Would 'Rhoda' Have Been Any Better Or Worse If Show Kept Her Brother & Other Sister?

[Brian Damage]

I don't like inconsistencies on spinoffs. I think it hurts the credibility of the writers of the parent show. With that said, would you have liked to see Rhoda's brother Arnold and other sister Debbie be a part of the cast or at the very least guest starred? Do you think it would've made the show better or worse?

[catlover79]

I don't know. I was fine with just Brenda being aound. The other two COULD have been referred to or even drop in from time to time, however.

[Brian Damage]

Originally Posted by catlover79

I don't know. I was fine with just Brenda being aound. The other two COULD have been referred to or even drop in from time to time, however.

They were never mentioned though correct?

[TripperFan]

Yah, you're correct Brian. It actually drove me nuts that Debbie at least was never mentioned - and they did an entire episode on MTM about Mary and Rhoda going to New York for Debbie's wedding.

I'm just watching the series again now and I do think it would have helped. The big disappointment for me with the series is how quickly Joe and Rhoda's marriage went into the dumper. It was funny when Ida was afraid "there was trouble", but then when it did start to go south, it wasn't as funny anymore. They might have been able to do a bit more with having more family characters in it.

Also Brenda did do an excellent job in her role. I got to the point that I got more laughs out of her and her dating experiences than the Rhoda story lines.

[Brian Damage]

Originally Posted by Pus$y Galore

Yah, you're correct Brian. It actually drove me nuts that Debbie at least was never mentioned - and they did an entire episode on MTM about Mary and Rhoda going to New York for Debbie's wedding.

I'm just watching the series again now and I do think it would have helped. The big disappointment for me with the series is how quickly Joe and Rhoda's marriage went into the dumper. It was funny when Ida was afraid "there was trouble", but then when it did start to go south, it wasn't as funny anymore. They might have been able to do a bit more with having more family characters in it.

Also Brenda did do an excellent job in her role. I got to the point that I got more laughs out of her and her dating experiences than the Rhoda story lines.

Well said Cathie! In my opinion they tried to make Rhoda into the New York version of Mary Richards and essentially, made Brenda into what Rhoda was on TMTMS.

[TripperFan]

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

Well said Cathie! In my opinion they tried to make Rhoda into the New York version of Mary Richards and essentially, made Brenda into what Rhoda was on TMTMS.

Exactly!! I guess they feel that the central character needs to be "the straight person" (similar to Seinfeld), but I don't think that always needs to be the case.

I think they should have had at least a full season of Rhoda dating some real wingnuts (afterall, they made it like NYC is full of them). She and Brenda double dating, etc.. It wasn't until after her divorce from Joe they got more into that type of thing. It was like the show was written backwards or something.

I always had a crush on Joe, but I hated it that they made him so ornary. There really wasn't a need to do that to his character.

[Brian Damage]

Originally Posted by Pus$y Galore

Exactly!! I guess they feel that the central character needs to be "the straight person" (similar to Seinfeld), but I don't think that always needs to be the case.

I think they should have had at least a full season of Rhoda dating some real wingnuts (afterall, they made it like NYC is full of them). She and Brenda double dating, etc.. It wasn't until after her divorce from Joe they got more into that type of thing. It was like the show was written backwards or something.

I always had a crush on Joe, but I hated it that they made him so ornary. There really wasn't a need to do that to his character.

LOL at the show being written backwards! That seems to be so true. I guess they needed Joe to be ornery to justify having them divorce.

[TripperFan]

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

LOL at the show being written backwards! That seems to be so true. I guess they needed Joe to be ornery to justify having them divorce.

LOL yah probably.....although when he was introduced to Mary just before the wedding, it's a wonder Rhoda ever made it down the aisle with him! Just seemed odd because the character of Rhoda struck me as one as not taking @*&$ from anyone (other than maybe Ida).

[zevonsky72]

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

I don't like inconsistencies on spinoffs. I think it hurts the credibility of the writers of the parent show. With that said, would you have liked to see Rhoda's brother Arnold and other sister Debbie be a part of the cast or at the very least guest starred? Do you think it would've made the show better or worse?

Although I hate inconsistncies, I think Rhoda's developers made the right call here. The Debbie character unfortunately was not written with the depth of character Ida and Martin had already been given. It felt like Debbie was just a single-episode plot device to once again make Rhoda the hapless second banana in her own family the way she was with Mary.

There just didn't seem to be a lot of thought placed in crafting or casting the Debbie character. The actress wasn't particularly noteworthy and didn't have strong chemistry with Valerie.

Should Debbie have been thrown into Rhoda along with Brenda just for consistency's sale? No. Putting Rhoda in a small family cast with extremely talented actors (Kaver, Walker, Gould) turned out to be the wisest decision the producers made, and it enabled the show to succeed even after Rhoda's marriage ended.

[JMFabiano524]

What about Aunt Rose? Now there's someone else who should have turned up even for a one shot deal (plus, I really like Brett Somers)