Countdown to the meltdown which will ensue if the previews are correct and they will stay in the tents during the rain storm? "How could they? What AWFUL parents!" Yada, yada, yada.And why do I think the correct answer to that question is, "Figure 8 made us."
Yeah, the minute I saw the previews I was like, "Oh, they are not going to make them camp out in a rainstorm, are they? That will make peoples' heads explode."And honestly, if Figure 8 wants us to believe that the show is just a record of the Gosselins' lives, and not manipulated for the cameras, then I think the smart thing would be to let the family go inside their house when it starts raining.I guess we'll just have to watch the episode to see what happens!
Countdown to the second most uttered phrase after tonight's eppy: "Are those Smores organic, Kate?"Smores....mmmmmm.
i saw the commercial and rain in the tent comment - you're supposed to waterproof the seams. we bought the coleman weathermaster tent for our trip in June and the instructions clearly stated that the seams needed to be waterproofed before use. not trusting everything i read from a company - the seams were waterproofed and then we sprayed the entire tent with a waterproofer. we camp alot. one application of each goes a very long way.a rainy tent is no fun to sit or sleep in. they arent awful parents for staying in the tents during rainy weather. they just arent very organized or practical if they didnt check the weather or waterproof their tents prior to their backyard adventure. i wouldnt be surprised if they went out that same day to get their gear. they dont strike me as regular campers. i do like that they are trying to introduce this activity to the kids. sometimes its best to introduce things like that close to home and then go somewhere else.and who cares if everything they eat isnt organic. i eat as organic as possible, but there are the "bad" things i love that arent. big deal.
"And honestly, if Figure 8 wants us to believe that the show is just a record of the Gosselins' lives, and not manipulated for the cameras, then I think the smart thing would be to let the family go inside their house when it starts raining."Absolutely! Maybe even "camp" on the covered back porch or in the garage, as an alternative. I'd sure hate to hear the moaning and groaning from 8 kids' mouths because their camping was canceled, but they COULD have filmed it the next non-rainy day, couldn't they?
And honestly, if Figure 8 wants us to believe that the show is just a record of the Gosselins' lives, and not manipulated for the cameras, then I think the smart thing would be to let the family go inside their house when it starts raining.---------------------I agree!!! We try to camp out in our backyard at least once every summer. Why haven't gone to a real campground yet? Because my daughter and I are still whimps and haven't made it through the night yet. (It gets cold at night despite the sleeping bags and blankets and air matress!) If they spend the night in the tent when it is leaking, I will certainly question the judgement of the parents and the production crew.
What a cute episode! They all, Kate included, seemed to have a genuinely good time. Those kids are so darn cute! It was nice to see an episode minus any meltdowns, everyone smiling, and them not going on a fancy trip somewhere.Do you think all these episodes with special outings are to avoid filming as much in their home anymore? Just a thought.
I totally agree that once the rain started the first thought would be to go inside. But how do you tell the kids that who were so looking forward to it? Just like me when it comes to not having "outdoor experience" I could totally see Jon & Kate not knowing the proper way to weatherproof. I give them credit for lasting though the night, it seemed the kids had a great time and hopefully they will continue with that in the future. I really liked tonights episode!
The episode was actually sort of cute, kudos to Kate for sleeping outside. That said,it was a shame they ruined it with the V-tech commercial right in the middle. Also, while I understand the kids would have been disappointed by not sleeping outside I have to wonder if the production crew would have been more disappointed. I did love Joel biting his glow stick.
It was a sweet episode. The kids had a blast. K didn't complain much about anything - including getting wet. We haven't camped since our child was born. But, the last time we did camp, our youngest lab was only 4 or 5 mos old and it rained an entire day and night. I slept like a log though. This episode made me want to roast marshmallows in our backyard! YUMMY!
Ok, I'm going to say it. Noticed the t-shits. "If you cant' say something nice" with the duct tape over the mouth. Kind of passive aggressive and I kinda liked it. Of course, I'd like it more if they just dealt with the issues, worked it out with the family members and moved on. I swear, I haven't been to GWoP yet (my routine is watch show, post here, post there) so if the shirts are discussed I dont' know what they are saying yet. I'm sure it's not good though.
Under the guise of a normal family of 10, I don't know of one who could or even would buy brand new camping gear to go out into the backyard. By Kate's admission, it is highly unlikely that they would ever really "rough" it anywhere else.
Could even Vtech be reading all the Gosselin blogs--and then messing with us?After the short Kate-narrated Vtech ad, a "real" one followed-- depicting a mom with long, curly red hair..."Hey, maybe that's how Aunt Jodi will get paid!" I thought. Really, did anyone else think for a split second that that woman was Jodi? Not being a conspiracy theorist (at least when it comes to wholesome family TV), I guess I can't congratulate Vtech and TLC for the subtle mind-@#$%.I write this now, right after the episode, before extremists can start on the less fun topic of Gosselins shilling for their free stuff. Ah, the many ways people with a point can spin it...Glad to make my first "signed" post here! (I was the Anonymous who posted the fifth comment RE the Pennlife.com story, asking how people can be sympathetic about strangers showing up on private property when they were hostile toward alleged no-trespassing signs on the same property barely a month ago.)
Im not surprised that there are people who are begrudging the kids that stupid Vtech system. If its any consolation to them, the graphics suck.
Lots and lots of damage control in this episode, but ya know what? I LIKED most of it. The V-Tech double-whammy commercial (Kate plugging it, then regular actors in the actual ad) was grating, but other than that it seemed as though all the kids enjoyed themselves. The cameras are not focusing much on the twins, which is a good thing for the twins! What I liked most about this epi was that the kids had fun in their own yard like most other kids do.
"Ok, I'm going to say it. Noticed the t-shits. "If you cant' say something nice" with the duct tape over the mouth. Kind of passive aggressive and I kinda liked it. Of course, I'd like it more if they just dealt with the issues, worked it out with the family members and moved on.I swear, I haven't been to GWoP yet (my routine is watch show, post here, post there) so if the shirts are discussed I dont' know what they are saying yet. I'm sure it's not good though."HOW DID YOU KNOW?? Apparently it was in the FIRST post. Apparently since they had nothing bad to say about the episode the jealousy claws came out about the V techs. You knew THAT was going to happen.
I enjoyed this episode. The mood of it was quite positive. Damage control or not, I think it is a good thing that there was minimal yelling and fighting. I thought that the critics of the Gosselins would not have much to work with except maybe the V-Tech promo and the marshmallow forks. It looked fun and something I would probably do with my kids someday.
I didn't get a chance to go over last night but Im not going into work until later. Granted, the vtech commercial within the episode was tacky. But the fact that people took the time to write the company makes me giggle. And they will no longer use any vtech products. People are going to have pretty empty houses as the sponsors sell most of our every day items.
I tried to catch the late showing of the new episode (since I missed the early showing due to Monday Night Football). Unfortunately, I fell asleep just as it was about to come on. Who was wearing the t-shirt? Kate? Sounds right up her alley. Heh-heh-heh. I like it!I can see where some people would be jealous of all the freebies the family gets. Fine, whatever. But I simply can't understand their logic of being pissed about the kids getting a free toy. The people complaining about the V-Tech are the same people who like to declare (ad nauseum) that Jon and Kate are living off their kids and that the kids are being exploited and used, blah-blah-blah-bittercakes. Soooo, if all that is true, what's the problem with the KIDS getting a toy? I don't think the V-Tech is for Jon and Kate's amusement If those kids are being used, abused and lived off of, you'd think the haters would be glad to see them get "compensated."
Good point about the toy, MCB. But of course they are all over the fact that they suspect Kate hasn't taught the kids letter recognition and counting. Uh, they just turned 4 in May? Gotta love the poster's who feel compelled to share that their kid was speaking 4 languages, reading and writing by the time they were 2 and by 4 had already composed their first symphony. Ok, I'm exaggerating but you know what I mean.
Ok this comment over there irked me:Nice plug in there for the V-tech thing. That's one product that I won't be buying my kids because they were 'given' this product.SERIOUSLY???? They're not going to buy their child an educational toy because another CHILD was given it? That's so ridiculous. I could understand not going to a spa because Kate got free massages or something, but it's an educational toy that could actually help your child AND let them have fun. UGH
nomoredrama said... "Uh, they just turned 4 in May? Gotta love the poster's who feel compelled to share that their kid was speaking 4 languages, reading and writing by the time they were 2 and by 4 had already composed their first symphony." Yep. These kids of theirs are pretty amazing. Genius comes from unexpected sources, doesn't it?!I don't get why anyone would be bothered by the V-tech thing. At least in this episode there was no denying it was blatent product placement. Maybe I am wrong, but I think we are going to see more of this on all our shows now that most of us speed through the commercials with our Tivo's/DVR's. Why is it only an issue when it occurs on the Gosselins show?It was a cute episode. Nothing that I think makes it stand out especially, but overall entertaining. The kids and their glow sticks had a blast, I am sure. (Poor Joel for breaking his and Jon for having to clean it up!)As a fellow indoorsy type of girl, I do admire Kate for sticking it out for the sake of the team. The best part was the family hanging around the fire pit roasting marshmellows. I guess it's probably not wise to drink with 8 kids to watch over, but I could so see myself sitting there enjoying a glass of Pinot Grigio!
I was folding laundry last night and I was watching TLC (again! ... you'd think that my nightmare about being filmed secretly for What Not to Wear would teach me a lesson.) I saw an old episode of the series "Cheaper by the Dozen" which profiles large families. Last night's episode featured the Heppners who have 17 kids. They were eating their breakfast and the kids were getting some kind of juice out of an Igloo type insulated cooler/drink dispenser except the name Igloo was blurred out. Can someone answer a question? I recall that when Gs were eating ice cream after last year's memorial day episode, the brand name Wet Wipes was blurred out on the container that K was carrying to help wipe the kids faces. Some of the GwoPPER said that this was an example of the Gs gunning for Wet Wipes as a sponsor. If that were true, are we to assume that the Heppner family (or the series producers) was doing the same -- gunning for Igloo to sponsor their episode? Is this the way it works in television?
Linda, I don't really have an answer to your question. My common sense is saying if something is blurred out that is NOT a plea for sponsorship, but I don't like to play expert when I really don't know the answer, so I'll let others weigh in. I saw about 3/4 of the Heppners episode. What did you think? I liked the mom and the whole family seemed very loving, but there appeared to be more to the story than was being told (references to past marriage problems, how they were only planning on having 2 kids, but ended up with 16 or 17 while on two forms of birth control?!).
I grew up in a large family. 8 kids. I think that is why some of these shows (like the Gs and the Heppners) appeal to me. What I noticed about the Hs, is that they don't have the glassy-eyed look that the Duggars have. They seem a little more real to me. I do feel concerned that in alot of these "mega families" there seems to be very strict gender role assignments. (Heck it makes the Gs gender-stereotyping seem loosey-goosey!) The girls aspire to motherhood and home-making and from what we are shown not much more. In the H family, we saw that some of the older boys were in college but I don't recall mention that any of the older girls were going or planning on going. On another note, I do wonder if TLC has a particular religious agenda that they are trying to promote ... If you think about the premise of alot of their programming it is quite similar in it's theme. DuggarsCheaper by the DozenThe Wedding Story The Baby Story J&K+8
Hi Linda,I'm pretty sure that TV producers have to secure PERMISSION before showing or using a brand logo. It's a matter of the brands NOT WANTING publicity unless it's controlled, such as in an official sponsorship capacity--in which case they have say on how the product is presented.Three reasons why I'm sure of this:(1) When I was an extra in a national TV commercial about 10 years ago, they made me take off my Winnie-The-Pooh backpack (when worn it looks like Poohbear getting a piggyback ride)--even though it would have added to the punk rock concert scenery--because they didn't have Disney's permission to use Pooh's image.(2) On at least one episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, there's a Post-It note covering the Apple logo on someone's open laptop. Apple is notorious for wanting to control anything that could be construed as a message about them--even if it's a positive news article!(3) Xerox used to "bust" newspapers and other publications that used the term "xeroxed" instead of "photocopied" in a generic manner, claiming infringement.These last two I know as a former journalist, BTW.Hope that helps.And thanks for the welcome, Mom!
While I'm not jealous of the Vtech thing (my kids bought me a Wii for Christmas) I did think the "commercial within the episode" was a little over the top and cheesy. I also don't get buying camping equipment if you don't know for sure you are going to want to camp again. Same with the little golf clubs. It would make more sense to borrow the stuff until you are more sure it will be used more than once. JMHO. They did look like that had fun though.
Welcome kuromi! Thanks for the information. What you are describing is my understanding as well. The permission of a company must be secured before the image is filmed/televised. The way GwoP would have people believe is that every blurred out image/brand logo represents the Gs teleporting messages to their company begging, "SPONSOR US! SPONSOR US!" ================
As a company, TLC also doesn't want to give one company free recognition when they're charging others. That's money lost for them and some angry customers that paid for their product placement.I'm in the advertising industry and it's my understanding that companies are using different approaches for advertising. In my area, radio DJ's are recording commercials that sound like their normal conversation, except about the product. I would say that the J&K clip for vtech is much the same. You fast forward through commercials until you see the little ones, then play... and what do you know, vtech gets your attention!
Neutral, can you tell us exactly what ad campaigns or marketing strategies you yourself have been involved with, that can better illustrate your point? The DJ convo commericals (which I think you said you've heard, but not worked on or been involved with) are a different situation: Since you can't SEE anything over the radio, then of course brands are going to have to pay to get any kind of exposure on the airwaves.It's my understanding that sponsors pay to CONTROL HOW their product appears on TV. They don't pay just for the product to ramdonmly appear in whatever way the Gosselins or producers see fit. I can think of a few examples on the show: Kate on the counter with the label facing forward; Kate talking specifically about a product being used onscreen by the kids; or Jon bragging about how great his designer T-shirt fits (only a matter of time before that last one actually happens LOL!).So I'd be interested in hearing about a situation you've been involved with, Neutral, in which covering up a product resulted in brands becoming sponsors so their logos get face time. If you have such experience, your insight would be very valuable!
Sorry, I had meant to say "Kate PUTTING A JUICE BOTTLE on the counter with the label facing forward."
I always assumed the companies had to "pay" for product placement. If you watch cooking shows, they block out the labels unless they are featuring the product. Dietz and Watson sponsors a show on Comcas-CN8 and they clearly show the labels. If you watch cooking on like OVC they always turn the cans around or put tape over the brand name. Even I doubt that when the Gosselins use something and the name is blocked out, they are trying to get sponsorship. I saw the V-tech thing tonight - not a big deal it looked like it was around $60.00 plus the price of cartridges. Not in the same league as free Disney vacations and stuff.
Did anyone notice Barbara in VA's comment on GWoP? She received an email from someone that booked the Gosselins, and it said that she needed to jump off the Jon and Kate bashing bandwagon (or something like that). The man indicated that the Gosselins turned down extra money and time to be gone only one weekend day so they could be with their kids. I noticed that this email wasn't turned into a post subject, as it would have been if he was telling them an opposite message.I may have the wording wrong, but that was the gist.
What thread is this under?
The email conversation was under the "Gawking at the Gosselins" thread. I will copy and paste what she said. Again, this was from Barbara in VA:Just got an e-mai from a Timothy Burns. He counseled me that I should get off the Kate & Jon bashing bandwagon and realize that they are doing what God wants them to do. (paraphrased) He suggests that if I had a camera crew following me around perhaps they would find some unappealing and ungodly things here.I don't have a clue who this is, do any of you? I can only say that this is probably in response to me contacting sponsors who would then have my personal e-mail. He added that I should "rethink" my ministry.I did reply to this "person", telling him that as I did not choose to make money off the backs of my children and instead chose to work for the things we and my children have there would not be an issue of finding anything with a camera following me around -- no camera would ever follow me around. And I suggested that he rethink his ministry.I was a little bit surprised to see this in my e-mail list, but had to share. Knowing that Kate has her friends do her dirty work, and this was not a particularly professionally done letter, my suspicion is that they are now responding to criticism in this way.9/09/2008 10:33 AMAn e-mail.Yes, and I wrote him back and responded. He then immediately - and I mean almost instantly - wrote me back saying that, no, he himself would not allow a camera to follow his children around.But, he informed me, he had invited the G's to an entire free weekend this weekend at his church and they had declined, saying they would only take the money and accommodations for one day because they wanted to spend the rest of the weekend with their children. I reminded him or told him that these same good people left their sick children with a now ignored sister-in-law to travel across country to get free hair plugs.He hoped that I would look at it from a different perspective and that people might view the show and say "Hey, they did it, so can I". I responded that I feared, having worked to put away con artists like these for years, that people would view this show and say instead "Hey, they did it and so should we" and set up their own scam.More to follow, I fear. Wish I knew how to cut and paste so you could see the entire letter(s).9/09/2008 11:47 AMI'd like to hear more about this. I'm also curious - I thought that website was taking a break? They still seem to be posting quite a bit.
Bravo Mr. Burns.You think she might take a moment to *reflect* on his words, but no, she's too busy rushing to share with her fellow "advocates": "I responded that I feared, having worked to put away con artists like these for years..."Puleez.
I wandered over to-the-site-that will-not-be-named (I know, big mistake). I just had to share the following:Anon Poster No. 1 (how her sensible comment made it through I'll never know): "We really have no evidence whatsoever that the children are malnourished."Anon Poster No. 2(who is crazy, creepy and has obviously never heard of HIPAA):"What evidence to the contrary do we have? Morbidly obese people are often malnourished due to the fact they eat crap. So the fact they aren't emaciated means nothing. If you have seen their lab work on the show or internet I'd love to see it otherwise all we know is what we see and I've not seen a balanced meal on that show yet. Yes, Kate claims all sorts of things but as we have learned from friends, family, neighbors and church members she also is quite the lying lier."Ohmygawd!
I was the one who posted those comments last night, and this morning, they are gone on the original site. Very strange.
They are ridiculous ... And K could not win no matter what! Last week they were saying that a few pieces of pita, fruit and cheese are not her ideas of a balanced lunch. And that they've "heard" that Kate "starves" the kids so they'll eat during meal time. This is also from another poster there ... "Does anyone else think that it is odd that the twins do no outside school activities, except for piano, violin, and the cooking class. (Mady must take violin at school as she is shown getting on the bus with her violin.) But, the music and cooking activities were part of the show, so don't "count" as actual activities in my opinion." ================Huh? The twins are SEVEN! That is 2nd grade! Forget that in the text of her post, she disputes herself! But for Pete's sake. Did you notice that when K mentioned that the girls had taken swim lessons for the past 2 years there was barely a whisper of that over there because it would dispute their opinion that the family only does things for the sake of the camera.
Everyone keeps saying they are unemployed and asking where they get their money from. Or asking how they are paying for things. And even saying they are getting things for free. Fact is, they are getting paid for being on TV. So, in a way they do have jobs. Whether or not you like their job, they are working. Sure, some of the things they get are free. But, as far as I'm concerned, they are no longer out there begging for things. Yes, they are given things in exchange for advertising. That's how TV works. But I seriously doubt Jon and Kate themselves are seeking out these companies saying things like "Hey, give us stuff and we will mention your company." No. Instead, Figure 8 most likely gets contacted and makes the deals and Jon and Kate go along with it. I'm even willing to bet that they, Jon and Kate, may even HAVE to go along with it even if they don't want to. Because, in the end Figure 8 has to get paid too. So, they are gonna look out for THEIR best interest as well.Now, I'm not for them 100% or against them 100% but I'm not stupid. I know that when your circumstances change and you make more money your lifestyle also changes. This is what I see with Jon and Kate. It's not that they are being greedy or anything like that. They are just making more money and living accordingly. I know if my husband and I made a lot more money we'd definitely be buying a bigger house, better car, taking vacations, etc. Can you really tell me that if you got a significant raise at work that you wouldn't have a tendency to spend a little more of that money on vacations and items for your family? I'm sure you wouldn't save every penny of that extra money. And neither are Jon and Kate. They are making more and spending it. I see no problem with that.And I do believe that anyone here would take free items for their family too if they were offered. I know this because many of you have said you would. You make comments like "Wish I was given free things." or "No one gives me stuff." or "If someone gave me a box of Walmart clothing I'd take it." I think the mean comments many make about the family are just out of jealousy. And jealousy is the number reason why I think many people have a problem with Jon and Kate. I think people are jealous, and maybe rightfully so, that they can't spend as much time with their families as Jon and Kate do. Or go to as many places as they do. Most of you have even said so. But that really is no reason to be mad at them because they can. We all wish we could stay at home and be with our kids and significant others 24/7 and take vacations left and right but most of us can't. And yes, that does make us angry at times. But, it's not their fault.Next, most would say something like "No, I wouldn't take things if it were at my child's expense." Really? I don't see anything wrong with them being on TV and making money. How about all these kids out there in pageants and stuff? You know, the ones that win cars at the age of 5. Do you really think those kids get those cars? No. Their parents do. So where's the outrage at these families? Aren't they pretty much doing the same thing? I'm sure there are many more examples but you get the idea.I don't know. I just think people give this family a hard time sometimes for no good reason. Yes, when Kate is acting like a b*tch I will say so. But I refuse to say that they are begging for free things and not working because that's just not true. IMO.
I posted the very long comment above (5:28am). I posted it on that "other site" too and thought I'd post it here as well. Just wanted to explain that since it sounds kinda directed to a certain group of hater people. lol
"....they've "heard" that Kate "starves" the kids so they'll eat during meal time."I don't see Kate giving out "snacks", but so what? Jon and Kate have said on the show that all the kids are great eaters, which means that they are eating their meals (except on the Cupcake day, LOL!). My mom did not believe in snacks between meals for kids. We kids could always have a drink, but not food between meals. Mom always served balanced meals and nobody ever went hungry. It looks like that is what Kate does, and there isn't anything wrong with it.
I can't even believe that someone would make the argument of malnurishment. Eating healthy doesn't make you malnurished, it makes you....healthy. She feeds them plenty. How can they argue that Kate has a private chef and free meals in one breath and then say the kids aren't being fed appropriately in the next? Is the "chef" just cooking for Jon and Kate?As for the extracurricular activities, it's clear that the older kids are involved in these activities. We don't know exactly what but I think we can guess soccer for Cara. There are plenty of things that they do which we are not aware of. The younger kids have also done things like gymboree and that gymnastics bus (which was pretty cool but I don't know if they will do that again). I'm sure their involvement in things like that will increase as they get older.
Malnourished? They have GOT to be kidding! I've seen those kids eat more vegetables than my sorry ass got my kids to eat when they were that young. My 21 year old still won't eat onions and tomatoes and the Gosselins eat pita, hummus, onion and tomato lunches. My son asked what hummus was once and then wouldn't even try some after I told him. On the Valentine's Day episode, the kids got heart shaped cucumbers with their grilled cheese sandwiches. Not chips or cheetoes, but CUCUMBERS (another vegetable that is only consumed by ME in my house). Yes, my kids eat veggies and are very healthy (for example, they love broccoli and I won't touch it), but I just wish I had done a better job getting them to eat more of them. My son's idea of a salad is plain iceberg lettuce, black olives, hard boiled egg and bacon bits. Oh, and he drowns it all in ranch dressing. Makes me cringe, but he's a little old for Mommy to intervene, now. I would put MONEY on the fact that "kim-chee" would never touch the lips of anyone in my house (me included, I think). Nutrition wise, I think Kate does an EXCELLENT job and is one of the things I actually admire about her. She does a better job than Michelle Duggar who thinks Tater Tot Casserole and canned veggies are a balanced meal. Yuck.
In response to Anon 5:28AM RE that Jon&Kate have to go along with sponsors no matter what their own feelings:I thought the same thing during the cupcake episode. Critics rightly pointed out how Kate seemed rushed, impatient, and not really happy to be there. They also noted the folly of driving 75 miles just to decorate cupcakes.I've always assumed that the whole thing was a sponsorship/marketing deal that Figure 8 had cut with the bakery. The shop was open just for the show. Its name was prominently displayed in shots of the sign as well as when identifying workers speaking to the camera. And while Jon seemed to go with the flow, Kate was not at all happy. Which begs the question: If even she didn't seem to want to be there, why were they?I too see nothing wrong with the show being their jobs. Most people who appear on unscripted TV see it as a career. I once read an interview with an MTV Road Rules/Real World challenge contestant named Evan who said most of his fellow contestants trained specifically for these shows, and that these kinds of shows were those people's only source of income.But to be devil's advocate: If the show is their job, and sponsoring certain products part of that job, then it can't possibly be a true and accurate portrayal of reality. I think most of us on this site have always understood this. But for those who believe "reality" is real, it's a rude awakening.
I see what you are saying Kuromi in your last sentence. And I think when the show first started it most definitely was an accurate portrayal of reality. But, as we know, the show became so popular that things started changing. Hence the reason for them being paid (to continue on), the sponsers having their hands in it, trips from here to there, etc.I mean, who's gonna stop that train? I wouldn't. If I did a show about how down on my luck I was and how it's still kind of hard to get by at times and then suddenly I'm offered all this money to continue doing what I'm doing.....you bet your behind I'm taking it.I just think that it's hard for people to realize that yes, in a way the show has changed. But people still seem to love it/them and want to see it. That's why it's still around. Only now when we watch we watch it from a slightly different side. Which is ok by me. But I guess not ok with others.
The problem I have with the sponsorship and the show on a whole is that the entire family seems to be on a schedule dictated by Figure 8. Do you really think that Kate and/or Jon for that matter would have camped out on a night like that with all the kids (and their first time camping) were it not to fulfill contractual obligations. I would think they could explain to the kids it was raining, maybe take the sleeping bags and camp in the basement and do it another night. I personally would have come in the house during the lightning. Maybe Kate would not come off in such a bad light if they could do things on their terms with less stress.
Post a Comment