LAURA - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

treky · 08-18-2012, 01:00 AM

I was watching the 3rd seasons two part episode LAURAS LITTLE LIE and VERY OLD SHOES, VERY OLD RICE in wich it's revealed that Laura was 17 when she married Rob. I found myself thinking that; in all the flashback episodes showing them before they were married an also when they just got married, HOW THE **** did the writers back then honestly think viewers would believe that she's a teenager???

Marvo301 · 08-18-2012, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treky

I was watching the 3rd seasons two part episode LAURAS LITTLE LIE and VERY OLD SHOES, VERY OLD RICE in wich it's revealed that Laura was 17 when she married Rob. I found myself thinking that; in all the flashback episodes showing them before they were married an also when they just got married, HOW THE **** did the writers back then honestly think viewers would believe that she's a teenager???

You make a very good point! When Rob first met Laura she was a dancer in the U.S.O. How could she be in the U.S.O. if she was only 17? And she didn't exactly look 17 either! But Rob didn't exactly look the age he was supposed to be in those flashback episodes either! I think the writere were expecting us to suspend disbelief and use a fair bit of imagination while viewing those flashback episodes.

ajgenard · 08-21-2012, 01:46 AM

My only, and I repeat ONLY, critcism of the show was the writers basically forcing the audience to suspend disbelief of some pretty improbable details from time to time and an occasional glaring lack of continuity. Like when Ritchie is born, they are in their old house but when Laura returns from the hospital in "That's My Boy?" they are magically in their current house. I've noticed many large inconsistencies in that vein. Laura being 17, a member of the USO at that age, and being able to hide it from her husband for so long all come under that umbrella.

However, I'm willing to give the show a pass. Continuity (and even plausibility) were not yet given much attention in television. And with the much smaller budgets of the day that meant some details had to be sacrificed for economic convenience.

treky · 08-21-2012, 04:15 AM

true, I never thought of the budget and them being forced to sacrifice certain details and nott much attention being paid to those things back then.

08-18-2012, 01:00 AM	#1
treky star trek fan Eternal Member Forum Fanatic Join Date: Feb 25, 2002 Location: Conshohocken, pennsylvania Posts: 14,490	LAURA I was watching the 3rd seasons two part episode LAURAS LITTLE LIE and VERY OLD SHOES, VERY OLD RICE in wich it's revealed that Laura was 17 when she married Rob. I found myself thinking that; in all the flashback episodes showing them before they were married an also when they just got married, HOW THE **** did the writers back then honestly think viewers would believe that she's a teenager???
	__________________ the Clampetts are in a fancy Beverly Hills jewelry store. Granny points to a tray of rubies. Granny: "How much fer one o' them red diamonds?" clerk: "Madam, those are rubies." Granny: "OK ask her kin we buy one offa her." clerk: " The ruby I am talking about is not a lady." Granny: "Lissen, how she got them diamonds is her business. I'm just sayin' ask her kin we buy one from her."

08-21-2012, 01:46 AM	#3
ajgenard Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Jul 09, 2011 Location: PA Posts: 369	My only, and I repeat ONLY, critcism of the show was the writers basically forcing the audience to suspend disbelief of some pretty improbable details from time to time and an occasional glaring lack of continuity. Like when Ritchie is born, they are in their old house but when Laura returns from the hospital in "That's My Boy?" they are magically in their current house. I've noticed many large inconsistencies in that vein. Laura being 17, a member of the USO at that age, and being able to hide it from her husband for so long all come under that umbrella. However, I'm willing to give the show a pass. Continuity (and even plausibility) were not yet given much attention in television. And with the much smaller budgets of the day that meant some details had to be sacrificed for economic convenience.

08-21-2012, 04:15 AM	#4
treky star trek fan Eternal Member Forum Fanatic Join Date: Feb 25, 2002 Location: Conshohocken, pennsylvania Posts: 14,490	true, I never thought of the budget and them being forced to sacrifice certain details and nott much attention being paid to those things back then.