So…am I the only one who has never liked Susan-and-Mike? They have zero chemistry, and Mike is easily the second most boring character on the show. (the most boring is poor stunted little Penny, who has only aged half as much as her brothers. Kid still hasn’t had a line yet, has she?)
I don’t like the 5 years ahead thing, unless they make it permanent. Imagine one of those characters is in peril sometime in the next 3 seasons . . . we know it’s going to work out ok. Kills the suspense.
It’s not the relative “wrongness” of the two crimes that gets me. I can definitely understand what she did, even if I can’t condone it.
What bother me is her holier than thou attitude. The Hypocrisy of her lecturing Orson expecting him to give up years of his life to make good, when she’s hardly any better, Why doesn’t she turn herself in? And it doesn’t apply just to Orson, she’s got more skeleton’s in her closet than most of the people she looks down her nose to.
Also, I agree with the last poster about killing the suspense for some characters. That’s the main drawback of doing the future glimpses.
Opening scene from next season’s premier episode:
In a darkened room we hear the sound of an alarm clock. Susan wakes up and gasps loudly.
Mike: What’s going on, honey?
Susan: Thank God you’re still here!
Mike: Huh?
Susan: I had the craziest dream. All of my friends were in it. Bree’s catering business was making millions. Gabby had two fat daughters. …
Re the ff of time:
Somewhere (People??) I read that Marc Cherry had been asked if the character Edie was gone for good. He said that she was gone for at least 3 years or something like that. Which confounded everyone because the series is supposed to be over in 3 years.
So now they’re wondering if they will fast forward 3 years beginning next year. It would be kind of difficult to cast the Schavo children, but other than that it would be do-able.
ETA:
Here’s a link
Well, if that’s true at least they won’t need to rapidly age Susan & Mike’s new kid in order to have a cute toddler on the show, like soap operas are fond of doing, they’ll be rapidly aging everyone!
Which is to say they can just start playing their real ages.
Unless -
(checks Wikipedia)
- these women are supposed to be having babies in their mid-40s? I know it happens but it just seems so weird to me.
Actually, it’s probably a lot more common than you realize. A lot of women are having kids in their 40’s and it’s not really that unusual since a long time ago women used to pop out babies as long as they were still fertile. The average woman doesn’t hit menopause until after age 50. And nowadays it’s a lot safer.
An article I read a few years back said that celebrity births make it seem much more common than it really is. (the thrust of the article is that it makes women think they have plenty of time to have babies and careers, but they don’t.) According to the article only 2% of American babies are born to women over the age of 40. Here’s a much more recent article about the UK: I’m poor at math, but 12.2 conceptions out of every 1000, isn’t that less than 2%? 1.2%? Here’s one for the US. It says 9.4 births per 1000 for moms 40-44. That’s not even 1% For moms over 45, it’s 6 births per 1000. This gives a slightly more robust 10.5 per 1000 births figure.
I meant to ask earlier…Gabbie’s kids are adopted, right? She was told after her stairs mishap she probably couldn’t have any babies, and the kid on the bed looked closer to 8 or 9 than 4. Or even five, given tv and movie writers are forever having so-and-so go away for 10 years and coming back to wonder if the ex’s 10-year-old is his… they’ve all failed health, I’m sure of it.
Well, I didn’t look up the statistics but I did say “a lot more common than you realize” not that it’s commonplace. personally know someone who had a baby a little after 40 and someone else that was just shy of 40 (an is now over 40 and hoping to have more). When I found myself over 40 and thinking I might be pregnant I looked for info on the web and there were a lot of websites and forums dedicated to women having babies over 40 so I stick by my statement that it’s probably more common than people think. 1% of millions of people is still a heck of a lot of people.
Like I said . . . I’m fully aware that it happens all the time, it just seems weird to me. To give you an insight into my perspective I don’t think I have ever personally know a woman who has had a baby after the age of 29. Again, I know it happens all the time, but all the women in my family and among my friends did their childbirthing in their 20s. That’s why mid-40s - the age of the ladies on Desperate - remember that show? - seems very odd to me.
Edit: 40s, in my family, are the early grandmother years. My grandmother became one at 39 (!) and my mom at 48.
Too late for another edit:
And now that I think about it, Bree is a grandmother! Why am I overanalyzing a soap opera?
Because that’s what we do here. 