# Jon and Kate Plus Eight - 5/25/09 - EARTH-SHATTERING *SPOILERS*



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Depressing. I somewhat recall what the older daughter said, "Daddy, will you stop leaving?"

All he could do was tell her to go play.

Kate seemed indignant. Jon seemed resigned. I was hoping they would be talking about resolving their issues, but it seems they've already moved on to divorce.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah, they did NOT seem very happy with each other.

Kate is such a ***** generally

But it seems like Jon is going through a 1/3 life crisis and wants out


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

SUPER depressing. And I kept thinking, why the he!! are they doing another season of this show? I don't understand why J&K are doing it, and I don't understand what the network is thinking, either. 

You hate the paparazzi? You hate the tabloids? You hate being famous and in the spotlight? You think all of this is ruining your life? News flash: It's because of how you place yourself on national television by filming a TV show at your house!!! Stop doing the show, and everyone will forget about you in 2 months, and you can have a normal life. But if this is what you're choosing, stop freaking whining about it!! 

As for the network, who is going to watch the "Jon and Kate have marital problems and ignore each other in front of the kids" show? I mean, sure, the tabloid readers and gossipers might. But I get the sense that the main market for this show is families with little kids. It's wholesome family entertainment -- birthday parties, puppies, family outings. If I was watching this show with my little kids as kid-friendly fare, I would have cancelled my SP after last night. I don't think marriages disintegrating and parents talking about whether they cheated on each other and tearful talk of divorce is what parents are looking for in G-rated, little-kid shows.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ruth said:


> As for the network, who is going to watch the "Jon and Kate have marital problems and ignore each other in front of the kids" show? I mean, sure, the tabloid readers and gossipers might. But I get the sense that the main market for this show is families with little kids. It's wholesome family entertainment -- birthday parties, puppies, family outings. If I was watching this show with my little kids as kid-friendly fare, I would have cancelled my SP after last night. I don't think marriages disintegrating and parents talking about whether they cheated on each other and talk of divorce is what parents are looking for in G-rated, little-kid shows.


Agreed. I'll bet the season premiere will be the highest rated episode in the history of the series, and then I'll bet the ratings drop off sharply after that, as people realize there's nothing fun or entertaining about watching a couple's marriage implode on national TV, especially when there are 8 kids involved.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Jesda said:


> Depressing. I somewhat recall what the older daughter said, "Daddy, will you stop leaving?"
> 
> All he could do was tell her to go play.


That was a very sad part. I actually think Jon was touched/hurt by that comment. He hugged/kissed her and seemed very sad.

I wonder if he is even living in the mansion at this point. We never got to see him at home. She was shown being stressed out at home making party favors acting like she would rather be on the road at a speaking engagement.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Ruth said:


> SUPER depressing. And I kept thinking, why the he!! are they doing another season of this show? I don't understand why J&K are doing it, and I don't understand what the network is thinking, either.
> 
> You hate the paparazzi? You hate the tabloids? You hate being famous and in the spotlight? You think all of this is ruining your life? News flash: It's because of how you place yourself on national television by filming a TV show at your house!!! Stop doing the show, and everyone will forget about you in 2 months, and you can have a normal life. But if this is what you're choosing, stop freaking whining about it!!
> 
> As for the network, who is going to watch the "Jon and Kate have marital problems and ignore each other in front of the kids" show? I mean, sure, the tabloid readers and gossipers might. But I get the sense that the main market for this show is families with little kids. It's wholesome family entertainment -- birthday parties, puppies, family outings. If I was watching this show with my little kids as kid-friendly fare, I would have cancelled my SP after last night. I don't think marriages disintegrating and parents talking about whether they cheated on each other and tearful talk of divorce is what parents are looking for in G-rated, little-kid shows.


Why another $ea$on?? Here'$ the rea$on.


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

JFriday said:


> Why another $ea$on?? Here'$ the rea$on.


Yep. To be fair, though, 8 mouths to feed + 1 brand new "mansion" = a lot of upkeep.

Of course, the fact that the mom is trying to parlay her 15 minutes into some kind of lasting fame doesn't help either.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Ugh. I guess I will never watch this show. I was a bit curious about what was going on since I had read about some of the troubles the couple is having but it does not sound like fun TV to watch little kids get hurt by their parents marital troubles.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

JFriday said:


> Why another $ea$on?? Here'$ the rea$on.


Well, of course. But you would think that at some point putting their kids' interests first, like they are always talking about, would mean not putting money first. The kids do benefit from the wealth to some extent, of course, but that can't be the only thing that's important. I would hope they've saved some money from the past couple of years to make payments on that mansion . . . .

I remember seeing in an earlier episode the adults saying that the only TV (or one of the only things) they let their kids watch is their own show. And thinking how neat that could be for the kids to see (putting aside the self-centered worldview of course), and to have as they grow up, like super fancy home movies.

But then last night as I was watching, it was just incredibly sad to think about how much that was NOT true anymore. Not only would it be awful for the kids to see last night's episode now (if they could even understand it), but they should never have to see their parents discussing that stuff, at any age. Is the whole season going to be like that? At some point I think you need to just say, $$ or no $$, our family is going to be more hurt than helped by this.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

This reminds me of the last season of Jessica Simpson's reality show, when she and her husband were pretty much over already as a couple. That was pretty depressing. Not sure if the ratings justified airing of it even.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

I am hoping the next episode (and the rest of the season) goes back to normal. Yes, I realize this may not ever happen, but I agree that I wouldn't really want to watch it if it was filled with marital drama.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

I liked how a man with 8 kids can still drive a 350Z.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Yeah this show is doomed. I think Kate will struggle to keep it together to keep one more year together to crank up the money, but Jon doesn't care, and I don't think he really cares to be around Kate any more. Clearly he still cares for the kids, but he has got nothing left.

She is mad at him for what she believes he has done, but given her choice I am pretty sure that she would work hard to keep things together. Partly for the kids, and partly for her celebrity.

Honestly I just started watching the show, but I have already seen half the episodes, and I thought them splitting up being a logistic impossibility, but I don't know any more. Personally I think it is a bad idea, and they need to suck it up for the kids and make it work.. but I think Jon wants to be done with the show, and with the way he is being treated.

With like 50 episodes still sitting on my DVR from the marathon, it kind of tinges my ability to enjoy them. The kids are the star of the show, but it is hard to enjoy the shows as much when you know where things are going. Not to mention some of the stuff is disturbing between those two.

I also think Kate is oblivious on many levels. For one thing she said that she felt Jon was always really in to the show and stuff and that changed. It is clearly visible that was not the case and has not been the case pretty much since the series has started.

She is also a not job about organic foods and stuff. Most kids don't eat as much candy as she feeds those kids. I don't care what she gives them, but stop trying to tell me you are trying to only feed them organic and healthy food. Organic Marshmallow Fluff? Seriously.

I think they both want people to feel sorry for them currently, and I don't feel sorry for either one of them. I just feel sorry for the kids.

By the way I have never seen a reason to take issue with Kate and her raising of the kids until this episode.

It is clear they have help. She specifically mentioned it when she talked about Jon taking care of the kids when she was off "working." So why did she feel the need to load up her 6 little kids and take them to Party City to buy party supplies for their own birthday, especially when she KNEW there would be papparazzi there. Irresponsible.

Then to go have their birthday party in a public park when they own like 500 acres of land that they could secure makes zero sense. I thought in past years she really did have the kids interest in the forefront most of the time. I don't think that is the case all anymore. She is all about her and expanding her career. Everyone else including Jon and the kids are simply tools she can use to do that.


----------



## wdpower (May 22, 2005)

marksman said:


> She is all about her and expanding her career. Everyone else including Jon and the kids are simply tools she can use to do that.


That is how I felt about the show from the begining and why I refused to watch it. I caught a couple of episodes yesterday at a friends house. Like the one with Steve about making the house more "green", she seemed like she wanted nothing to do with anything.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_en_tv/us_tv_jon___kate_ratings_4



> *Jon & Kate' draws huge audience for season debut*
> 
> By FRAZIER MOORE, AP Television Writer Frazier Moore, Ap Television Writer
> 
> ...


It will be interesting to see how many of those viewers come back for more installments in the next few weeks.


----------



## crys (May 18, 2009)

So sad. Admitedly, we all love to watch a train wreck sometimes. but 8 kids that are old enough to absorb what's going on around them... I can't watch it. It loses it's entertainment value for me knowing that those kids are soaking up all of the drama around them.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Agreed. I'll bet the season premiere will be the highest rated episode in the history of the series, and then I'll bet the ratings drop off sharply after that, as people realize there's nothing fun or entertaining about watching a couple's marriage implode on national TV, especially when there are 8 kids involved.


Don't underestimate the power of "at least I don't have it that bad". 

I only watched the show for about 10 minutes (a few years ago), and it gave me the impression that the husband was the ass. Seems she's not so great either, huh?


----------



## Ekims (Oct 18, 2002)

I think Kate and Jon realize that their show has a shelf life and they are rapidly approaching it. Call me skeptic, but you couldn't time any of this any better... Allegations are made from the brother of the alleged girlfriend and then comes the revelation that Kate had Jon sign a contract to stay for the show. This comes from Kate's family. All leading up to last night's episode... Just seemed to perfectly timed to be anything but a publicity stunt...


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Ekims said:


> I think Kate and Jon realize that their show has a shelf life and they are rapidly approaching it. Call me skeptic, but you couldn't time any of this any better... Allegations are made from the brother of the alleged girlfriend and then comes the revelation that Kate had Jon sign a contract to stay for the show. This comes from Kate's family. All leading up to last night's episode... Just seemed to perfectly timed to be anything but a publicity stunt...


I too thought it was all PR and ratings.

I mean I only have one kid, but if you told me to act like I want out for a few minutes and I could make serious $$$, sure, I could do it.

I kind of expect them to recover and be just fine. It'll happen right as ratings are dipping.

But I don't watch the show, so I could be way wrong. That was just my first thought.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Ekims said:


> I think Kate and Jon realize that their show has a shelf life and they are rapidly approaching it. Call me skeptic, but you couldn't time any of this any better... Allegations are made from the brother of the alleged girlfriend and then comes the revelation that Kate had Jon sign a contract to stay for the show. This comes from Kate's family. All leading up to last night's episode... Just seemed to perfectly timed to be anything but a publicity stunt...


I think Kate might think and try to manipulate all that. I think Jon really wants to be done with it all.


----------



## TeighVaux (May 31, 2005)

I thought the episode was sad, especially the part where one of the girls asks Jon not to leave.

I see it got high ratings but it remains to be seen if that will keep up, the tone of the show just went from The Brady Bunch to a Bergman movie.

Kate seems shell shocked and taken down a notch. She didn't even seem to care about the party and it seemed thrown together at the last minute. I also note that the producers "broke the wall" by having one of the P.A.'s (production assistants) cross from behind the camera to go help do the setup. Even Kate mentioned it.

It does tinge all the reruns too as marksman said.

I also don't understand how Kate considers doing the show promotion and book tour to be "working, doing my part, working". Ok technically yeah the couple or Kate get a 10990MISC or 1099-R at the end of the year for the show and book royalties. So that is taxable income, but "working"? Not working like when she was a nurse or he was an IT guy or working as far as hands on parenting.

Just an aside, Kate has complained non stop for the past seasons that Jon didn't help enough. However, I saw Jon doing a LOT of serious work around the house and yard. Painting, laying floor, assembling the big swingset, carpentry, assembling the bunk beds, assembling the garage shelving, hanging doors. She never seemed to acknowledge or appreciate all the work he did around the house (imagine what a contractor would cost). I recall in past episodes she was haranguing him while he was trying to hang a door or do assembly.

I have watched about every episode and I still can't tell the kids apart. The only one I can identify is Aaden because he wears glasses. Sometimes I can tell Cara and Maddy apart by their personalities. I can't tell Joel from Collin or the three little girls from each other. I know it's a minor point considering the family turmoil but I was surprised to see the little girls in those hairdos with the tight pulled back high double ponytails with the high hairline. They didn't even look like themselves, usually Kate likes them in long straight hair. 

The kids are all fraternal twins/sextepuplets, or do we know? I try to find ways to tell them apart. I notice that Kate is left handed so I have looked to see if any of the kids are left handed but they all seem to be right handed.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Ruth said:


> As for the network, who is going to watch the "Jon and Kate have marital problems and ignore each other in front of the kids" show?


I don't watch this show, but this reminds me of "An American Family" (which I saw most of on PBS in reruns in the '80s, and "The Real World" mentioned before the very first episode).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_American_Family


----------



## TeighVaux (May 31, 2005)

mattack said:


> I don't watch this show, but this reminds me of "An American Family" (which I saw most of on PBS in reruns in the '80s, and "The Real World" mentioned before the very first episode).
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_American_Family


I was just thinking of the Loud family when I watched the show.

As far as who would watch a disintegrating marriage on a tv show? I would. I'd be very interested in it. I think it has touched a nerve in America.

I used to just watch the show as I saw it off and on. It ran so much on TLC (even before the problems) that I pretty much have seen most episodes. Never TIVO'd it until last night's show. I have next week's set also although it looks like next week is some packaged type promo with Emeril.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

I don't watch the show and I'm tired of these people.



JFriday said:


> Why another $ea$on?? Here'$ the rea$on.


Yep. The premiere was the most watched show _on television_ Monday night.


----------



## Dssturbo1 (Feb 23, 2005)

Ruth said:


> SUPER depressing. And I kept thinking, why the he!! are they doing another season of this show? I don't understand why J&K are doing it, and I don't understand what the network is thinking, either. ...


cnbc reported they get $75,000 per episode......... and TLC had more viewers than the regular networks Monday night during their time slot, so that = $$$$$


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

cmontyburns said:


> I don't watch the show and I'm tired of these people.
> 
> Yep. The premiere was the most watched show _on television_ Monday night.


That is pretty impressive for a cable show on TLC. Who knows how much of this was orchestrated and how complicit any of the parties were.. it seemed to have worked regardless.

Will be very interesting to see how the ratings fare over the season.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

It's funny how child labor laws apply to kid actors in scripted shows but not to kids in "reality" shows. It would be much more difficult to do these shows if the same rules applied, but it's still a bunch of adults sponging money off the kids. If not for the eight kids, no one would be watching these people. Who is looking out for the kids and making sure they are getting their share of the money? Jon and Kate? I wouldn't bet on it. The kids are being exploited by their greedy parents just like many child actors have been.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

How many marriages survive a reality show?

I'd watch this show if the father was having an affair with the Octomom while Flavor Flav was a house guest.

I'm pretty sure the earth hasn't shattered yet.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

I, too, thought it was strange that they had the party in a public park. And that she took the kids out to the store.

It was almost like she wanted to say "See, America, look what I have to deal with? Paparazzi everywhere."

I realize you can't stop living your life, but you can modify it to a certain extent - at least for the time being.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_en_tv/us_tv_jon___kate_ratings_4
> 
> It will be interesting to see how many of those viewers come back for more installments in the next few weeks.


They be back for the same reason people watch car races. To see the wrecks.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

sushikitten said:


> I, too, thought it was strange that they had the party in a public park. And that she took the kids out to the store.
> 
> It was almost like she wanted to say "See, America, look what I have to deal with? Paparazzi everywhere."


Crocodile tears. Like famous people everywhere, you get to choose how much of this you want. If you ask for the attention you get it, it you don't play the game you don't. But, don't ask for it and then complain. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

My guess is that she had planned this party for a while... and didn't want to change things.

In addition, it seemed like they had restricted access to the area... except for across the creek.


----------



## firerose818 (Jul 21, 2003)

Teighvaux, all the kids are fraternal.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

cheerdude said:


> My guess is that she had planned this party for a while... and didn't want to change things.
> 
> In addition, it seemed like they had restricted access to the area... except for across the creek.


Since she talked about not having any invitations out only a few days before the party it hardly seems over planned that they could not have changed the location to get away from the press.

On another note it was actually funny to see Jon running back and forth to the house for Kate because she forgot things (phone, ect.) If she was not talking to me anymore and asked me to do her a favor I would tell her to pound sand and do it herself.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Saw the clip on CNN where the show producers were doing their usual chat with her and asked where things stand with them and she started tearing up saying that they knew families with multiples had high divorce rates but they were sure they could beat the odds, she went on to say "sadly I can't say that now".


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

firerose818 said:


> Teighvaux, all the kids are fraternal.


I believe the original set of twins were identical, or at least Becca says so.


----------



## firerose818 (Jul 21, 2003)

DavidTigerFan said:


> I believe the original set of twins were identical, or at least Becca says so.


Nope. Fraternal too.


----------



## hapdrastic (Mar 31, 2006)

TeighVaux said:


> I have watched about every episode and I still can't tell the kids apart. The only one I can identify is Aaden because he wears glasses. Sometimes I can tell Cara and Maddy apart by their personalities. I can't tell Joel from Collin or the three little girls from each other. I know it's a minor point considering the family turmoil but I was surprised to see the little girls in those hairdos with the tight pulled back high double ponytails with the high hairline. They didn't even look like themselves, usually Kate likes them in long straight hair.
> 
> The kids are all fraternal twins/sextepuplets, or do we know? I try to find ways to tell them apart. I notice that Kate is left handed so I have looked to see if any of the kids are left handed but they all seem to be right handed.


Maddy has braces, and is a little shorter than Cara - those two are easy to tell apart from the rest because they're older.

The other kids, we used to get confused between Leah and Alexis, but it's pretty obvious now which is which. It'd be hard to describe them all in words, but watching the show I could easily point out which was which.

Also, I agree with everyone's sentiments that this episode really wasn't in keeping with the tone of the show. It was really sad to watch. I told my wife that if it doesn't stop being the "Jon and Kate might divorce" show, that I don't want to continue watching it.


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

firerose818 said:


> Nope. Fraternal too.


For someone that is scared at the mention of having multiples, you sure know a a lot about them...


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TeighVaux said:


> I also don't understand how Kate considers doing the show promotion and book tour to be "working, doing my part, working". Ok technically yeah the couple or Kate get a 10990MISC or 1099-R at the end of the year for the show and book royalties. So that is taxable income, but "working"? Not working like when she was a nurse or he was an IT guy or working as far as hands on parenting.


She's in show business now. Do you not think anyone in show business works?

She was justifying leaving the kids behind because she does so in order to bring in the family's income. Whether what she does when she's gone is "work" or not is kinda beside the point. The point is she gets paid to do it. She leaves the house, and leaves town, so she can get paid. Just like everyone else with a job. If she were a nurse and Jon were an IT guy, with 8 kids, they'd be in the poor house. Even more so if only one of them worked, which would be necessary with 8 kids.

I think she was comparing herself to Jon. She leaves the house to get paid. He leaves the house just because he wants to get out of the house.


----------



## firerose818 (Jul 21, 2003)

cheerdude said:


> For someone that is scared at the mention of having multiples, you sure know a a lot about them...


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

Alfer said:


> Saw the clip on CNN where the show producers were doing their usual chat with her and asked where things stand with them and she started tearing up saying that they knew families with multiples had high divorce rates but they were sure they could beat the odds, she went on to say "sadly I can't say that now".


I thought she said something like "I'm not sure if I can say that now."

I don't remember it being so absolute.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Bryanmc said:


> I thought she said something like "I'm not sure if I can say that now."
> 
> I don't remember it being so absolute.


Just watched that part again and she did say "I'm not sure if I can say that now"


----------



## Ekims (Oct 18, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Crocodile tears. Like famous people everywhere, you get to choose how much of this you want. If you ask for the attention you get it, it you don't play the game you don't. But, don't ask for it and then complain. You can't have it both ways.


Some time back, Julia Roberts made a big stink about papparazzi following them everywhere and how they couldn't go anywhere without them. One guy kept a voicemail from one of Julia's assistants that told them when and where they were going to be. If anyone cares to really notice.. You don't hear about most celebs until they have a movie/book/ show coming out. They are all just cogs in a machine and we as consumers continue to buy what the machine spits out! That is why I think they are just cashing in while they can and I they didn't have multiples to be famous, so I don't fault them for it.
As for what it is doing or not doing to the kids.. Meh! Many kids have gotten by just fine living through far worse than this.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

I just watched it today. Kinda depressing.

But to me, it looked like Jon had probably convinced himself how miserable it all is because a huge part of him feels worthless because he isn't the breadwinner (cuz Kate is so successful with her books and stuff). Kate doesn't seem to see that from her comments.


He seems very old-school by some of the comments he makes. 
So - no communication can be a big problem. Plus the stress of 500 kids...

I can't say I'd want to see this all season long.


----------



## TeighVaux (May 31, 2005)

Thanks Firerose for the tips. I noticed in the last show that one of the twins was taller than the other and I thought but which is it? Now I know plus I didn't realize about the braces.

I didn't realize that only Kate "wrote" the book. Wonder why they didn't make it seem as it both wrote it? Wonder how much was ghostwritten?

The previews for the next two shows appear to be for shows shot before the stuff hit the fan. One is one of those "set up" shows that are around a product placement activity. Looks like a celeb chef comes in to cook with them. I guess when that was shot Jon and Kate were still pretending all was fine.

The "little kids" birthday was only a few weeks ago so that was shot after the news broke.

Anyone else find it a little self centered that Kate said that the sextuplets birthday is not just for the kids but is also a celebration of "how far we've come" (i.e. seemed to mean how much work Kate and Jon have done) I thought ahhh no, the birthday is just for the kids. If you want a celebration of your role, then you have Mother's Day, Father's Day, your anniversary, your birthday, Jon's birthday, Thanksgiving. Seemed like she was trying to make their birthday about her.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

I just watched an old episode from 2007 (10 little pumpkins) and Jon still had his day job and made the statement "I could never stay home with the kids. It would absolutely drive me crazy. I'm so glad I have my day job". Something to that effect anyway... My take on it is this. Jon was 23 years old when they had the twins. Then along come 6 more and the TV show... 

Not everybody is cut out to work at home. Much less work at home raising the kids. I work at home with my wife every day and have been doing that for more years than I care to recall. I feel lucky about that every single day. Most of our friends say we are crazy and they could "never do that" even though they love their spouse. Personally? I think this whole thing is simply overblown. Jon says he never cheated and I believe him for now. Kate cheating is ludicrous to me. She may be controlling, but she is also smart and has a strong character. I could never picture her doing something so stupid and self destructive. 

I think Kate's anger is because she thinks that Jon basically "blew it" for them and the show, and her book and anything else they had going. Not necessarily because he cheated, but because he went out drinking with friends and carrying on like a single guy when he should have been home with the kids. Now the media (of course) has found out and their whole empire is in peril. 

I think Jon is caught up with the alcohol (he looks bloated and horrible in the season opener) and self pity right now. He feels "trapped" and has fallen into "self destruct" mode in order to force some kind of change. He's desperate. I think he needs to lay off the booze, get some counseling (both of them) and grow up a little bit. He's a good Dad at heart but I think he's suffering from a severe case of "I didn't sign up for this" syndrome. Kate needs to stop taking credit for everything and acknowledge how much Jon does. They said in the 2007 show I just watched that "they were the perfect partners". Somehow the partnership got lost and Jon simply became an employee. They need to get back to being partners and get on the same side again.

The best thing for Jon would probably be to go back to his day job for awhile. He will either be happier being more independent or he will quickly realize that what he has isn't so bad... Either way, I think Jon will pull out of this. I hope sooner than later. I feel bad for them both but from what I've seen, they could be friends again and work past this. I hope so...





ETA: I accidentally posted this in the OLD thread. Sorry for the repeat. I'll go delete it from the other thread...


----------



## tgrim1 (Sep 11, 2006)

It was easy to see this coming years ago. She is such a control freak and Jon would just roll with everything she said. But you know that that can get old, even for someone as passive as he is. I remember saying to my wife that he was going to leave her someday.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

tgrim1 said:


> It was easy to see this coming years ago. She is such a control freak and Jon would just roll with everything she said. But you know that that can get old, even for someone as passive as he is. I remember saying to my wife that he was going to leave her someday.


You say "control freak" like it's a bad thing. 
I personally like "control freaks". They are typically highly intelligent, self starters, are reliable, organized, and driven to succeed. When I am looking to hire somebody, I go out of my way to find a "control freak". They are people you can rely on to get the job done without needing a lot of hand holding. I think control freaks get a bad rap.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Just read an article that said that TLC has confirmed that this season (Season 5) will be 40 episodes, which is double the typical season order. That's a crazy amount of TV for kids that young to be participating in.

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b126045_kates_brother_next_in_line_sell_out.html


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

I am sorry but they are getting what they deserve. 

They whore out their children on TV. They welcome cameras into their home to a point now where they are filming 40 shows for a single season. Which I think means camera in the house for 6 months. Their relationship has suffered due to this.

They sit there and complain and cry about their marriage falling apart and the coverage they are getting. IT IS EASY TO STOP!

Cancel the show. Kick the cameras out. Get away from it. Not rocket science. Maybe you can't afford your 1.2+ million dollar house. Maybe you don't get free trips to Utah, San Diego, Hawaii, etc... Maybe you don't make millions, get free hair plugs, sell more books. Maybe you lose out on lucrative speaking engagements. But you possibly maintain your marriage and sanity. But that is THEIR choice to do it. To try and make things normal again for their family. 

But they decide to go on TV and air it there. Because they are slaves to the dollar and it is CRYSTAL CLEAR they care more about money then their children or each other. 
Let them burn in the fire they started.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Just read an article that said that TLC has confirmed that this season (Season 5) will be 40 episodes, which is double the typical season order. That's a crazy amount of TV for kids that young to be participating in.
> 
> http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b126045_kates_brother_next_in_line_sell_out.html


Season 4 had about that many episodes.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

NatasNJ said:


> IT IS EASY TO STOP!
> 
> Cancel the show. Kick the cameras out. Get away from it. Not rocket science. Maybe you can't afford your 1.2+ million dollar house. Maybe you don't get free trips to Utah, San Diego, Hawaii, etc... Maybe you don't make millions, get free hair plugs, sell more books. Maybe you lose out on lucrative speaking engagements. But you possibly maintain your marriage and sanity.


What do they do for food?


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

aindik said:


> What do they do for food?


What did they do before the TV show? Maybe try that...
They might not get all the FREE trips that the show provides.... But they should have thought about that before bringing 8 children into this world.

Jon used to work. He could go back to work. They were getting handouts left and right before the show (from Dateline).

If they are/were smart they would have money set aside at this point and be able to live off that for awhile.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

NatasNJ said:


> What did they do before the TV show? Maybe try that...


Before the TV show they had 2 kids. Now they have 8. That's more mouths to feed, and much less likely that both can work (for money, I mean).


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

aindik said:


> Before the TV show they had 2 kids. Now they have 8. That's more mouths to feed, and much less likely that both can work (for money, I mean).


They had 8 kids before the show.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

NatasNJ said:


> They had 8 kids before the show.


Depends on what you mean by "the show."

The sextuplets were born in May of 2004. The first episode of the series aired in January of 2007, was probably taped a bit prior. A year prior to that, they did a special. So, we're talking about when the kids were 12-18 months old.

Why do you think they started doing the show? I'm thinking it's because they needed the money. What they were doing, without the show, wasn't bringing in enough cash.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

NatasNJ said:


> They had 8 kids before the show.


..and likely came to the pretty obvious realization that it was going to be difficult to feed them and care for them on their own dime.

Also, while they obviously wanted more than 2 kids, I don't think they had 8 in mind.

edit: I feel like someone recently said something similar.


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

jradford said:


> ..and likely came to the pretty obvious realization that it was going to be difficult to feed them and care for them on their own dime.
> 
> Also, while they obviously wanted more than 2 kids, I don't think they had 8 in mind.
> 
> edit: I feel like someone recently said something similar.


Then abort, adopt, etc... Ask help from family. If you get over the fact they are exploting their children unfairly in my opinion, and they are doing the show to "put food on the table" then they shoudl have enough money NOW to do that for a LONG LONG time. But as you can tell their lifestyle has CHANGED dramtically. Clothes, outfits, cars, house, etc... They could EASILY cancel the show and have enough money to live like they did a few years ago. IF THEY WANTED to...

But they rather have money than a chance at their marriage. FINE. But be honest about it.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

aindik said:


> Why do you think they started doing the show?


So Kate could be "famous"?

Z


----------



## speaker city (Sep 28, 2005)

aindik said:


> What do they do for food?


PROTIP: don't produce more children than you can afford to feed.

Stop trying to justify the exploitation of children.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

If they made $50k an episode last season, that's $2 million. Sounds like a lot. But: they likely paid half of it taxes, fees for their representation, etc., leaving $1 million. They've got 8 college funds to fund. Let's say, $80k each. That's $640k, leaving $360k saved up for everything except college. How long are they living on that with 8 kids? Two, three years maybe (remember, they had to live on it last year, too). Then what do they do?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

speaker city said:


> PROTIP: don't produce more children than you can afford to feed.


They can afford to feed them. You happen not to like the way they come to afford it.



speaker city said:


> Stop trying to justify the exploitation of children.


Children every day go through things orders of magnitude worse than these kids and turn out fine. Again, the kids get to grow up rich. That has its benefits.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

aindik said:


> If they made $50k an episode last season, that's $2 million. Sounds like a lot. But: they likely paid half of it taxes, fees for their representation, etc., leaving $1 million. They've got 8 college funds to fund. Let's say, $80k each. That's $640k, leaving $360k saved up for everything except college. How long are they living on that with 8 kids? Two, three years maybe (remember, they had to live on it last year, too). Then what do they do?


You're trying too hard.

A million bucks after taxes ain't bad. My parents had six children on a teacher's salary. I turned out OK.

You think they had to put $80k into _*each*_ college fund? All in one year? So what did they do with the $$ from the previous seasons?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I don't understand why we should care how they earn or spend the money. If people didn't watch, they wouldn't make money. And come on, these kids aren't being damaged by being in this show.

To me, it's obvious that they do it for the money. I dislike that they pretend otherwise, as if they would voluntarily quit this show. I would argue that it would be pretty crazy to STOP being on the show voluntarily right now. Take as much money as you can, while you can, would be my advice. 

What I don't understand is why someone would want to watch it. That's the real mystery.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> You're trying too hard.
> 
> A million bucks after taxes ain't bad. My parents had six children on a teacher's salary. I turned out OK.


I'm talking about a million bucks, once, when the kids are 9, 9, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 and 5. Not a million bucks a year.

I assume your parents had a pension that meant they didn't need to save for retirement out of the teachers salary because they'd continue collecting the salary after they retired.

Apart from college, J&K need to support 8 kids for the next 9 years, six kids for the 4 years after that, and then themselves until they die.



pdhenry said:


> You think they had to put $80k into _*each*_ college fund? All in one year? So what did they do with the $$ from the previous seasons?


The assertion is that they should be set for life after having done the shows they've already done. That would require these college funds to be fully funded, today.

Do you know how much money they made from Seasons 1-3? I don't, but I don't think it even approached $50k an episode until the fourth season. (And, the other seasons didn't have 40 episodes like the fourth one did. There have been 94 episodes total including the premiere of season 5).


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

NatasNJ said:


> Then abort, adopt, etc... Ask help from family. If you get over the fact they are exploting their children unfairly in my opinion, and they are doing the show to "put food on the table" then they shoudl have enough money NOW to do that for a LONG LONG time. But as you can tell their lifestyle has CHANGED dramtically. Clothes, outfits, cars, house, etc... They could EASILY cancel the show and have enough money to live like they did a few years ago. IF THEY WANTED to...
> 
> But they rather have money than a chance at their marriage. FINE. But be honest about it.


Do you really think the children would be better off if they never did this show? From the few earlier shows I've seen, it seems obvious that Jon and Kate were never a good fit for each other. Kate seemed pretty awful to me from the beginning and Jon was always kind of a bum. So, if you pretend the show never happened, if you pretend they just lived their life and we never met them on TV, I don't see the marriage lasting anyway. And if they canceled the show now, do you really think that would help?

As for the problem about them being dishonest about their intentions as portrayed on the TV show: Get over it. It's reality TV, not reality. Producers don't let you go out there and say "I'm doing this for the money. Thanks for watching, tune in next week."


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

NatasNJ said:


> I am sorry but they are getting what they deserve.
> 
> They whore out their children on TV. They welcome cameras into their home to a point now where they are filming 40 shows for a single season. Which I think means camera in the house for 6 months. .


i FFd thru most of the memorial day marathon but watched the FAQ shows. I enjoy learning about the lighting and crew stuff. She said it's 3 days a week they are there so 40 shows sounds longer than 6 months. Of course maybe it's more than one show a week and other times just barely one show.

I think they saw the Duggar shows and wish they had that kind of organization and camaraderie and in a few years, i hope they do.

she also specifically said the kids have final 'say' on everything and dont do what they dont wanna do.

is it normal to hear the staff ask questions on the couch? I thought that a bit bizarre.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

NatasNJ said:


> Then abort, adopt, etc...


These options are supposed to be better for the children than bringing cameras into the house?


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

jradford said:


> Do you really think the children would be better off if they never did this show? From the few earlier shows I've seen, it seems obvious that Jon and Kate were never a good fit for each other. Kate seemed pretty awful to me from the beginning and Jon was always kind of a bum. So, if you pretend the show never happened, if you pretend they just lived their life and we never met them on TV, I don't see the marriage lasting anyway. And if they canceled the show now, do you really think that would help?
> 
> As for the problem about them being dishonest about their intentions as portrayed on the TV show: Get over it. It's reality TV, not reality. Producers don't let you go out there and say "I'm doing this for the money. Thanks for watching, tune in next week."


More reason to despise these lowlifes. I don't know but assuming twins then sixtuplet litters they were surely using inferilization methods of some sort. YEAH. Lets bring children into a sad marriage when we ALREADY dislike each other. Oh we had twins and we still hate each lets TRY FOR ANOTHER!!! WTF!!!!

And when is funding your childrens college fund a necessity? There are such things as student loans... At what price do these kids have to deal just to get a funded college?


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

aindik said:


> These options are supposed to be better for the children than bringing cameras into the house?


Ideally they would not have procreated into a loveless marriage. 
Once they had children ideally they would have planned properly to deal with being able to afford the children. Those other options are just that, options to not rape your childs youth by forcing strangers in their space and film their lives.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

NatasNJ said:


> More reason to despise these lowlifes. I don't know but assuming twins then sixtuplet litters they were surely using inferilization methods of some sort. YEAH. Lets bring children into a sad marriage when we ALREADY dislike each other. Oh we had twins and we still hate each lets TRY FOR ANOTHER!!! WTF!!!!
> 
> And when is funding your childrens college fund a necessity? There are such things as student loans... At what price do these kids have to deal just to get a funded college?


I'm pretty sure it's known that she used fertility methods which tells me that they were very set on having kids. They are not the first couple, and they definitely will not be the last, to have children without thinking about the environment they are bringing them into. If you despise them that much, would you really be happier if they were broke and on welfare? At least the TV show means you don't have to pay for their poor decision making.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

I am sure it would be much more of a struggle to raise all those kids without the show. But regular people manage to have lots of kids and get by. And they are living pretty extravagant lives. There's a lot of ways they could save money without descending into abject poverty. And I don't just mean the big house and the trips. I mean having brand new matching clothes for every kid, all the time. (Ever see them wear the same outfits twice? Ever see the little girls wearing hand-me-downs from Mady and Cara? I haven't.) Using only paper plates. Paying a premium for organic junk food. (Candy is still candy; calling it organic doesn't make it health food.) Spending your money on super-essential medical care, like teeth whitening and better hair. 

Money isn't everything. It's certainly possible those kids would be happier stuffed into a small house, wearing less-than-pristine clothing, but with more of a cohesive family living outside of the public eye. 

Of course it's easy to get sucked into the midset where money equals happiness. But it doesn't.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

NatasNJ said:


> Ideally they would not have procreated into a loveless marriage.
> Once they had children ideally they would have planned properly to deal with being able to afford the children. Those other options are just that, options to not rape your childs youth by forcing strangers in their space and film their lives.


Sorry, but I think you're going a bit overboard. The only one that looks miserable is Jon. The kids don't look "youth raped" to me.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

Ruth said:


> I am sure it would be much more of a struggle to raise all those kids without the show. But regular people manage to have lots of kids and get by. And they are living pretty extravagant lives. There's a lot of ways they could save money without descending into abject poverty. And I don't just mean the big house and the trips. I mean having brand new matching clothes for every kid, all the time. (Ever see them wear the same outfits twice? Ever see the little girls wearing hand-me-downs from Mady and Cara? I haven't.) Using only paper plates. Paying a premium for organic junk food. (Candy is still candy; calling it organic doesn't make it health food.) Spending your money on super-essential medical care, like teeth whitening and better hair.
> 
> Money isn't everything. It's certainly possible those kids would be happier stuffed into a small house, wearing less-than-pristine clothing, but with more of a cohesive family living outside of the public eye.
> 
> Of course it's easy to get sucked into the midset where money equals happiness. But it doesn't.


I agree with this 100%. I just don't agree with the idea that because they DIDN'T follow this route, they're now "getting what they deserved" and "should burn." Seems a bit diabolical, honestly.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

jradford said:


> I agree with this 100%. I just don't agree with the idea that because they DIDN'T follow this route, they're now "getting what they deserved" and "should burn." Seems a bit diabolical, honestly.


Totally agree. I can see why they would make the choices they have. And I'm sure once you do have that level of material comfort it's incredibly, incredibly difficult to think about giving it up.

I just thought the season opener was so terribly sad. At some point, I think you have to question if it's worth the money -- ANY amount of money -- to have a nationally televised broadcast of your kids asking Daddy when he's going to stop leaving, and a memorialized record of you and your spouse discussing infidelity and divorce for the kids to watch when they are older.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

jradford said:


> Sorry, but I think you're going a bit overboard. The only one that looks miserable is Jon. The kids don't look "youth raped" to me.


In their interview of CBS yesterday Kate's brother and SIL said the kids have often commented that they don't want the cameras around them anymore and would like to be able to go and do things 'just as a family' w/o the cameras. This was probably just the two older ones but I am sure the others will feel the same way soon. Also found it interesting that cameras were allowed in the kids bedrooms but not in Jon and Kate room because they need this quiet time away from the cameras.


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

jradford said:


> I agree with this 100%. I just don't agree with the idea that because they DIDN'T follow this route, they're now "getting what they deserved" and "should burn." Seems a bit diabolical, honestly.


All that means is that they agreed to be on a TV show and that level of fame comes with drawbacks so don't go on TV crying about those drawbacks. Either give it up or suck it up. Either get of the fire they walked into or stay and get BURNED in the FIRE.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Ruth said:


> It's certainly possible those kids would be happier stuffed into a small house, wearing less-than-pristine clothing, but with more of a cohesive family living outside of the public eye.


It's also possible they wouldn't be. And also possible that the family unit wouldn't be any more cohesive than it is now.



Ruth said:


> Of course it's easy to get sucked into the midset where money equals happiness. But it doesn't.


But being poor is miserable.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

aindik said:


> It's also possible they wouldn't be. And also possible that the family unit wouldn't be any more cohesive than it is now.
> 
> But being poor is miserable.


Given that Kate has written two NYT bestselling books, has an active presence on the lecture circuit, and presumably they are getting rerun royalties of some sort from the past show episodes, I don't think that there's any possibility they'd be "poor" in the sense of not having adequate food, clothing, and shelter. We're talking about the difference between "super rich" and "regular people." Plenty of people who don't have a lot of money are perfectly happy.

You seriously think there's no question at all that it's better for those kids to live in a giant house and watch their parents' marriage implode on a big screen TV, than to live in a modest home and wear hand-me-downs? That there is NO possibility that the show isn't the best thing for them anymore? That money ALWAYS makes people happier?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Ruth said:


> Given that Kate has written two NYT bestselling books, and presumably they are getting rerun royalties of some sort from the past show episodes, I don't think that there's any possibility they'd be "poor" in the sense of not having adequate food, clothing, and shelter. We're talking about the difference between "super rich" and "regular people." Plenty of people who don't have a lot of money are perfectly happy.


There's 10 people in the house, 8 of whom are getting bigger every year. They need a house big enough for 10 people and food to feed 10 people. A "regular person" salary isn't going to cover that. (Two regular person salaries might come close, but they can't have two regular person salaries because they have 8 kids).

I don't think there is going to be much in the way of reruns of this show if new episodes aren't being made anymore. Does TLC show reruns of any other show it has canceled? Book sales, I'd imagine, are shot to hell once everyone figures out that she really doesn't have all the answers about how to keep a family together.



Ruth said:


> You seriously think there's no question at all that it's better for those kids to live in a giant house and watch their parents' marriage implode on a big screen TV, than to live in a modest home and wear hand-me-downs? That there is NO possibility that the show isn't the best thing for them anymore? That money ALWAYS makes people happier?


I didn't say any of that. What I said is, if they quit the show, they'd run out of money in a couple of years and that running out of money is bad for the kids. As bad as doing the show? I don't know, but I wouldn't underestimate how bad running out of money is.

I also said the kids are likely to be fine. Kids go through much worse stuff every day and turn out fine.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

aindik said:


> Book sales, I'd imagine, are shot to hell once everyone figures out that she really doesn't have all the answers about how to keep a family together.


That's certainly a possibility. But I think that ship has pretty much sailed . . . .



> I didn't say any of that. What I said is, if they quit the show, they'd run out of money in a couple of years and that running out of money is bad for the kids. As bad as doing the show? I don't know, but I wouldn't underestimate how bad running out of money is.
> 
> I also said the kids are likely to be fine. Kids go through much worse stuff every day and turn out fine.


Why is it a given that they'd "run out of money" without the show? I don't get that.

I have several friends that are from big families and have 10-12 siblings. You don't see that as much anymore, and I'd imagine it's much easier when they are spaced out age-wise, but it used to be that it wasn't too uncommon to have a very large family like that. (Especially for Catholics and Mormons.) None of my friends grew up in poverty. They may not have been rich, but they weren't poor, either. And their parents managed it just fine without a TV show.

There's no reason J&K couldn't do the same. Especially as they've had very high earnings the last few years due to the show to build up their savings.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Ruth said:


> That's certainly a possibility. But I think that ship has pretty much sailed . . . .


I think it's in the midst of sailing. I think it's fairly certain, though, that if she quits the TV show, nobody is buying the books after that.



Ruth said:


> Why is it a given that they'd "run out of money" without the show? I don't get that.


Because only one of them can work and neither of them have any earning capacity to speak of, from what we know.



Ruth said:


> I have several friends that are from big families and have 10-12 siblings. You don't see that as much anymore, and I'd imagine it's much easier when they are spaced out age-wise, but it used to be that it wasn't too uncommon to have a very large family like that. (Especially for Catholics and Mormons.) None of my friends grew up in poverty. They may not have been rich, but they weren't poor, either. And their parents managed it just fine without a TV show.
> 
> There's no reason J&K couldn't do the same. Especially as they've had very high earnings the last few years due to the show to build up their savings.


Without knowing what your friends' parents did for a living, it's hard to tell whether the circumstances are comparable. Also, while you mention it, I think you are underestimating how much more expensive it is when six of your kids are the same age and need all of the same things at exactly the same time.

And the income isn't "these last few years." The first episode of the series aired in January of 2007. And she wasn't demanding $50k an episode back then.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

aindik said:


> But being poor is miserable.


Exactly. But these days we're supposed to pretend that money doesn't matter, and that we can all be happy even if we're poor (I guess that lets both the rich and the poor alike feel better). That might be true for those who choose to horde their money and live like they earned less, but it's rarely true for those who are actually poor and remain so.

We don't know if J&K would be better off without the show or not. But to blatantly assume that the fame and the presence of the cameras is hurting the children seems very presumptuous.

Of course, it could all be ended if people just stopped watching.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

Ruth said:


> I mean having brand new matching clothes for every kid, all the time. (Ever see them wear the same outfits twice?


I think they do the matching clothes for publicity events - but every day around the house, they do wear the same clothes twice. There is a pink striped shirt the little girls wear all the time - it was in several episodes that had to be filmed on separate days.

/admitting she watched the marathon....


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

cheerdude said:


> My guess is that she had planned this party for a while... and didn't want to change things.
> 
> In addition, it seemed like they had restricted access to the area... except for across the creek.


I find it hard to believe she spent much advance planning for that party.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

marksman said:


> I find it hard to believe she spent much advance planning for that party.


She talked about getting invitations, party favors, deciding on theme only a couple of days prior to the party. She could have easily moved the party to the McMansion and had the bounce company set up shop on the estate grounds.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

bareyb said:


> You say "control freak" like it's a bad thing.
> I personally like "control freaks". They are typically highly intelligent, self starters, are reliable, organized, and driven to succeed. When I am looking to hire somebody, I go out of my way to find a "control freak". They are people you can rely on to get the job done without needing a lot of hand holding. I think control freaks get a bad rap.


Nah there are people who like to be in control and thrive on being in control of things around them and control freaks who demand that everything around them is only done one way.

I don't know what kind of business you have where people with such built in inflexibility are good employees, or else you are more talking about people who enjoy being in control and not just control freaks.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

marksman said:


> Nah there are people who like to be in control and thrive on being in control of things around them and control freaks who demand that everything around them is only done one way.
> 
> I don't know what kind of business you have where people with such built in inflexibility are good employees, or else you are more talking about people who enjoy being in control and not just control freaks.


I just meant that a lot of truly gifted and successful people are often called "control freaks" when in fact, they are simply more organized and successful than the people who are calling them names. This type of name calling usually stems from jealousy in my opinion.

Being a control freak doesn't imply inflexibility to me at all. That would be a most unwelcome trait. The "control freaks" I know, are very flexible. They do the research, weigh all the options, and then insist that things be done _right_. I like that in a person, and I especially like that in an employee. 

It's probably one reason I'm not jumping on the Kate Hater band wagon. I like her. I think she's smart and capable and I think her and Jon don't act all that differently from other married couples I've seen. At least not ones that are still married and committed to staying married. Sometimes you just have to cut people some slack.

Call me an incurable optimist, but I think they can work all this out without killing the golden goose. Fame is pretty fleeting as is being on TV. They should ride this out for as long as they can and bank as much money as possible before it all goes away. The show will be over soon enough anyway and approximately one year after that nobody will know they ever existed.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Ruth said:


> You seriously think there's no question at all that it's better for those kids to live in a giant house and watch their parents' marriage implode on a big screen TV, than to live in a modest home and wear hand-me-downs? That there is NO possibility that the show isn't the best thing for them anymore? That money ALWAYS makes people happier?


I think they'd watch the marriage implode whether it was on TV or not.

Z


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

zordude said:


> I think they'd watch the marriage implode whether it was on TV or not.
> 
> Z


On the one hand, I think that is probably true, as these two don't seem like a match made in heaven, and on the other hand, the show has led to a change in roles that I am sure has exacerbated the situation. Jon used to go to work, now he doesn't. Kate used to be with the kids, now she is on tour with her bodyguard promoting the show, her books and herself while Jon is out partying with young women in her absence. Maybe if things had stayed as they were, Jon and Kate the couple would be better off. Or maybe not.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

zordude said:


> I think they'd watch the marriage implode whether it was on TV or not.
> 
> Z


Well, if they weren't televising what should be private discussions between the parents, the kids wouldn't be have to see the adult details. I mean, sure, they would see the implosion in terms of changed family dynamics and it would be hard, but they wouldn't have to watch a very adult discussion about infidelity between their parents -- and know that all their friends and teachers watched it too.

When your parents get divorced (or close to it) and you're a little kid, I really think all they should tell you is some variation of "Mommy and Daddy aren't getting along, but we both love you very much." The kids shouldn't have to actually watch their parents discussing all the sordid details of one parent's accusations against another on television.


----------



## TeighVaux (May 31, 2005)

I'd be curious to see what footage they use for next week's episode. The sextuplets' birthday was just on May 1, so shot after the stuff hit the fan.

The producers must have shot a lot of footage before the stuff hit the fan and J and K were still hiding the separation and animosity.

The previews for next week seem to focus on Kate's birthday which was March 28 and that was "before".

Can we have the Bergman-esque first episode and then just have the next episodes go back for a bunch of "before" episodes?


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

TeighVaux said:


> I'd be curious to see what footage they use for next week's episode. The sextuplets' birthday was just on May 1, so shot after the stuff hit the fan.
> 
> The producers must have shot a lot of footage before the stuff hit the fan and J and K were still hiding the separation and animosity.
> 
> ...


Yeah. I don't know... It's gonna be weird seeing them carrying on as normal with no idea how much their lives are about to be turned upside down...


----------



## jhausmann (Aug 21, 2002)

aindik said:


> But being poor is miserable.


Then living with Kate under such circumstances would be misery cubed.

Most everything they have is courtesy of TLC, one way or another. Good and bad.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

Clearly this is soon going to be a show about "Kate + 8 " ....Watch a single mother raise 8 kids alone! I am guessing in Kate's thinking, this has to be as marketable as Jon & Kate + 8!


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

OT: Kate and the kids were at Bald Head Island this past weekend.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

andyw715 said:


> OT: Kate and the kids were at Bald Head Island this past weekend.


Glad to see her 'working on her marriage'. I guess they will have to wait until the season is over to file for divorce.


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

MickeS said:


> Exactly. But these days we're supposed to pretend that money doesn't matter, and that we can all be happy even if we're poor (I guess that lets both the rich and the poor alike feel better). That might be true for those who choose to horde their money and live like they earned less, but it's rarely true for those who are actually poor and remain so.


"Poor" is a relative term. I think it is possible for people to be poor and happy. More money doesn't always mean fewer problems. Sometimes it just means different problems. My mother grew up poor. 7 kids. They were extremely happy. I grew up in a military family. Not what I would call poor, but certainly at the lower end of the middle class monetarily speaking. I know there were times when money was a struggle for my parents growing up. We were happy. My wife and I do well. We are no happier than my parents were. Money does not equal happiness.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Scarcity is the problem. The more children you have, the more resources you need.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

jilter said:


> Clearly this is soon going to be a show about "Kate + 8 " ....Watch a single mother raise 8 kids alone! I am guessing in Kate's thinking, this has to be as marketable as Jon & Kate + 8!


This is clearly headed for a winner-take-all, no holds barred, Kate vs Octomom steel-cage match (in the Octogon, of course) on pay-per-view.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I think they might change the name to Jon & Kate + 8 - Jon.


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

JFriday said:


> I think they might change the name to Jon & Kate + 8 - Jon.


At least a year ago "The Soup" on E! did a graphic of Jon windsurfing in California with the title "Jon - 9"


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

JFriday said:


> I think they might change the name to *Jon & Kate + 8 - Jon =SAD*


FYP
These kids do not deserve this.


----------



## tgrim1 (Sep 11, 2006)

TeighVaux said:


> I'd be curious to see what footage they use for next week's episode. The sextuplets' birthday was just on May 1, so shot after the stuff hit the fan.
> 
> The producers must have shot a lot of footage before the stuff hit the fan and J and K were still hiding the separation and animosity.
> 
> ...


Sounds like it's going to be a "Kate-centric" flashback episode!


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

The Pennsylvania Department of Labor said that it is looking into whether the hit reality show "Jon & Kate Plus 8" is complying with child labor laws

Link


----------



## TiMo Tim (Jul 20, 2001)

tgrim1 said:


> Sounds like it's going to be a "Kate-centric" flashback episode!


Yeah, it'd be freaky if we found out the kids weren't really Kate's, but rather Claire's.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

mcb08 said:


> The Pennsylvania Department of Labor said that it is looking into whether the hit reality show "Jon & Kate Plus 8" is complying with child labor laws
> 
> Link


Because someone complained and they have to look into every complaint.

I'm sure TLC has their bases covered. It's a documentary, the kids are not actors.

Just something else to throw in the hysteria.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

DavidTigerFan said:


> I liked how a man with 8 kids can still drive a 350Z.


Even with zero kids why would a man drive one?
Obviously I hate sports cars.


----------



## tgrim1 (Sep 11, 2006)

TiMo Tim said:


> Yeah, it'd be freaky if we found out the kids weren't really Kate's, but rather Claire's.


And Jon has a brother named Miles!


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

I agree with what Bareyb has posted. I always thought Kate got a bad rap - she's smart, she's figured out how to raise 8 kids and organize their lives enough to get them places, while I saw Jon as a charming slacker. Not lazy so much but really wanting to stay within his comfort zone and willing to let Kate do the hard work while he released control. 

He played with the kids while she did everything and he wouldn't stick to schedules - which you NEED when raising 8 toddlers - and then he'd wander off, leaving her to deal with the consequences.

I'm guessing he dealt with the TV situation behind the scenes like that too - allowing Kate to make all the decisions and being very passive but quietly resentful.

I think she made a lot of unnecessary snippy remarks about him which earned her the reputation of being biatch, but unlike others, I could see where he frustration came from. He didn't really communicate with her and she tried to with him. I also could see her commitment to the family and to Jon and I believed that once the pressure of having 8 very young children was off, she would be able to ease up. Everybody with kids knows how tough those early years are and having 8 under five is pretty much unimaginable in its difficulty. Even with help, which they had.

It was very sad to see their marriage fall-out on display like it was. My take on it is Jon has given up, and mostly I think because he's done being on TV. He wants a private life with his family and he doesn't want to be shown to be so passive on TV, and he wants to be a working father. 

I got the impression from the episode that Kate was the person responsible for everything - when he made the comment about not being smart enough to write a book, or whatever - I detected some jealousy and maybe a sense of his manhood being taken away by not being the breadwinner.

I think Kate truly is upset at the papparazzi. I think she wants to do normal things, like take her kids to a party store, but there they are. I doubt they've been there the whole time - just until this scandal began. I don't think she handled it well, telling her kids not to say the word, but i don't think she is seeking that kind of attention.


Both Jon and Kate have never wavered from saying they started doing the show to document their kids lives - they didn't have enough time to turn cameras on and wanted to capture those special moments. I bet they never thought it would get this big, but I think Kate accepted it and ran with it and I think Jon let her while resenting it quietly.

I think she is doing the show for money but I also think she may be finding it a fulfilling career and it probably was until the bad part of celebrity started. I found it interesting how she said she didn't appreciate her fans before - found them people who needed to get a life - until now when they are giving her support.

I think, like many other people, if they turned off the cameras and went back to their old lives, they might have a chance. But, how many of us can go back? It's easy for us to say but there are tons of people depending on them to do this show now. I would like to see them shut it off and go back to doing a yearly special but I think it's harder than we know and contracts are signed and photographers have regular jobs with them, and a production crew. Maybe they can make their 2 mil this year and be done and supplement with a special and get their marriage back on track.

Not many people make it when they marry that young though - people change. I think they are religious so hopefully that will help them through the rough time.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

JFriday said:


> I think they might change the name to Jon & Kate + 8 - Jon.


Jon + 4
Kate + 4

= sad


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I am really concerned if those 3 boys are left to grow up with those 5 females alone.

Not that Jon is instilling any backbone or spine in them now.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

marksman said:


> I am really concerned if those 3 boys are left to grow up with those 5 females alone.


What? What the hell does that have to do with anything?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

justapixel said:


> ...........
> 
> My take on it is Jon has given up, and mostly I think because he's done being on TV. He wants a private life with his family and he doesn't want to be shown to be so passive on TV, and he wants to be a working father...........


The family gets between $25K and $50K per episode. You would think he would want to make sure that money keeps coming in. That can set up the entire family for life.

Where is he going to work where he can make that kind of money?

What would he want, to have zero attention on the family from the beginning, and only have him and his wife work to support themselves and eight children. Does he actually think that outcome would be better for him? He has it very easy. If he can't handle that, then he wouldn't have a chance with the way it is with most people.

He needs to act like a man and not a wuss.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> What would he want, to have zero attention on the family from the beginning, and only have him and his wife work to support themselves and eight children.


You act like that is something unheard of. I work in a school and our PTA president has ten children. She and her husband are raising them on one salary - a state salary, it's not like he's a doctor or anything. She stays home. Her clothes are old but her kids are all A students and they are managing to put them through college.

The only interesting thing about Jon and Kate's situation is that they had six at once and two sets of multiples. Managing all those kids at once is a hard task but lots of people have many children and manage without having a TV show. Before they were on the air, they did have a lot of support. They had neighborhood volunteers coming in to help feed the babies, they had people doing their laundry, etc. It's not like they were alone. But, he worked and she raised the babies and managed the household - in the beginning.

So, yes, maybe that is exactly what he wants. An anonymous job as an IT manager, a modest home, a wife and children to come home to.

I'm sure all the perks and money and fame were nice for a time and I doubt very many of us would turn it down - it's a whirlwind for them, I'm sure they never expected this to happen.

But, on reflection, maybe he's matured to the point that he realizes it's not worth it.

We don't know but that's the impression I got. I think he's sick of being on TV and wants to live a private life. Kate sees it differently - she's thinking about lots of money and big houses and I don't interpret that to means she's selfish, but that's the way she sees security for her family. I think she's missed that security means their dad should be around and happy too.

I agree that Jon should man up - I thought that throughout the show, which I've watched almost from the beginning. He's let Kate boss him around and rarely says "no" to her. He gave up his power - but now I think he's had enough.

If Kate was a wise woman, she'd hand it back to him. TV shows and millions of dollars is really not as important to the kids as a stable, loving family.

I suppose in 15 years we'll be watching Cara and Maddy as the new Ashley and Mary Kate. Anorexic, living a frivolous life of shopping and partying, but with lots of money. I'm not so sure that's a good thing and I'm pretty sure that doesn't fit in with the values Jon and Kate started out with.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Of course it's not unheard of. But it takes major sacrifices. In my area, I know several couples that make over 200K and are strapped for funds with three or four children.(especially when college costs can be in the six figures)Having 8 or 10 children is unusual in this day and age.

Sure he might be able to do it with one salary but life would be very different. With what they are doing now they can ensure they have money for college for all their children. Working on one salary would come nowhere close to ensuring that. And with most parents, their children's future is one of their top priorities.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> And with most parents, their children's future is one of their top priorities.


Sure, and I think Jon and Kate are no different. It's clear they both love their kids and want the best for them. But, their definition how to ensure their future might be very different from each other.

For practical, go-getter, A type personality Kate, security means money.

For relaxed, charming, sensitive Jon, security means family and fun.

Kate may now believe (I think she started differently) that to provide for her kids properly, she needs lots of money, to be able to put them through college, to make sure they have the best of everything, even if that means she's not around that much and Jon isn't on board to the point that he leaves physically. She probably wants to ensure they have the ability to have high-level careers sparked by an elite education. She's thinking that it takes physical things to ensure their future, and the trade-off is she is willing to give up her privacy.

Jon may believe that to provide for the kids properly, they need a strong family life, a strong marriage, a team they can model. Maybe he wants to go to work everyday to demonstrate responsibility, even if the salary is low. Maybe he wants to live within their means and if that means the kids go without expensive clothing and they have to share rooms in a three bedroom house, then that makes them closer and builds character. Maybe he thinks they should pay for their own college, or go to community college and work their way through. Maybe he thinks that building character is more important than taking it easy. Jon may believe it takes emotional stability to ensure their future, and that can't happen with cameras around all of the time.

Granted, I don't know either of these people and I may be - probably am - completely wrong about their motivations.

I'm just pointing out that having a close but lower income large family is every single bit as valuable to the kids as they grow up - maybe more so - than having a secure college fund, nice clothes and no financial worries.

Both are very valuable - but which makes for a better person?

Let's pretend my scenario is right on. If so, then I do believe they both have the kid's best interests at heart. But, I think it's a lot more character- building to have a poorer life and a closer family. When you've been given everything you have less of a desire to succeed, as we often see in the children of the very rich.

We may never know but just watching the body language and comments by Jon makes me think he's sick of the cameras and just wants a normal life again and I think he did long before "the incident". Kate, clearly, isn't ready until she feels financially stable for life. But, I do think they both are doing what they are doing out of love for their children.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

justapixel said:


> I suppose in 15 years we'll be watching Cara and Maddy as the new Ashley and Mary Kate. Anorexic, living a frivolous life of shopping and partying, but with lots of money. I'm not so sure that's a good thing and I'm pretty sure that doesn't fit in with the values Jon and Kate started out with.


Jon & Kate are doing well, but lets keep it in perspective. Mary Kate and Ashley are billionaires. Jon & Kate would have to do the show for 500 years to amass the amount of money Mary Kate and Ashley have. It's not even close.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

justapixel said:


> I suppose in 15 years we'll be watching Cara and Maddy as the new Ashley and Mary Kate. Anorexic, living a frivolous life of shopping and partying, but with lots of money. I'm not so sure that's a good thing and I'm pretty sure that doesn't fit in with the values Jon and Kate started out with.


A girl being thin does not automatically make her anorexic. :down::down:


----------



## Jolt (Jan 9, 2006)

cherry ghost said:


> A girl being thin does not automatically make her anorexic. :down::down:


But one of the Olsen twins was an anorexic so your post is a thumbs down


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

cherry ghost said:


> A girl being thin does not automatically make her anorexic. :down::down:


ROFLMAO!!!! Best. post. ever. 

(I've been saying this for 50 years.)

But, one of those girls actually has been treated for anorexia so in this case, it's true.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Somard said:


> But one of the Olsen twins was an anorexic so your post is a thumbs down


Yes, but both were mentioned. If you had an alcoholic brother, could I automatically label you as one?


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

aindik said:


> Jon & Kate are doing well, but lets keep it in perspective. Mary Kate and Ashley are billionaires. Jon & Kate would have to do the show for 500 years to amass the amount of money Mary Kate and Ashley have. It's not even close.


Those girls weren't billionaires 20 years ago. You never know what merchandising scheme could catapult these kids into billions.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

One thing we all have to remember is they rolled down hill into this. They did not just wake up and decide they wanted to be in a situation where their marriage might be blowing up and people would be accusing them of exploiting their children.

I think it started innocent enough with the first 1 hour documentary. They thought it would be something interesting to do. They also felt it was a good way to capture that period of time, because they no longer had the time or ability to take pictures and video so they were missing a lot of things that wanted to remember. So you do one special no big deal, you do another still no harm no foul. Then the proposal for a series comes up. There is no guarantee of success or it lasting any length of time. Everything is just by the seat of their pants.

I think they should have hit the brakes a bit harder over time on how things progressed and made it less intrusive overall, but you can see how this molehill turned into a mountain that was not chronicling their life but instead became their life.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

I haven't followed this show. I've only seen perhaps four episodes so I may be way off here.

My perception is that Kate is, was, and always will be the dominant spouse. And Jon has always been passive. She's pro-active, he's reactive. Nothing wrong with that. Most marriages work that way.

I think the issue here is that Kate's dominance is amplified by the show and he feels emasculated publicly. It probably became humiliating for him to interact in a community where everybody considered him brow-beaten - regardless of whether or not he preferred Kate to take the reins.

Of course, true to reality, when the family splits, dad goes off to a new life and mom is left with the pieces.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aindik said:


> Jon & Kate are doing well, but lets keep it in perspective. Mary Kate and Ashley are billionaires. Jon & Kate would have to do the show for 500 years to amass the amount of money Mary Kate and Ashley have. It's not even close.


While what you say is true, the Gosselins wouldn't have to be billionaires for their kids to live that same lifestyle. A couple more years of 40 episodes at $50k each, some merchandising, books, speaking engagements, re-run royalties and some smart investing could give the Gosselins tens of millions in the next decade, and that's plenty for their kids to live like celebrities.


----------



## Swirl_Junkie (Mar 11, 2001)

bareyb said:


> I think Jon is caught up with the alcohol (he looks bloated and horrible in the season opener) and self pity right now. He feels "trapped" and has fallen into "self destruct" mode in order to force some kind of change. He's desperate. I think he needs to lay off the booze, get some counseling (both of them) and grow up a little bit. He's a good Dad at heart but I think he's suffering from a severe case of "I didn't sign up for this" syndrome. Kate needs to stop taking credit for everything and acknowledge how much Jon does. They said in the 2007 show I just watched that "they were the perfect partners". Somehow the partnership got lost and Jon simply became an employee. They need to get back to being partners and get on the same side again.


I couldn't agree more. He was married young and is now living out the early twenties he never had. He started going out, hanging out with a much younger crowd, drinking and lost touch with who he really is. The car, the trips snowboarding, the presence of him in the local bar scene. It all points to him drinking and losing focus.

I didn't see it mentioned earlier, but I think I read he was living above the garage of their mansion. I don't think he's gone, even now. I still think he carries alot of the brunt of caring for the kids on a day to day basis. Last weeks episode was just him out of town for a few days. She seems to be out of town much more often.

If I was married to Kate, I'd be drinking too. She constantly berates him in public ( The Toys R Us incident), and makes a fool of him every time she opens her mouth. I get that you have to be sterile, and stringent on rules with eight kids... but I think she was a royal pain long before kid one.

The whole Kate having Beths name removed from the book stinks too.

I also agree alot of this is just P.R. it seems way too conveniently timed.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

wendiness1 said:


> Of course, true to reality, when the family splits, dad goes off to a new life and mom is left with the pieces.


Wow, what a one sided comment. I think Jon is at home with the kids WAAAY more often than Kate is.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

I never watched this show before this past Memorial Day when the marathon was running on TLC. I watched a couple of episodes because I had heard about their problems on TMZ and wanted to see what it was all about. 

Now I really like the show. I don't like the way this season is going in terms of it being Jon with the kids OR Kate with the kids, they don't seem like a family. I'm catching all the repeats which are much more enjoyable but a little depressing seeing them happy, while knowing what lies ahead.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

2 new episodes last night.
Neither was very good.
And I am a big fan of the show from the beginning.
Feels like it is becoming the Kate Show.
Although they did try to balance it with Jon, it seems like an afterthought.
Could the producers really think that it is interesting to watch a family fall apart?


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

bengalfreak said:


> Wow, what a one sided comment. I think Jon is at home with the kids WAAAY more often than Kate is.


Not "now", "when".


----------



## Crow159 (Jul 28, 2004)

wendiness1 said:


> Of course, true to reality, when the family splits, dad goes off to a new life and mom is left with the pieces.


Wow.

Yeah, when my fiancee told me to get out, I moved back in with my parents at the age of 27 to start my new exciting life. I could have gotten my own place but my parents wanted me to live there so that I could provide more for my daughter. My ex decided that I could only see my daughter for an 8 hour period every Sunday. My family (my ex and daughter) was ripped away from me but I guess I did "leave the pieces" with the mom. I fought tooth and nail to be able to be more a part of my daughter's life. Every minute of everyday I thought of her and not being there when she might need me. I drowned myself in my work so that I had some sort of a distraction from the depression that I was feeling.

Some exciting new life.

Now I have an "exciting new life". After more than a year of fighting, my ex and I tried to become more friendly for my daughter's sake. We started doing more as a family even though we were separate. After some time, my ex and I truly became friends again. We started hanging out for reasons other than my daughter. Eventually, we fell in love again and moved back in together and are now engaged, and going stronger than ever.

My original point is that break-ups leave everything and everyone in pieces, not just the wife.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Crow159 said:


> After more than a year of fighting, my ex and I tried to become more friendly for my daughter's sake. We started doing more as a family even though we were separate. After some time, my ex and I truly became friends again. We started hanging out for reasons other than my daughter. Eventually, we fell in love again and moved back in together and are now engaged, and going stronger than ever.


Congratulations on your engagement. Very happy for all of you, especially your daughter. Nice to see stories like this one. :up:


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

I just caught the episode where they go pumpkin picking and there was a very telling comment that Jon made.

He said how he knows what Kate does at home all day and is so glad he has a job and would NEVER want to be the one stuck at home all day. That's exactly what happened though. He quit his job and is now in the position that he dreaded most.


----------



## DeeDee (Jun 19, 2005)

DavidTigerFan said:


> I believe the original set of twins were identical, or at least Becca says so.





firerose818 said:


> Nope. Fraternal too.


I never once said that!

On a side note, I can tell all 8 apart!


----------

