Would it have been controversial if they kept Dana still? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

88survivor · 06-28-2006, 12:13 PM

She was pregnant and all, but if they really did kept her still and she started showing signs of pregnancy, would it have been controversial or made Drummond a bit of an unprotective father? Just curious to know...

sarah2112 · 07-20-2006, 02:05 PM

I don't know why she was fired either. Lots of soap operas have pregnant actresses who hide behind potted plants, big purses or counters.

Sparkygirl · 07-20-2006, 03:06 PM

Because she was playing a teenager and she was not married.

sarah2112 · 08-01-2006, 06:18 PM

Exactly, which is why the show could have hidden the pregnancy. It's done on other shows all the time, e.g. Heather Locklear on Melrose Place.

DSFan4ever · 08-01-2006, 06:44 PM

They could of created something out of it IMO

Buffyboy323 · 08-01-2006, 10:32 PM

It wouldn't have worked. The reason Dana was fired was because she was pregnant, and they couldn't possibly right in that "Kimberly" got pregnant too because she was too young. Also, Kimberly Drummond was supposed to be a "Good Girl." I think if she were pregnant it would have been very controversial, and the show would have also changed it's focus...Even more than it did when Sam and his Mom came on. Ugh.

kenj28 · 10-07-2006, 02:44 PM

If a network fired a female for becoming pregnant today they would have a lawsuit filed against them so fast it would make your head spin. What NBC did was wrong .Dana should have been put on paid maternity leave. A year earlier that would have been Todds' baby,would they have fired him too?

Buffyboy323 · 10-08-2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenj28

If a network fired a female for becoming pregnant today they would have a lawsuit filed against them so fast it would make your head spin. What NBC did was wrong .Dana should have been put on paid maternity leave. A year earlier that would have been Todds' baby,would they have fired him too?

Not always...

88survivor · 10-15-2006, 10:01 AM

Oh, wow. That's sad.

Johnny be good! · 04-22-2007, 10:03 AM

Or maybe they could have just replaced Kimberly Drummond altogether.

Brian Damage · 04-22-2007, 10:25 AM

I agree with the others who said they can hide the pregnancy. I think it was unneccessary to fire her.

DJM77 · 05-29-2007, 08:45 PM

It was pretty noticeable that she was pregnant in the episode where Drummond and Maggie got married.

06-28-2006, 12:13 PM	#1
88survivor Member Senior Member Join Date: Mar 03, 2006 Location: NY Posts: 1,849	Would it have been controversial if they kept Dana still? She was pregnant and all, but if they really did kept her still and she started showing signs of pregnancy, would it have been controversial or made Drummond a bit of an unprotective father? Just curious to know...

08-01-2006, 10:32 PM	#6
Buffyboy323 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Jun 24, 2005 Posts: 6,104	It wouldn't have worked. The reason Dana was fired was because she was pregnant, and they couldn't possibly right in that "Kimberly" got pregnant too because she was too young. Also, Kimberly Drummond was supposed to be a "Good Girl." I think if she were pregnant it would have been very controversial, and the show would have also changed it's focus...Even more than it did when Sam and his Mom came on. Ugh.
	Last edited by Buffyboy323; 10-30-2006 at 02:51 AM.

10-07-2006, 02:44 PM	#7
kenj28 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Oct 07, 2006 Location: Cleveeland,Ohio Posts: 27	Dana pregnancy If a network fired a female for becoming pregnant today they would have a lawsuit filed against them so fast it would make your head spin. What NBC did was wrong .Dana should have been put on paid maternity leave. A year earlier that would have been Todds' baby,would they have fired him too?

04-22-2007, 10:25 AM	#11
Brian Damage I'm Rich Bitch Forum Icon Join Date: Feb 03, 2002 Location: What Ain't No Country I Ever Heard Of...They Speak English in What? Posts: 63,107	I agree with the others who said they can hide the pregnancy. I think it was unneccessary to fire her.
	__________________ The Key to the Kingdom of Heaven: John 3:3 *Money Doesn't Buy Happiness...But I'd Rather Cry in My Private Jet*

05-29-2007, 08:45 PM	#12
DJM77 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: May 15, 2001 Location: Missouri Posts: 5,562	It was pretty noticeable that she was pregnant in the episode where Drummond and Maggie got married.
	__________________ Marge: There are only 49 stars on that flag. Abe: I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missouri!

07-20-2006, 02:05 PM	#2
sarah2112 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Nov 13, 2000 Posts: 32	I don't know why she was fired either. Lots of soap operas have pregnant actresses who hide behind potted plants, big purses or counters.

07-20-2006, 03:06 PM	#3
Sparkygirl Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Aug 23, 2004 Location: CT Posts: 59	Because she was playing a teenager and she was not married.

08-01-2006, 06:18 PM	#4
sarah2112 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Nov 13, 2000 Posts: 32	Exactly, which is why the show could have hidden the pregnancy. It's done on other shows all the time, e.g. Heather Locklear on Melrose Place.

08-01-2006, 06:44 PM	#5
DSFan4ever Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Sep 03, 2005 Posts: 17	They could of created something out of it IMO

10-15-2006, 10:01 AM	#9
88survivor Member Senior Member Join Date: Mar 03, 2006 Location: NY Posts: 1,849	Oh, wow. That's sad.

04-22-2007, 10:03 AM	#10
Johnny be good! Member Senior Member Join Date: Feb 18, 2007 Location: Westland, Michigan Posts: 1,633	Or maybe they could have just replaced Kimberly Drummond altogether.