed to have -- happiness in his place in life.

[Pallas]

13 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

People here talk so much about Jack's drinking.  Is this something we EVER see?  If Jack's so called "Drinking" doesn't affect anything I wonder why so much talk surrounds it. 

Yes, an early episode focused on it. The much-maligned Miguel told his friend Jack (as Jack once again drank away more hours away from home, after work) to get his head out of the bottle, and shape up. Rebecca then did the same, when he finally came home, with her speech that calibrated what each contributed to the family. Jack promised to do better. 

[Guest]

Tiny nitpick-  Farrah was very much Farrah Fawcett-Majors back then.  

[WInterfalls]

So are we ever going to see Miguel's children? I think mostly Miguel tries but he's never going to be as great as Jack in anyone's eyes. But they have mentioned more than once in the past that he has kids with his first wife. So are we ever going to see them? Do we find out what happened to his first marriage? Because a lot of how much I put up with Miguel is going to come from that. Did he leave his wife for Rebecca after Jack died? How does Rebecca settle for him after the amazingness that was Jack?

[Haleth]

24 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

It says 6/27/81.  

Now that's a disappointing error.  Worse than the Diet Coke error from last week.

[shoovenbooty]

24 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

It says 6/27/81.  

Aha! Thank you! I didn't realize it said 1981, I guess I assumed it was 1980 after the whole "we conceived in the bar bathroom after the Steelers won the 1980 Superbowl" thing.

[topanga]

7 minutes ago, Haleth said:

Now that's a disappointing error.  Worse than the Diet Coke error from last week.

This makes me wonder who sits in the writers' room when they decide on these dates? Was there no one who told the props person that the triplets were born in August 1980?

[GodsBeloved]

32 minutes ago, WInterfalls said:

So are we ever going to see Miguel's children? I think mostly Miguel tries but he's never going to be as great as Jack in anyone's eyes. But they have mentioned more than once in the past that he has kids with his first wife. So are we ever going to see them? Do we find out what happened to his first marriage? Because a lot of how much I put up with Miguel is going to come from that. Did he leave his wife for Rebecca after Jack died? How does Rebecca settle for him after the amazingness that was Jack?

What if Miguel's family is dead? That would go a long way in making him sympathic. Worse yet what if say Jack was doing Miguel a favor and picked up his wife and kids and they got in an accident.

[Biggie B]

First episode of the series so far that I truly did not enjoy. I felt as if it was something I just had to plow through, out of loyalty or duty. So, so, so boring. The one saving grace was that I mistakenly thought the show started at 10:00 p.m., realized my error about 9:10, decided to DVR it, and then began watching it about 9:45. Thus, although I missed a bit at the beginning, I was able to fast forward through much of it. I completely skipped over the golf stuff, so I have no idea what was said. As soon as Rebecca realized it was Jack's birthday and was panicking that she didn't have ingredients on hand for a cake, I also FF'd - had no interest at all in seeing her trudge laboriously (pun intended) in her duct-taped flip flops, and happily missed all of that. I did see her soliloquy to the babies and was completely unmoved. Did not care.

Later, when the family watched the home movie on Father's Day, I felt very bad for all of them having to see pregnant Rebecca, knowing that one of those babies died. And how excluded Randall might have felt - he is not part of that video and Rebecca's words to the babies were not said to him. I found that really sad and a bit depressing, even though I completely understand the emotional significance of the home movie.

Didn't care at all about the firefighter who found Randall. I'm glad he and his wife were able to reconnect and make the effort to revive their marriage, but...what does that have to do with anything?

Dr. K's story - it was OK. I thought he did a decent job of portraying his grief - the conversations to his wife were poignant. As hokey and sentimental as he is, I'm glad he pulled himself together and made a conscious decision to move forward, spurred on perhaps by Kevin's decision to take Randall.

Overall, though, I was quite bored and am glad that we'll be returning to present-day in the upcoming episode. I've until now very much enjoyed the flashbacks, but sometimes too much of a good thing is exactly that - too much.

[JudyObscure]

4 hours ago, Haleth said:

Aww, you guys are brutal when it comes to Miguel.  The "get away from the wife and kids" thing was a joke.  He was trying to do something nice for his best friend, knowing that he was under a lot of stress and thinking a 3-4 hour respite would do him good.  (And with all the speculation that Jack ends up with a drinking problem, Miguel might have been right to suggest a healthier way to blow off steam.)  Just because St Jack says "oh no, I must be a martyr to my wife and children" doesn't make Miguel a jerk

Really.  I thought all the guys were just trying to tell him that it's okay to take a little time for yourself now and then, just doing it in that "trying to be funny" male way so as not to embarrass him.  They were rewarded with that holier than thou, "I love my wife all the time," thing. If it was Rebecca's girl friends telling her she could have a  lunch and shopping day with them once in awhile, I'll bet it would have been fine -- particularly if her husband had just yelled at her in the same critical way she had talked to Jack. 

Another double standard is the Toby vs Jack standard.  Jack is firmly asked (ordered) to give Rebecca a day alone and he just ignores that. Toby goes over to Kate's on football night after she asked to be alone and it's all, "HATE!  NO BOUNDARIES!"

I'll just never be able to canonize Jack as long as he keeps making decisions for Rebecca.  Whether he's over talking the doctor who is trying to prepare her for a tragedy, in order to make a positive thinking speech from The Secret, buying  houses, or cavalierly adopting babies just as though one baby was the same as another as long as they total three.  I think he's a well intentioned guy who would be very hard to live with.  Also. Jack's hair looks like it's been marinated in a bowl of olive oil.  On a hot day you could probably pop, popcorn on it.

[kat165]

Gods, that's an interesting theory. And I can see this show going there. They'd pump it for maximum bawl your eyes out manipulation. Just their style.