More kids?

[Christina E]

Here is something that I've been thinking about for a while. Do you think Rob and Laura should have had more kids? Do you think they should have had more when the show began? Do you think they should have had a baby on the show like I Love Lucy? Do you think the show should have ended with Laura pregnant again? Do you think adding another child would have made the show better, worse, or the same?

I know in one of the episodes, I think it was "Go Tell the Birds and the Bees" Rob and Laura talked about having another child. I remember they concluded that it might be nice, but didn't say they would one way or the other.

It seems like many sitcoms these days add another person, often a child, to keep giving new plots to work with. It often ruins the show in the end. I know Carl wanted to stop after five years before the show got stale. Do you think they should have added another child instead and kept the show going, or would that have ruined it like so many other shows?

I'd love to hear what the rest of you think about this subject.

Christina

[B&W fan]

I'm gonna keep this brief, not because it isn't a good discussion question, but because I don't have much time tonight.

Firstly, and most importantly, I think the show ended at the right time. The next season would have been in color, and I can't imagine that. It would have lost some of its charm if it went to color, just like Andy Griffith did. Of course, this is only my opinion.

Second, I think when you consider the type of people that Rob and Laura were, a second child wouldn't have been practical. They had too hectic a life, with great social events, and I believe the addition of another kid would have greatly interfered with all their "running around" to different parties, weekend retreats, etc.

The show was predicated on them having freedom, and this would have restricted them too much, IMHO.

So on the whole I feel that the one kid, Richie (who by the way was absent on many an occasion as it was), fulfilled what was needed in the Petrie family.

B&W "that's my two cents" fan

[Kristen]

Originally posted by Christina E


It seems like many sitcoms these days add another person, often a child, to keep giving new plots to work with. It often ruins the show in the end. I know Carl wanted to stop after five years before the show got stale. Do you think they should have added another child instead and kept the show going, or would that have ruined it like so many other shows?

I'd love to hear what the rest of you think about this subject.

Christina

Interesting topic, Christina! You're right about shows today adding kids. It seems like, "Oh, we're running out of story ideas! Let's just add a kid and that'll solve everything!" and that very rarely works. I'm glad that idea didn't really exist yet in the 60's. I agree with B&W fan. The Petries were fine with just one kid. I think had Laura gotten pregnant at the end of the series, people would have wondered, "What happens now?!" and it would've made it harder to end the series. Carl had the right idea ending at 5 years. It gave everyone a chance to go on with their own careers, and the show never got stale as so many shows do.

That's my 2 cents on the topic.
Kristen

[SawgrassSteve]

Good question.
I've wondered myself why Rob and Laura didn't start with Richie, then have a daughter as the show progressed. I thought it would've been a good idea to have added a girl. That always seems to be the perfect set for family sitcoms, and Rob seemed to have had the perfect personality for expressing that softer side of parenting that a little girl could bring out in a Dad. But reading the previous comments, I now think that maybe it wouldn't have been for the best, story-wise. It could've taken them in different directions than Carl wanted to go.
Adding a kid isn't always a bad idea, however. It worked wonders for I Love Lucy. The fresh perspective it brought made the show seem new again, and the ratings spiked dramatically.
Maybe it's all about preferrences and in which direction the creative staff wanted to take the show. After all, good writers and a talented cast can make almost any change a good one.

Steve

[PicklesSorrell]

I would have liked to have seen the Petries have another child. Yes, they had a hectic, busy life. They were still young. Another child would have settled them further down into married life. And what difference would that have made? Seems to me, in the last season, anyway, the entire show was centered solely around Rob and laura and home, anyway.

What would have been a scream would to have seen Pickles come up with a change of life baby. Buddy? A *father*? Pickles? *pregnant*?! With a name like Pickles, what would she be craving at 3am? Pickles and ice cream...to explain that to an exaspirated man? This would have been an absolute riot!


And I think this show would have fared much better going into color than Andy Griffith. By that time, they had lost Don Knotts - an original character and part of what made the show so great. And Andy Griffith was tired of doing the show by then and it was obvious. He was more "tired" and didnt joke around and laugh as much. Its not the color part that changes the show...its screwing around with an already proven formula that does it. Same with All in the Family...they killed off Edith, Gloria & Mike left and Archies life centered around the bar...that got really boring and people started tuning out. If DVD kept the same formula that they were working, same actors, same writers, same sets, it could have went on forever. We could have finally seen what color their livingroom was

I think they would have benefitted from more kids. Laura being pregnant and hoping for the girl she secretly wanted...only to find out she was having twins...? The story lines are endless.



Just my ideas.


~Pickles