The question nobody wants to ask? Was showing small kids as small kids a failure?

[DTF955]

"Full House" tried an innovation; a toddler on the set. People complain about Michelle, but there's a bigger question I've not heard anyone ask; was the experiment a failure?

It was great for the Chronology, but perhaps people need to think, and frame their ideas not in so much complaining, but in the notion that what they tried might not have worked, and just let it go. I think it did work, but I'm not the normal viewer.

Explanations of each answer below this:

There were lots of child development things that some called mistakes which weren't, but there was never time explain in the 30 (really 22-24) minutes they had on "Full House." New foods, for instance; D.J.'s favorite food changed from season 1 to 4 becuase it's natural for children to like new foods. But people complain.

With the younger ones, too - Michelle could pick out her preschool outfit early in season 4 because to a small child, having Daddy pick 2 things and choosing between the two is choosing. it is not to a 7YO child, as Michelle was in season 7. Again, there wasn't time to put in a line about how complex the mind is between 4 and 7.

Then, you have the problem of character development; there just wasn't much to have a small child do, unless you adopt my idea of having them able to wander in and out of camera/scenes, with no lines, and only allowed to interrupt the main cast if they say it's okay.

Let's face it, we only see less than 1% of these peoples' lives, and for us to only see certain parts just makes it too hard for some people. What if someone only showed the worst 1/4 of 1% of your childhood?

So, was it worth it to have the small children act like small children? Or, is it better to have the young children act like Einsteins (or Derek Boyds) all the time, with incredible vocabularies and understanding things and always behaving well?

Are TV viewers sophisticated enough to handle the notion that children are not little adults? I mean, if someone in your household moved out when you were four, would you really have kept a stiff upper lip and said "so what?" Of course not; especially if your dad was so depressed by the thought of loss that he never even told you or helped you transition toward it. (One time I think D.J. could have legitimately blown a handful of gaskets at Danny; and it would have made a good scene. "You can't even stand to tell her someone's moving?! Dad, we had to deal with MOM"S DEATH!!!!!!") Four years olds have emotions. They also have never experienced a lot, so every change is hard for them. (Probably not as hard as for Danny, though.)

Maybe TV viewers don't want to think and have compassion on situations like that. maybe TV viewers weren't sophisticated enough to see, "Oh, here's another situation where Michele is clearly influenced by Jesse; she's got so much of his attitude!" and just accept that small children are not going to act like little adults all the time.

But, I hope I'm wrong. I hope it's not an experiment that failed; that it just needed tweaked if anything.

Answers:

#1 is self-explanatory.

#2 says just that a few more seconds per show should have been devoted to consequences; "Michelle in the corner" means having it like a Dennis the Menace comic panel where she's saying something like Dennis would, showing her clearly punished. other things could be like what we see as the camera pans in "The Long Goodbye," D.J. clearly admonishing Stephanie for her comment to Danny. (Only visible in DVDs.)

#3 says more conflict was needed regarding it; D.J. confronting Danny about how Mom would handle things and then taking charge, for instance. Also, more explanation needed about how Jesse was influencing MIchelle, more discussion of child development; even if it took away from something else. And, when it comes to misteakes, anything up to and including a Dukes of Hazzard-type balladeer to explain what was going on development-wise so audiences see "okay, this is just normal, not a goof and not showing a character is inherently bad or anytyhing." In other words, telling viewers things they wouldn't ordinarily know. (And, can someone change condlict to conflict - sorry for the typo.)

#4 means making it like Book Universe, where D.J. is more clearly a mother figure, so when a problem arises she's the wise "here's how Mom would have done things" type, so that Michelle has few crises, can have some episodes focus on her, but never gets in trouble because the guys know D.J. will come up with something.

#5 means giving them less story lines and letting them wander in and out of scenes playing, etc.; just presume everything is okay with their development, because little kids are just very hard to write for. Or, if necessary, scrap the whole idea and have them be child geniuses.