legaleagle53 October 20, 2014 Share October 20, 2014 (edited) Well, they certainly make a husky couple! Two family episodes that irked me were more about inconsistency of story than annoying relatives. 1) The one with Rose's blind sister Lily. That episode gave me whiplash- at first Rose got mad at her because she made some mistakes while trying to be independent (and who can blame her, she was in a strange house for the first time). Then half way through Rose got mad because she was not independent enough and needed to learn how to take care of herself. Whaaa? That isn't what angered Rose. The first time, Lily had accidentally started a fire in the kitchen by trying to cook without asking for help -- and it was Blanche and Dorothy who were angry about it and demanded that Rose (who tried to defend Lily) confront her sister before something worse happened. The second time, Rose was angered because after the fire incident, Lily went to the other psychological extreme. She became so convinced that she'd never again be the vibrant, independent woman she's always been that she practically branded herself as an invalid and consequently begged Rose to move in with her and be her nursemaid. Rose knew better, however, and by refusing to give in, she forced Lily to go back to the school for the blind and learn how to be independent and self-sufficient the right way, not by mourning what she couldn't do anymore, but by focusing instead on what she could do and learn to do. As Lily put it when Rose finally came to visit her and said that it was clear that Lily didn't really need her help, Lily actually had needed Rose to come -- so that Rose could see that Rose had been right all along. 3) I think they were just completely messing with us regarding Michael's age. In at least one episode it's indicated that he is indeed the child that prompted the shotgun wedding, and not only is he nowhere close to being the 40-something he should be (38 years + years after the divorce), but when we first meet him he's 29 (pornstache Michael) and then later on when he's with Lorraine he's 22. Ridiculous! That was simply trying to make his age fit for the sake of plot at the expense of character. Michael was supposed to have been immature and self-centered -- he's Stan's son, after all, and the apple really didn't fall far from that particular tree. It's much easier (and more believable) to have Michael be an immature, irresponsible 20-something than an immature, irresponsible 40-something. Had Michael been played by an actor who was actually the correct age, he would have come across as even more pathetic than Stan -- and one Stan was enough! Edited October 20, 2014 by legaleagle53 1 Link to comment
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.