In Friends, it was realistic the amount Ross seemed to see his son, that he didn’t live with.
When he and Rachel had a daughter they did make an attempt to integrate the baby into the story, but no baby sleeps that much.
Same for a lot of sitcoms and some dramas. “Shh, the baby’s sleeping.” Every time? And every time, even at home, you’re dressed to the nines when the baby happens to be napping?
Also Rachel moving to France. Well, that might have been a big deal for her relationship with Ross, but when it came to moving their daughter abroad too, it was an obvious no. Rachel would have to be a horrible mother to go “well, I have a fantastic job in NY, which is where her father is and he sees her a lot, and she has a half brother there, and it’s where my family live, and it’s where my daughter’s father’s family live, and the extended family and all our friends live, but I could also go to Paris for a slightly better job (even though I don’t speak French) and my daughter will see everyone else every few months.”
Instead they had her on the plane without the kid or any acknowledgement of the kid.
I once heard somebody make a comment about the baby never being around in Party of Five, but I never watched the show, so don’t know if the statement was correct.
Why? Seriously, what does it matter? Do you think the purpose of a sitcom is to depict every minute of the characters’ non-existent lives? Why do you care about secondary or tertiary characters who aren’t currently on screen?
Because it’s poor storytelling. Having a baby changes people’s lives and if you’re not going to have the character’s lives change then why bother writing in a baby?
Who says it’s poor storytelling? Go through a script of an episode of Friends and show me how the absence of a minor character makes the storytelling poor.
How do you know the characters’ lives are unchanged? The purpose of a sitcom is not to depict those characters’ entire lives. It would be poor storytelling to squeeze in a baby in every episode simply because a baby exists.
A sitcom about a man who has a baby has no obligation to show the baby if the baby doesn’t serve the story that’s right in front of you.
In an episodic series, especially in a sitcom like “Friends,” the story is simply the 24 minutes of that episode. If there’s no reason for a baby to show up in that episode, then it’s poor storytelling to force it in.
Similarly, there’s no reason why a baby shouldn’t jump from newborn to toddler between seasons, if having an infant for several seasons doesn’t serve the actual stories you’re telling.
I’m not sure if this was mentioned, but Marshall and Lily have a baby, maybe two, I don’t remember on HIMYM. I seem to recall them having the first one, a boy, in quite a few scenes. I don’t think that messed the show up which seems to be the exception to the rule. I don’t know if Alyson Hannigan was actually pregnant in real life or not. I know both she and Cobie Smulders were both pregnant together but neither pregnancy was written into the show.
Our opinions differ. This appears to anger you and I really don’t think there’s any point me bothering to explain my opinion any more to you when your own is so VERY strong.
I agree. I mean, if it’s the supporting character that has a child or the show is a procedural, that’s different, but if it’s a main character and the show has anything to with the character’s personal life, then yes, there needs to be some change. Not having a baby ever is fine. Introducing a character (or plot device) that should make massive change to what the audience sees, and then doesn’t is bad storytelling.
Oh, I strongly disagree. I know why it’s done (babies are not really all that interesting, since they don’t do much) but I dislike bad continuity. One person aging several years while everyone else ages only one is a problem. Likewise disappearing siblings, and changed backstories. And a lot of people don’t care about continuity at all - say it gets in the way of the story. I disagree. If a writer can’t keep continuity and make a good story, the problem is the writer, not the continuity (unless it was screwed up by a previous writer).
My opinion is strong because I hear nitpicks like this all the time and they have zero to do with good or bad writing. It just seems to me part of the nitpicking/trivia culture that has no basis in the actual experience, purpose, or context of a story.
I consider it a kind of stereotypical or lazy thinking to criticize episodic sitcoms on that basis. That’s why I demand that people really think hard and justify this kind of opinion.
One of my favorite “My Three Sons” anecdotes is how Dawn Lyn (Dodie) would yank Fred MacMurray’s toupee during filming just to see the reaction! One of the best aspects of the 2002 Family Affair revival was the bubbling dark undercurrent they gave to the revival version of Buffy Davis (Buffy: You’re beginning to annoy Mrs. Beasley! Jody: Don’t want to do that!)
It ticked me off when Kate and Doug Lawrence (Family) adopted Annieand shuffled poor ol’ Buddy to the sidelines. Buddy made that show, dammit!
…don’t get me wrong, I think Quinn Cummings (Annie) was a very talented child actor (she shined in The Goodbye Girl, for example). But, Kristy McNichol (Buddy) was something quite special. She had the acting chops of a seasoned adult actor at the age of ~12. Clara Bow may be the original “it” girl, but Kristy was the definitive “it” kid.
I’m talking about the 2002 version of Family Affair with Sasha Pieterse as Buffy and Tim Curry as Mr French. That’s the version where Mr French is a more typical British butler that does not really like children, and Buffy is more sassy and snarky.
Dodie is handled badly by the producers of My Three Sons. Doesn’t help that Season 10 - where she has “hatchet hair” and exposed bloomers under super-short dresses - is the only Dodie season most viewers ever see.
I’ve been watching the series from the beginning and am now in season 11 - There are 12 seasons. I wasn’t going to stick with it once the Dodie years began but glad I did. Poor Dodie still has a terrible hairdo and still is wearing the baby doll dresses even though she’s in school - I’m guessing at least 1st grade. Those dresses belong on toddlers! She actually has some funny lines and for such a little kid, she does a pretty good job.