Hola!

What was the point of the son, Richie? Did you like him? I thought the kid was super annoying and frankly rather ********. Laura always seemed to be mad at him anyway, basically because of his ******** behavior.

Richie would disappear for long stretches of time. He's either asleep, in his room, outside playing or flying in the sky in a UFO with Chuck Cunningham. It seemed that his character was more in the way of what this modern, adult show was about. It would be like having a child as a regular cast member of "Seinfeld". It just did not mix in with what the show was about.

Richie was an only child too, which is a lonely experience.

Senor

I think he was one of the worst child actors ever. Thankfully he wasn't there enough to ruin my enjoyment of the show.

Like some other sitcoms, the child only appeared when he was relevant to the plot, like the woodpecker episode, or the where-do-babies-come-from episode. If he wasn't needed, he would meet daddy when he came home, maybe do a quick one-liner, and off to bed. I agree that Laura was usually mad at him - maybe she should not have kept him. But I don't think that he was any more ******** than any other sitcom kid. I think that he was pretty good in the episodes where he played an important role.

I think Richie was a good edition to the cast in the early episodes. He wasn't necessarily the best actor but he did add a 'cute factor'. There was a point to Richie though, he did enable the writing staff to do many family related plots. Without Richie we wouldn't have Where Did I Come From?, Odd But True, Gesundheit, Darling and other great episodes. The first episode would also be completely different.

Oddly enough, Danny Thomas told Larry Matthews that he was the best child actor at the time outside of Rusty Hamer and Ron Howard.

I think he was needed as one of those "exsists" characters. Like Sally's Aunt Anges. Although Richie was more important. I mean I think it was beter that Laura and Rob had a kid, because it made their house more of a "home" which I think was important.

Yeah I thought Richie was a totally brat. Its still a great show though.

I think he was needed as one of those "exists" characters. Like Sally's Aunt Anges. Although Richie was more important. I mean I think it was beter that Laura and Rob had a kid, because it made their house more of a "home" which I think was important.


My sentiments exactly. He made the Petrie couple the Petrie family.

I thought he was cute and I liked the interaction between him and Dick Van Dyke!

Andrea

he was around to annoy rob by constantly asking him did you bring me anything before rob even had a chance to catch his breath or trip over the ottoman

I think it's nice that they had a kid, because as others have said, it made their house more of a home. It made them seem like a family. Kind of just one of those charactors that it adds something to the show knowing He exists, but not someone you want to see as a regular on the show. Nice knowing they had a kid, but he did seem a bit annoying.

Carl Reiner who created this show and wrote many of the episodes, based the series on his own personal experiences as a comedy writer. One aspect of Carl Reiner's real life experience is that he was a father. Therefore his fictional counterpart, Rob Petrie, was also a father. So to answer your original question, the point of Richie is that he is the TV counterpart to Carl Reiner's real life children(and more specifically his son Rob Reiner).:wave:

I think Senor Boogie Woogi may have just been goofing on the board with this question (before he got banned).
Ritchie was a very important part of the show and I thought, while no child actor is perfect, he was perfect in that role.
I mean, I just bought the boxed set, and as I'm currently thoroughly enjoying the first season, Ritchie is already an important part of five or six of the episodes.
He's central to the first show when he isn't feeling well. When he thinks Buddy's dog is a wolf, and when Sol and the sponsor are arguing and a sleepy Ritchie comes out and thinks Rob and Laura have the TV on too loud, those are things that kids do!!!!
As is the did-you-bring-me-something bit, or when he's emptying out his pockets and tells Laura he wants to keep his "rock that doesn't sink", which ends up being a cork. It's all cute stuff, and the only time Rob and Laura even get slightly exasperated with him is when he does some of those more mischievous things that kids do...like the using of the dirty words.

The writing on this show is as great as I remember it, and that includes the part of Ritchie, who I agree provides that necessary "family" feeling. And I think the little guy did a great job!

I prefer to look at it this way: If Rob and Laura did not have at least one kid, considering the times, much of the discussion-- especially when any of their relatives are there-- would have been about that ["When are you going to give us some granchildren?"]. On the other hand, if they had had 2 or more kids, the show would have been more of a 'domestic' comedy than was envisioned, as the show he wrote for, and their ties to show business in general, were to provide the situations. So having one kid was probably the best option for keeping their childlessness from being an issue, and still keeping the show from resembling Father Knows Best or Leave it to Beaver.

As to Larry Matthews' acting-- it could have been better, and possibly he would have been coached better if his part was more prominent. His main flaw IMO was that he couldn't speak up well without almost shouting. But the episodes in which he was featured more are generally still good ones and soemtimes parallel the adult situations; especially where he is giving things away to keep his friends liking him, and Rob lectures him on that, to finally realize t hat he (Rob) himself has been doing the same thing.

I agree with you on both accounts tdr, but although that Larry Matthews did shout, to me that made him seem more like a real child. Children aren't always composed and often seem to shout when they're excited, and in other sitcoms the children seemed so mature and 'written for' rather than like real kids. Richie seemed more real to me, especially int he early episodes than say the children on The Donna Reed Show or Leave it to Beaver.

I agree with you on both accounts tdr, but although that Larry Matthews did shout, to me that made him seem more like a real child. Children aren't always composed and often seem to shout when they're excited, and in other sitcoms the children seemed so mature and 'written for' rather than like real kids. Richie seemed more real to me, especially int he early episodes than say the children on The Donna Reed Show or Leave it to Beaver.

I think you're right. I've always been critical of Matthews as an actor, but when you think about it, the way he shouts when he's excited is actually very real (the kids on LITB would shout in the house sometimes, but usually to yell to their folks that they've come home). Wally's character was older than Richie's so that could be part of it as well. Beaver was maybe around the same age, just starting school. But parents are always having to tell their young kids to be a little more quiet in the house.

And I'll point one other thing out as well... how many shows have we seen that "jumped the shark" when the starring couple had a baby? Too many to name. At least in the case of the DVD show, they had a kid when the show started, and indeed, only really used him when it was necessary for the plot, or else gave him a brief encounter with Rob when he came home from the office. They didn't go though an entire season of Laura being pregnant, but did have some enjoyable flashback episodes to talk about her pregnancy. "I Love Lucy" handled pregnancy beautifully, with truly funny episodes, but it's not easy to pull that off.

I think DVD was the perfect show... a perfect cast, and just the right combination of "domstic" episodes and "office" episodes. And it definitely helped that they had a child. And yet, for some reason, it's very hard to imagine the Petries with a daughter who was an only child. It could have been done, I'm sure, but it worked out perfectly with Ritchie.

Besides, how good would a child actor have to be to hold his/her own with THAT cast?

I agree with you on all accounts Tweety. I think we also have to remember that TDVDS was not a family show...in the sense that it did not always revolve around the husband, wife, and kids like other shows did. It was more about the relationship between Rob and Laura and the relationship and experiences of Rob and his coworkers. Richie only came into the story when he was needed like you said, and honestly, although Richie seemed like a real child, I think that if we saw him in every episode he would have gotten extremely annoying. I think they wisely only put him in episodes where he was needed that allowed Rob and Laura to be a family and at the same time gave a chance for back stories on the characters or allowed the writers to pursue a funny story idea.

I think if they had a daughter they wouldn't have been able to do the same kind of episodes. Could you imagine a woodpecker pecking a little 6 year old girl?! I couldn't. I think girls were portrayed as more innocent then (think back to Linda on Make Room for Daddy) so the stories wouldn't have been plausible. I don't think we would have seen a little Petrie girl drawing on Rob's back either.

TDVDS is one of the few shows that I think should have continued for a couple more seasons. Everything was just THAT good and seeing more of the Petrie family would have been wonderful.

wow...the last couple of posts were very interesting and well-thought-out!

i think TDVDS struck just the right balance between rob at work, rob and laura, and rob and laura and ritchie...i totally agree that the petries having more kids, or the show focusing on ritchie more would have skewed it too much to the sitcoms mentioned.
The Petries were a loving family, of course, but the show wasn't your classic family sitcom, meaning about family only. How the show ended up was just so unique and fantastic, though!

And until it was pointed out, it hadn't stood out to me that ritchie talked loudly at times...but I agree that that made him more like a kid...that's what happens sometimes when kids get excited. His timing wasn't perfect, but it was very good, which made him seem real. I can't imagine I would have tired of seeing him in the show, but I didn't have to worry about that since they used him the perfect amount.

finally, as for how the show would have been with a little girl instead of ritchie, i just choose not to totally wrap my brain around that one...it's along the lines of wondering what any show would be like without one of the main characters. i mean, it would have been different, and i'm sure they would have done some nice things with a girl character...but i can't imagine it without ritchie, and carl reiner really came up with some real-life inspired ritchie stories that i'm glad i'm getting to see!

Ritchie wouldn't have been so annoying if he didn't YELL all his lines. Thank goodness he was relegated to his room a lot. :lol:

I thought the 'Rosebud' episode on his middle name was pretty memorable. It would have been a shame if stuff like that never came about.

I thought the 'Rosebud' episode on his middle name was pretty memorable. It would have been a shame if stuff like that never came about.
Which season was that?

Which season was that?

Season 2 "What's in a middle name?"

Richie learns that his middle name is "Rosebud". This episode explains how he got that name. A pretty clever episode.

Ahhhh, thanks. I'm still on Season 1. :cool:

Ahhhh, thanks. I'm still on Season 1. :cool:
I really don't find Larry Matthews that annoying as Ritchie, but I have often thought about what that part would have been like as played by Ronny Howard, for my money the best child actor since they added sound to movies. The scenes between he and Andy Griffith are among the most touching and real to ever air on television.

Agreed!!!

I agree he was fingernails on the chaulkboard.

I wonder if they had Richie to show that Laura had something to do besides just housework while Rob was working.

Now, why they had him sing 'Little Drummer Boy' on Alan Brady's Christmas Show was beyond me. Why would any TV star think to have his writer's preteen son actually perform on their own show?

Carl Reiner based the show on his own experience. He was taking the advice "write what you know." He knew being a TV comedy writer, a husband, and a father to a son. He even named his lead character after his real-life son.

Richie was the sounding board for most of the milestone flashback episodes, how Rob and Laura met, Richie's birth, etc. He also had some good episodes of his own:

-A Word a Day
-What In a Middle Name?
-A Bird in the Head Hurts
-Girls Will Be Boys
-Go Tell the Birds and the Bees

Now, why they had him sing 'Little Drummer Boy' on Alan Brady's Christmas Show was beyond me. Why would any TV star think to have his writer's preteen son actually perform on their own show?

I don't know about preteen sons singing solos, but variety shows really did used to bring in the whole families of the important people to the show, and they'd introduce them. It was a strange custom. I don't think it would be unusual to have even the smallest kids stammer out a Christmas tune.

I don't know about preteen sons singing solos, but variety shows really did used to bring in the whole families of the important people to the show, and they'd introduce them. It was a strange custom. I don't think it would be unusual to have even the smallest kids stammer out a Christmas tune.

Dick Van Dyke's kids appeared on the show, too. The Christmas episode was meant to be one of their mini musicals anyway. We shouldn't look too much for true to life motivation here. They were just trying to entertain.

I agree with you on all accounts Tweety. I think we also have to remember that TDVDS was not a family show...in the sense that it did not always revolve around the husband, wife, and kids like other shows did. It was more about the relationship between Rob and Laura and the relationship and experiences of Rob and his coworkers. Richie only came into the story when he was needed like you said, and honestly, although Richie seemed like a real child, I think that if we saw him in every episode he would have gotten extremely annoying. I think they wisely only put him in episodes where he was needed that allowed Rob and Laura to be a family and at the same time gave a chance for back stories on the characters or allowed the writers to pursue a funny story idea.

I think that there's a remarkable relationship among at least four classic shows: Dick van Dyke, Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart, and Frasier. This thing where the kid can be hidden away is one of the interesting aspects. MTM had Bess, Bob Newhart had Little Howie, and Frasier had Frederick. Never underfoot but always on call if needed.

Dick Van Dyke's kids appeared on the show, too. The Christmas episode was meant to be one of their mini musicals anyway. We shouldn't look too much for true to life motivation here. They were just trying to entertain.

At the start of the episode they specifically mention that they're copying the Perry Como Show.