I agree. I think that’s a weakness in the writing; if they want to do it that way, they should at least have the characters acknowledge that this isn’t the traditional understanding of ‘selling one’s soul.’
I concur. The classic Faustian legend should not be subverted this way-- it goes against hundreds of years of Western religious, literary and cultural tradition. The devil character is not all-powerful-- he is only allowed to tempt humans into willingly giving up their souls by exploiting their avarice. The traditional Western God would not allow otherwise-- he’s fine with the devil manipulating and messing with his subjects’ lives, like his boy Job, but their immortal souls would be fully protected as long as they don’t give them up voluntarily. The act of surrendering something as sacred as one’s soul for material gain is an unforgivable sin. Being fooled is not.
“That’s why Margaret is always telling everyone to come in the back door.” And the look on Rose’s face while Pete was telling her that! She deserves an Emmy.
And oddly enough, Jay & Sam (& Pete) really did come in the back door!
For once Sam and Jay got do something crazy or illegal for the ghosts without getting caught and having to come up with an explanation.
Going back a bit because I just found this thread…
I’m the exact opposite. Babies ruin sitcoms unless they’re baked in from the beginning (I’m thinking Georgie and Mandy’s First Marriage, and even then only if they’re mostly sidelined). The whole show becomes about the baby, and they end up aging the kid up several years between seasons when they realize babies are boring and most people aren’t interested. So I definitely hope there’s no baby for Jay and Sam.
At least not the normal way. A ghost baby might be interesting, though I’m not sure how that would work. Or maybe they end up looking after a kid for a while that’s not theirs. It would be cool if the kid could see the ghosts.
But yeah, my vote is for no permanent babies/small children on the show.
In the British version, the ghosts fawn over Allison’s baby, and they mourn that babies can only see ghosts until “they’re about two or three.” Similarly, in the US version, it’s revealed that Thorfinn sang to Heddy when she was a little (living) girl, until she couldn’t see him any more.
So yeah, maybe Sam and Jay will watch a friend’s baby or a guest baby will visit Woodstone and she’ll see the Ghosts. That would be cute.
Also, in the UK version, Julian (the equivalent of Trevor) watches Mike’s sister’s baby while she sleeps and entertains her when she wakes. The baby smiles, indicating that she can see him.
No baby until the final season.
Trevor’s daughter joins the list of Livings who are aware that Sam can see the Ghosts. I’m pretty sure that list includes only Bela and Abby. I would think she would spend as much time as possible now talking to her dad, in a manner of speaking, through Sam as a sort of conduit.
I don’t know if the show is going to keep her on as a regular character or not. But I do know that there is a lot of room for developing things further as more Livings become aware of Sam’s ability.
I agree, except you cant ruin G&M 1st Wedding- it is already crap. Many good Sitcoms jumped the shark after adding a baby.
Logically this should lead to “Sam gets to talk to ghosts who died in the secret government compound in which she’s being held, pending vivisection.”
But I doubt that would get good ratings.
No one here commented on the Halloween episode, which featured the mummy cursing the Woodstone family. And it had a hilarious line when someone pointed out that Chris (the Australian stripper/skydiver) “wasn’t sucked off. He was blown.”
Is it common knowledge that the actors who play Trevor’s daughter and Stephanie (the teenage ghost that died on prom night) are sisters in real life? Their mother is Pamela Adlon, who I have seen in a lot of shows.
I did not know that! Now that I think about it, I see the resemblance.
They need a “that’s my purse!” reference to tie it together.
The Ghosts all playing ignorant at the double meaning of “sucked off” (except Trevor, who said something to the effect of “just let us have this, Sam” when called out on it) shouldn’t work for Pete, either. He died in the 80s, and I’m certain we Gen X teens were using that phrase while watching John Hughes movies back in the day. It might even date to Flower or Alberta’s time. Similarly, they play dumb at “going down on” for going to Hell, but a girl asked me to go down on her back in those days, and it’s in a Jefferson Airplane song from the 70s, so it may have been used in Flower’s or even Alberta’s days.
Maybe a Doper who knows how to search for these things can tell us when those phrases took on their double meanings.
I wonder what double entendre they’ll do next. I can see Nancy complaining that a customer stuck his hand through her and she’ll complain she got finger-banged.
I can imagine Pete being oblivious to it. So regarding Trevor’s money; is he paying taxes on it? Isaac’s money is all in Sam’s name and easily accounted for. Trevor’s apparently making alot more money, all under a fake identity, and his coworkers can now all testify that Jay is Trevor*. That seems like setting the stage for a not so fun plot for Jay.
*I forgot Trevor’s fake name.
Heh, Jay gets convicted of tax fraud, and ironically gains something in common with most of the ghosts when he can no longer leave the estate (in his case, due to his ankle monitor).
Kyle, the Living whom Pete met and who can also see ghosts, will be returning for the November 22 episode, per ScreenRant. The article makes it look like he’ll just effectively be babysitting the Ghosts in Sam’s absence. So my list of Livings Who Can See The Ghosts should have included him. Bela, Abby and Kyle.
Switching gears: whatever happened to Joan, Sesappis’ girlfriend, by the way?
Huh, good question. I’m not sure. Did she get written off at all?