handling of john ritters death - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

disgusted · 11-11-2003, 09:57 PM

ok. im officially disgusted. Kari not being able to get anyone other then her sisters reject was bad enough, but how this show has chosen to deal with the death of john ritter is inappropriate and very poor child psychology.

To make young children 'act' out a bogus death of a character is one thing. But to make these children act a scripted way to grieve over someone they were actually close to and actually died is horrible. The producers should be ashamed of themselves; i know john ritter would be.

Not only is it blatently obvious that no grief counsellors or child psychologists were brought in to address this issue in the imaginary show but it is also obvious the producers didnt consult professionals regarding the damge such action would cause to these young actors.

Real death is not a marketing gimmick.

I urge everyone to support the mental health of these young actors by boycotting the show to voice your disapproval of the handling of this very real live grief situation.

Otherwise they will grow up to believe twisted ways to grieve if they believe the public and all the adults associated with the show agree that death is a comedic theme.

luckilab1 · 11-11-2003, 10:50 PM

I don't agree. I think, along with other people, that John would be happy to see his show go on without him. He was not a selfish person, he wouldn't want the show to stop because he believed all of the cast was talented, not just himself.

There is definitley a seperation of real-life grieving for John as a friend, coworker, etc.. and then having their characters grieving for their father on the show. Both developed a different relationship for their real-life friend and their TV father. I thought they handled it appropriatley and am glad they are continuing the show for John.

P.S. I don't think it's a marketing gimmick.. if people chose to tune into the show to see how it survives with the loss of Paul then that's their choice, ABC is not continuing it for the sole reason of attracting viewers because of John's death. If they wanted the show to have turned out this way, they would have killed Paul off earlier just as part of a storyline but John's death was completely unexpected.. so no, i do not think it's a marketing gimmick.

HDfanLiz · 11-11-2003, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luckilab1
I don't agree. I think, along with other people, that John would be happy to see his show go on without him. He was not a selfish person, he wouldn't want the show to stop because he believed all of the cast was talented, not just himself.

There is definitley a seperation of real-life grieving for John as a friend, coworker, etc.. and then having their characters grieving for their father on the show. Both developed a different relationship for their real-life friend and their TV father. I thought they handled it appropriatley and am glad they are continuing the show for John.

P.S. I don't think it's a marketing gimmick.. if people chose to tune into the show to see how it survives with the loss of Paul then that's their choice, ABC is not continuing it for the sole reason of attracting viewers because of John's death. If they wanted the show to have turned out this way, they would have killed Paul off earlier just as part of a storyline but John's death was completely unexpected.. so no, i do not think it's a marketing gimmick.

I agree with everything you said! I'd also like to add that no one is making the actors do this, they chose (along with John Ritter's widow) to keep the show going.

Mr. Television · 11-11-2003, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by disgusted
ok. im officially disgusted. Kari not being able to get anyone other then her sisters reject was bad enough, but how this show has chosen to deal with the death of john ritter is inappropriate and very poor child psychology.

To make young children 'act' out a bogus death of a character is one thing. But to make these children act a scripted way to grieve over someone they were actually close to and actually died is horrible. The producers should be ashamed of themselves; i know john ritter would be.

Not only is it blatently obvious that no grief counsellors or child psychologists were brought in to address this issue in the imaginary show but it is also obvious the producers didnt consult professionals regarding the damge such action would cause to these young actors.

Real death is not a marketing gimmick.

I urge everyone to support the mental health of these young actors by boycotting the show to voice your disapproval of the handling of this very real live grief situation.

Otherwise they will grow up to believe twisted ways to grieve if they believe the public and all the adults associated with the show agree that death is a comedic theme.

wolf paws · 11-11-2003, 11:52 PM

To Disgusted,

You should be ashamed of yourself. I read in an article that the set of "8 Simple Rules" discussed whether each of them wanted to continue the show, along with John's wife, Amy. They all agreed. I commend the cast of 8SR for continuing with the show, not just for John, but for themselves as well. I'm sure the young actors are coping with John Ritter's passing as anyone else would do, and I'm sure they are getting comfort from their real-life families, their friends, and their many fans. Again, another tear jerker episode

The part that got me crying was the scene where Bridget is about to go the dance in that dress, and she says, "I would've never gotten this far, and dad would've made me go back upstairs to change because I need to respect myself." and so on. That really got my tears going. I liked how the sisters were there for each other when they were in their bedroom. One thing that I hope will be added in more episodes is to have Cate's three kids be there for her. In little ways they have,but I would like to see more of that. I liked Katey's, Kaley's, Amy's and James Garner's scences in this episode, along with the scences from the "Goodbye" episode.

David · 11-12-2003, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by disgusted
ok. im officially disgusted. Kari not being able to get anyone other then her sisters reject was bad enough, but how this show has chosen to deal with the death of john ritter is inappropriate and very poor child psychology.

To make young children 'act' out a bogus death of a character is one thing. But to make these children act a scripted way to grieve over someone they were actually close to and actually died is horrible. The producers should be ashamed of themselves; i know john ritter would be.

Not only is it blatently obvious that no grief counsellors or child psychologists were brought in to address this issue in the imaginary show but it is also obvious the producers didnt consult professionals regarding the damge such action would cause to these young actors.

Real death is not a marketing gimmick.

I urge everyone to support the mental health of these young actors by boycotting the show to voice your disapproval of the handling of this very real live grief situation.

Otherwise they will grow up to believe twisted ways to grieve if they believe the public and all the adults associated with the show agree that death is a comedic theme.

i... kinda disagree. but i agree with most of what the other posters said.

Mr. Roper · 11-12-2003, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luckilab1
I don't agree. I think, along with other people, that John would be happy to see his show go on without him. He was not a selfish person, he wouldn't want the show to stop because he believed all of the cast was talented, not just himself.

There is definitley a seperation of real-life grieving for John as a friend, coworker, etc.. and then having their characters grieving for their father on the show. Both developed a different relationship for their real-life friend and their TV father. I thought they handled it appropriatley and am glad they are continuing the show for John.

P.S. I don't think it's a marketing gimmick.. if people chose to tune into the show to see how it survives with the loss of Paul then that's their choice, ABC is not continuing it for the sole reason of attracting viewers because of John's death. If they wanted the show to have turned out this way, they would have killed Paul off earlier just as part of a storyline but John's death was completely unexpected.. so no, i do not think it's a marketing gimmick.

Well said. The actors are doing a great job! And the writers are also.

Freakzilla · 11-12-2003, 03:50 PM

I agree with most of you. They are doing a good job and the ratings thus far are holding up. So there's still the chance that 8 Simple Rules could be the long-running show it would have been if John Ritter had lived.

LILFACE23 · 11-12-2003, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luckilab1
I don't agree. I think, along with other people, that John would be happy to see his show go on without him. He was not a selfish person, he wouldn't want the show to stop because he believed all of the cast was talented, not just himself.

There is definitley a seperation of real-life grieving for John as a friend, coworker, etc.. and then having their characters grieving for their father on the show. Both developed a different relationship for their real-life friend and their TV father. I thought they handled it appropriatley and am glad they are continuing the show for John.

P.S. I don't think it's a marketing gimmick.. if people chose to tune into the show to see how it survives with the loss of Paul then that's their choice, ABC is not continuing it for the sole reason of attracting viewers because of John's death. If they wanted the show to have turned out this way, they would have killed Paul off earlier just as part of a storyline but John's death was completely unexpected.. so no, i do not think it's a marketing gimmick.

I agree with you 100%.

Disgusted,

benjamoon · 11-12-2003, 07:36 PM

I agree with everything everyone said except disgusted, who said a whole bunch of crap

sokar lord of natu · 11-13-2003, 10:27 PM

im sorry but not everyne is totally screwed up when someone dies!
i wasnt...course i was already clinicly depressed but thats besides the point.
some people mourn by joking, are they less human than the rest of us?
oh sure some people are totally messed up by death, some people give their own lives rather than live on without someone, but why?
because theyre afraid (im rambling now i could go on for some time) of what might happen and they just give in.
evidently said actors/actresses (ive not seen the episode myself having living in old blighty, which in itself is reason enough to mourn given current situations) werent afected as badly as you think they should have been.
oh no they agreed to 'act out the bogus death of someone they were close to' they must need psychological care (which brings me to another point, why does EVERYONE expect me to give a rats ass when a old peer of mine hung herself, i hated her, i was in no way responcible for her death why should i care)
im going now, im apparently slightly annoyed at something and i quite often say stupid things when i am.

Mariel · 11-13-2003, 11:51 PM

Kaley Cuoco (Bridget) said it herself in an interview that she's proud of the way the show is being handled. She takes comfort in the fact that they're helping kids who have lost a loved one in real life deal with the pain.

The show never portrayed death as a comedic theme. They're merely trying to point out that life does go on after the death of someone you deeply love. Like Cate told her daughters, "It's okay to be happy when you're happy."

I would assume that continuing the show is somewhat of a therapy for the young actors. Don't you think being around the crew and other cast members would be beneficial to them? It's consoling to be surrounded by people who know exactly what you're going through and who understands Kaley, Amy and Martin's grief more than those who also worked with John every single day?

disgusted · 11-14-2003, 07:22 PM

you re all missing the point of my post. that is exactly my concern about the way abc chose to handle this situation. i like 8 simple rules and never said i wanted it off the air. it would have been more appropriate to replace john ritter..like they ususally do when a person dies and cannot continue to play his character.

as far as the young actors agreeing...well they are young and impressionable and im not surprised they would go along with whatever the adults were urging them to do.

still it is too much like they are grieving john ritter; not character dad. and even if they think they are mature enough (or dont care enough) to seperate the two; the script writing is horrible and should have been cowritten with a professional grief character.
i loved the part about bridgette not going to her dance too. but kari and the boy have both used "girl/boyfriends" to distract them from their grief..not horrible in itself; but young viewers dont need to go looking for love to get over a parent dying...there are a lot of psychological problems associated with that kind of reaction too.

Mr. Television · 11-14-2003, 07:28 PM

If they would have just replaced John Ritter with another actor, the show would have been off the year in a matter of months.

luckilab1 · 11-14-2003, 09:12 PM

I still don't agree disgusted.. all of the actors agreed to continue with the show, nobody forced them to do it. Also, one of the daughters is 24 in real life.. i do not consider her "young and impressionable."

Acting in this show after John's death is not going to traumatize them or anything, John's death hit them harder than Paul's did because John's was real. They are mature enough to differentiate between their two grievings.

The script writing was not horrible.. you did not even say anything to back that up. I don't think they should have gotten a grief counselor for writing any of the episodes, this is a show and they are playing a part.. maybe they had grief counselors for everybody on the show/cast for losing John Ritter, who knows..

The kids all reacted in a different way which shows that when kids in real life experience a parent (or whatever) dying, it shows them that theres not a certain way you're supposed to grieve.

P.S. It would have been wrong to replace John Ritter.. what message would that send to these actors and young viewers? Somebody dies.. but it's ok now.. we've replaced them. If anything, THAT would traumatize the cast.

sorry this is so long..

11-11-2003, 09:57 PM	#1
disgusted Member Forum Cub Join Date: Nov 11, 2003 Location: usa Posts: 2	handling of john ritters death ok. im officially disgusted. Kari not being able to get anyone other then her sisters reject was bad enough, but how this show has chosen to deal with the death of john ritter is inappropriate and very poor child psychology. To make young children 'act' out a bogus death of a character is one thing. But to make these children act a scripted way to grieve over someone they were actually close to and actually died is horrible. The producers should be ashamed of themselves; i know john ritter would be. Not only is it blatently obvious that no grief counsellors or child psychologists were brought in to address this issue in the imaginary show but it is also obvious the producers didnt consult professionals regarding the damge such action would cause to these young actors. Real death is not a marketing gimmick. I urge everyone to support the mental health of these young actors by boycotting the show to voice your disapproval of the handling of this very real live grief situation. Otherwise they will grow up to believe twisted ways to grieve if they believe the public and all the adults associated with the show agree that death is a comedic theme.

11-12-2003, 07:36 PM	#10
benjamoon Bewitched Senior Member Join Date: Jun 15, 2000 Location: New York Posts: 1,450	I agree with everything everyone said except disgusted, who said a whole bunch of crap
	__________________ My Blog: http://benjamonsterstv.blogspot.com/ My Site: peaktvdatabase.weebly.com My favorite TV shows: Bewitched, I Love Lucy, American Dreams, Mary Tyler Moore, The Office, Happy Days, The West Wing, Modern Family, Friday Night Lights, Friends, Mad Men, Parks and Recreation, and Parenthood

11-13-2003, 11:51 PM	#12
Mariel cool beans Occasional Poster Join Date: Nov 04, 2003 Location: New Jersey Posts: 97	Kaley Cuoco (Bridget) said it herself in an interview that she's proud of the way the show is being handled. She takes comfort in the fact that they're helping kids who have lost a loved one in real life deal with the pain. The show never portrayed death as a comedic theme. They're merely trying to point out that life does go on after the death of someone you deeply love. Like Cate told her daughters, "It's okay to be happy when you're happy." I would assume that continuing the show is somewhat of a therapy for the young actors. Don't you think being around the crew and other cast members would be beneficial to them? It's consoling to be surrounded by people who know exactly what you're going through and who understands Kaley, Amy and Martin's grief more than those who also worked with John every single day?
	__________________ Please check out: Amy Yasbeck Online Miranda: I just realized -- maybe it's maturity or the wisdom that comes with age, but the witch in Hansel and Gretel, she's very misunderstood. I mean, the woman builds her dream house and these brats come along and start eating it. *~Sex and the City*

11-14-2003, 07:22 PM	#13
disgusted Member Forum Cub Join Date: Nov 11, 2003 Location: usa Posts: 2	youre all missing the point you re all missing the point of my post. that is exactly my concern about the way abc chose to handle this situation. i like 8 simple rules and never said i wanted it off the air. it would have been more appropriate to replace john ritter..like they ususally do when a person dies and cannot continue to play his character. as far as the young actors agreeing...well they are young and impressionable and im not surprised they would go along with whatever the adults were urging them to do. still it is too much like they are grieving john ritter; not character dad. and even if they think they are mature enough (or dont care enough) to seperate the two; the script writing is horrible and should have been cowritten with a professional grief character. i loved the part about bridgette not going to her dance too. but kari and the boy have both used "girl/boyfriends" to distract them from their grief..not horrible in itself; but young viewers dont need to go looking for love to get over a parent dying...there are a lot of psychological problems associated with that kind of reaction too.

11-11-2003, 10:50 PM	#2
luckilab1 John Ritter fan Frequent Poster Join Date: Mar 19, 2003 Posts: 108	I don't agree. I think, along with other people, that John would be happy to see his show go on without him. He was not a selfish person, he wouldn't want the show to stop because he believed all of the cast was talented, not just himself. There is definitley a seperation of real-life grieving for John as a friend, coworker, etc.. and then having their characters grieving for their father on the show. Both developed a different relationship for their real-life friend and their TV father. I thought they handled it appropriatley and am glad they are continuing the show for John. P.S. I don't think it's a marketing gimmick.. if people chose to tune into the show to see how it survives with the loss of Paul then that's their choice, ABC is not continuing it for the sole reason of attracting viewers because of John's death. If they wanted the show to have turned out this way, they would have killed Paul off earlier just as part of a storyline but John's death was completely unexpected.. so no, i do not think it's a marketing gimmick.

11-11-2003, 11:52 PM	#5
wolf paws college student Frequent Poster Join Date: Nov 04, 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 235	To Disgusted, You should be ashamed of yourself. I read in an article that the set of "8 Simple Rules" discussed whether each of them wanted to continue the show, along with John's wife, Amy. They all agreed. I commend the cast of 8SR for continuing with the show, not just for John, but for themselves as well. I'm sure the young actors are coping with John Ritter's passing as anyone else would do, and I'm sure they are getting comfort from their real-life families, their friends, and their many fans. Again, another tear jerker episode The part that got me crying was the scene where Bridget is about to go the dance in that dress, and she says, "I would've never gotten this far, and dad would've made me go back upstairs to change because I need to respect myself." and so on. That really got my tears going. I liked how the sisters were there for each other when they were in their bedroom. One thing that I hope will be added in more episodes is to have Cate's three kids be there for her. In little ways they have,but I would like to see more of that. I liked Katey's, Kaley's, Amy's and James Garner's scences in this episode, along with the scences from the "Goodbye" episode.

11-12-2003, 03:50 PM	#8
Freakzilla Member Forum Regular Join Date: May 23, 2000 Location: Portage, Michigan, United States Posts: 556	I agree with most of you. They are doing a good job and the ratings thus far are holding up. So there's still the chance that 8 Simple Rules could be the long-running show it would have been if John Ritter had lived.

11-13-2003, 10:27 PM	#11
sokar lord of natu Banned Banned!! Occasional Poster Join Date: Nov 10, 2003 Posts: 18	im sorry but not everyne is totally screwed up when someone dies! i wasnt...course i was already clinicly depressed but thats besides the point. some people mourn by joking, are they less human than the rest of us? oh sure some people are totally messed up by death, some people give their own lives rather than live on without someone, but why? because theyre afraid (im rambling now i could go on for some time) of what might happen and they just give in. evidently said actors/actresses (ive not seen the episode myself having living in old blighty, which in itself is reason enough to mourn given current situations) werent afected as badly as you think they should have been. oh no they agreed to 'act out the bogus death of someone they were close to' they must need psychological care (which brings me to another point, why does EVERYONE expect me to give a rats ass when a old peer of mine hung herself, i hated her, i was in no way responcible for her death why should i care) im going now, im apparently slightly annoyed at something and i quite often say stupid things when i am.

11-14-2003, 07:28 PM	#14
Mr. Television 23 Years at Sitcoms Online Forum Icon Join Date: Jun 06, 2003 Location: Somewhere you're Not Posts: 62,132	If they would have just replaced John Ritter with another actor, the show would have been off the year in a matter of months.

11-14-2003, 09:12 PM	#15
luckilab1 John Ritter fan Frequent Poster Join Date: Mar 19, 2003 Posts: 108	I still don't agree disgusted.. all of the actors agreed to continue with the show, nobody forced them to do it. Also, one of the daughters is 24 in real life.. i do not consider her "young and impressionable." Acting in this show after John's death is not going to traumatize them or anything, John's death hit them harder than Paul's did because John's was real. They are mature enough to differentiate between their two grievings. The script writing was not horrible.. you did not even say anything to back that up. I don't think they should have gotten a grief counselor for writing any of the episodes, this is a show and they are playing a part.. maybe they had grief counselors for everybody on the show/cast for losing John Ritter, who knows.. The kids all reacted in a different way which shows that when kids in real life experience a parent (or whatever) dying, it shows them that theres not a certain way you're supposed to grieve. P.S. It would have been wrong to replace John Ritter.. what message would that send to these actors and young viewers? Somebody dies.. but it's ok now.. we've replaced them. If anything, THAT would traumatize the cast. sorry this is so long..