# Kid Nation Finale 12/12



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

That was a great wrap up to the show.

The whole burning down the sign was a bit weird...

And I think Sophia totally deserved one of the big stars. I think they did a great job of picking the last 3 winners - however, I think Greg really stepped up and I would have liked to have seen him get one of the $50K ones as well.

But it was a great ending... My middle daughter watched the show and she wants to be on it! 

I also noticed how Divad has not been seen from in several episodes...


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Still watching the end right now.
Sorry I can't post more at the moment, seems to be something in my eye.


----------



## Jolt (Jan 9, 2006)

AJRitz said:


> Still watching the end right now.
> Sorry I can't post more at the moment, seems to be something in my eye.


LMFAO. Strange same thing happened to me.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I'm trying to find a way to say how much I like both Sophia and Laurel without coming off as creepy.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> I'm trying to find a way to say how much I like both Sophia and Laurel without coming off as creepy.


How about, I would be a very proud and happy father if my daughter is like Sophia or Laurel when she gets to be their age. And I would.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

God, I am sad to see this show end. It seems really strange that I have become so attached to a group of young kids on a TV show but I really have, even for the ones that drove me nuts!!

They continually surprised me by making what always seemed to be the right decisions, whether it be the reward choices, the gold star winners and all the day to day decisions. Their parents should all be proud.

I have been a Laurel and Sophia fan from episode 1 and think that they were two of the most amazing young kids I have seen. Laurel was definitely my favorite the first half of the season while Sophia took the lead at the end. 

As for tonights episode I literally cheered twice. The award of the Gold Star to Zach was the first moment and the award of the large Gold Star to Sophia. 

I had the proverbial dust in my eye when they were reunited with their parents.

I liked the way the council seemed to choose the 50,000 gold star winners. The hardest worker (Sophia), the best friend and peacemaker to all (Morgan), the most improved (Migle).

I rolled my eyes when DK had to be carried to finish line. I cringed when the yellow team girls excluded Emilie.

I could not bring myself to delete the episode when it was over. I will probably watch it again. I would love to see a DVD with lots and lots of extras like the extended version of the Talent show, more interviews, extended time for those kids you never or rarely saw, etc. I have been trying to get my mom to watch the show all season so I would definitely buy her a copy.

So long to the kids of Bonanza. Thanks for entertaining me all these weeks.


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

Is it possible that out of 40 kids there was only one spoiled brat, Taylor, or was it simply edited that way.

Kinda of a shame in a way but she was arguably the best looking of the kids and may well succeed based on that alone.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Best-looking at 10-15 does not necessarily translate into best-looking at 20-30.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

dthmj said:


> I think Greg really stepped up and I would have liked to have seen him get one of the $50K ones as well.


Greg?!?

You must have a pretty short memory. Didn't he laugh at...Zach's?...impassioned speech last week? Didn't he orchestrate that whole respect thing and then sit in the middle of the town and sulk when people didn't like it?


----------



## lawilson2 (Oct 6, 2005)

omnibus said:


> Kinda of a shame in a way but she was arguably the best looking of the kids and may well succeed based on that alone.


Creepy...


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

Maui said:


> God, I am sad to see this show end. It seems really strange that I have become so attached to a group of young kids on a TV show but I really have, even for the ones that drove me nuts!!
> 
> They continually surprised me by making what always seemed to be the right decisions, whether it be the reward choices, the gold star winners and all the day to day decisions. Their parents should all be proud.
> 
> ...


A Big +1, I always look forward to Wednesdays when the show was on, So sad to see it go. I too got the proverbial dust in my eye,I hope there is a season 2 but i think it will never be the same.

These are all great kids I am hoping the best for them.:up:


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Had we ever seen Migle before? I don't remember her at ALL.


----------



## bpurcell (Mar 16, 2005)

dthmj said:


> I also noticed how Divad has not been seen from in several episodes...


It was reported that she was injured with a grease burn during her time and had to leave. Her family is now suing the producers for not having a safe enough environment for the children. It's not surprising, because of the lawsuit, that they decided not to include that incident in the editing of the show.


----------



## AliaDoh (Apr 23, 2005)

omnibus said:


> Is it possible that out of 40 kids there was only one spoiled brat, Taylor, or was it simply edited that way.
> 
> Kinda of a shame in a way but she was arguably the best looking of the kids and may well succeed based on that alone.


She had at least 2 spoiled brat friends- the asian girl and the blond. Taylor was just more vocal.


----------



## waldingrl (Jan 19, 2005)

We really loved watching this show and looked forward to Wednesday nights because of it. add me to the list of people that was glad to see Zach get a star. Even when the "order" was taken out of the town and the looting started he displayed a maturity beyond his years. His parents should be proud of him.  It was nice to see the parents as well and get a quick glimpse into who was bringing these kids up all this time. I wonder what the kids that didn't receive stars get for their participation - there must be some kind of consideration?

Was it just me or did most of the Green District girls look shocked when Migle won the final gold star? I'm not sure they thought she deserved it.

As for the 5 year old - he was very excited for the finale. He gasped when he saw the job board burning and rooted for them to win the 3 gold stars. After it was over I looked at him and there must have been something in his eye.  He was really sad that they had to leave each other and that they would never see each other again.  We told him that it was ok and that we were sure that at least some of the kids would stay in touch with each other through phone calls and the internet - and that they might even visit each other like we do with our friends that live far away.  It was touching to see him react like this. 

Thanks Kid Nation kids!


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

waldingrl said:


> I wonder what the kids that didn't receive stars get for their participation


I saw someone post here that each of the kids got $5,000 for there participation.


----------



## Mikkel_Knight (Aug 6, 2002)

omnibus said:


> Is it possible that out of 40 kids there was only one spoiled brat, Taylor, or was it simply edited that way.
> 
> Kinda of a shame in a way but she was arguably the best looking of the kids and may well succeed based on that alone.





AliaDoh said:


> She had at least 2 spoiled brat friends- the asian girl and the blond. Taylor was just more vocal.


Yup - unless she changes, Taylor will be the head cheerleader and have a posse around her that will do what she tells them to do. For all her flaws (and she's apparently got a TON of them thanks to the way her parents allow her to behave), she's got charisma... That will take her far... Until she gets out of High School or College and then realizes that she can't manipulate people as easily as she had before... Hopefully, this experience will change her for the better, but I can see her parents returning her to the "beauty pagent queen" lifestyle where her actions have no consequences, and all she has to do to get her way is scream, pout, and yell "deal with it".


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

I, too, am sad to see this end. Very refreshing to find a show where I found myself rooting each week for the kids to shine, and they usually did. Something got in my eye during the last town meeting when Greg was speaking about Morgan. As the father of 2 little girls, I was trying to imagine what it would feel like to have someone say those things about them, much less a peer. 

On another note, did we ever find out who JAP's friend on the show was?


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

waldingrl said:


> Was it just me or did most of the Green District girls look shocked when Migle won the final gold star? I'm not sure they thought she deserved it.


Could be. I think Lauren was definitely in the running for that star also but there may have been a concious effort not to award all three larger stars to the Green Team. They pretty much cleaned up in gold stars during the season.

Off the top of my head the gold star winners from that team were

Lauren
Sophia
Michael
Morgan
Hunter

With two of those winning the 50,000 star too. 
Lauren certainly picked a good team to surround herself with.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Nice end to a nice show. Proof that there's room left in reality television to be fresh.

As for subsequent seasons, it's going to be tough to recapture the magic. It'd be best if they could find a new group of kids that hasn't seen this season.


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

AliaDoh said:


> She had at least 2 spoiled brat friends- the asian girl and the blond. Taylor was just more vocal.


I think the blonde was less spoiled brat and more the type of girl who likes to be with the "cool" crowd and is easily manipulated.

I previously worked with a "Taylor". She was a cheerleader in highschool, married the quaterback, and pretty much had taken a free ride through life...until now. Now she is in her fourties, her looks are starting to go, and her husband has left her. She seems fairly ill-equipped to deal with the real world.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

JETarpon said:


> Had we ever seen Migle before? I don't remember her at ALL.


She was the one they would always cut to for a reaction shot when Greg was doing something - I had commented earlier that it seemed like they were trying to imply there was something "unofficial" going on between the two. Or maybe it was just my dirty mind.

The 14-year-old in me had a crush on Sophia from the first ep. Is that bad?


----------



## Sadara (Sep 27, 2006)

I also had dust in my eye..... through a good part of the show too.

I'm very glad that Sophia got one of the big gold stars and zach got a gold star.

I was just so happy to see those parents running down that road. And I was thrilled to see they were mostly running too!  I would be sprinting down that road after not seeing my kid for 40 days.

I'm going to miss this show. I know the next season won't be quite the same, but I hope they do this show again and again. If groups of kids like these can do this well for themselves at this age, I can safely say that I trust them with our future. I trust them to do a better job than we have.


----------



## brnscofrnld (Mar 30, 2005)

I loved this show. The finale was great, and really didn't expect the looting. As expected Jared came through with some great camera ops during all this.

I am still curious as to where they got the name Migle. Her dad looked like he might have been from eastern Europe, but who knows.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

brnscofrnld said:


> I loved this show. The finale was great, and really didn't expect the looting. As expected Jared came through with some great camera ops during all this.
> 
> I am still curious as to where they got the name Migle. Her dad looked like he might have been from eastern Europe, but who knows.


I'm pretty sure that earlier in the season that was a reference to at least one of her parents being an immigrant from Lithuania.


----------



## brnscofrnld (Mar 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> I'm pretty sure that earlier in the season that was a reference to at least one of her parents being an immigrant from Lithuania.


Nice catch. I don't remember hearing that.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Maui said:


> Off the top of my head the gold star winners from that team were
> 
> Lauren
> Sophia
> ...


First of all, it's Laure*l*, not Laure*n*.

And you forgot Kennedy from your list of Green District winners...


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Maui said:


> Off the top of my head the gold star winners from that team were





Amnesia said:


> And you forgot Kennedy from your list of Green District winners...


Kennedy must have been on the bottom of Maui's head.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

I think my favorite part was the shocked looks on the faces of the kids that won the stars. And their parents too.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

In looking back on the show... it is amazing that there was ANY controversy about this show before it started. As someone else mentioned, the Divad situation though, so clearly it all stemmed from a case of sour grapes from one tantrum throwing child to their tantrum throwing parents.

It is hard to sum up how cool this show is/was. Watching these kids for all these weeks, it is hard to dismiss them as just kids, which I think was easy for many of us to do beforehand. 

I will never admit to my eyes behaving abnormally during any portions of this show.

I give credit to all of them for sticking it out for the full 40 days. As suspected, none of them wanted it to end at the end. It is too bad for the few that went home early.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

marksman said:


> In looking back on the show... it is amazing that there was ANY controversy about this show before it started. As someone else mentioned, the Divad situation though, so clearly it all stemmed from a case of sour grapes from one tantrum throwing child to their tantrum throwing parents.


While I watched, and thoroughly enjoyed, the show, I have to disagree with you about being amazed that there was controversy. All of the issues I wrote about in the pre-show and first episode threads still apply. I still have serious doubts about the legality of many things that happened on the show, from the perspective of federal Child Labor laws and federal Occupational Safety and Health law. That controversy isn't going to go away.

Luckily for me, the kids were terrific and were able to divert my attention from the legal issues during the show's run.


----------



## Mikkel_Knight (Aug 6, 2002)

There was "controversy" because it was billed as "kids left alone for 40 days to see if they could create a community".

Which, couldn't have been farther from the truth. They'll never do it, but if they wanted to, they could do a documentary on what went on behind the cameras, and what was left on the cutting room floor. All the adults nearby, the daily counseling sessions, sick-bay visits, etc. That would show that they weren't quite as "alone" as they were billed to be...


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Mikkel_Knight said:


> There was "controversy" because it was billed as "kids left alone for 40 days to see if they could create a community".
> 
> Which, couldn't have been farther from the truth. They'll never do it, but if they wanted to, they could do a documentary on what went on behind the cameras, and what was left on the cutting room floor. All the adults nearby, the daily counseling sessions, sick-bay visits, etc. That would show that they weren't quite as "alone" as they were billed to be...


Sorry Mikkel - the "illusion" that the were "alone in the wilderness" was never the real concern. That was clearly just marketing hype. But there remain very real concerns about kids being taken advantage of, in violation of Federal law.


----------



## Mikkel_Knight (Aug 6, 2002)

AJRitz said:


> Sorry Mikkel - the "illusion" that the were "alone in the wilderness" was never the real concern. That was clearly just marketing hype. But there remain very real concerns about kids being taken advantage of, in violation of Federal law.


Actually, I think more people were upset that it would be dangerous to the kids due to lack of supervision. While not discounting the legal ramifications, I would disagree and say it was more about supervision... At least, that's what the Early Show focused on IIRC...


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

So Justapixel. . . who was your friend's kid? Did you see your friend on the last show?


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

AJRitz said:


> While I watched, and thoroughly enjoyed, the show, I have to disagree with you about being amazed that there was controversy. All of the issues I wrote about in the pre-show and first episode threads still apply. I still have serious doubts about the legality of many things that happened on the show, from the perspective of federal Child Labor laws and federal Occupational Safety and Health law. That controversy isn't going to go away.
> 
> Luckily for me, the kids were terrific and were able to divert my attention from the legal issues during the show's run.


I didn't see the kids doing anything that I would not (and have not) made my Girl Scout troop do while on a camping trip. Am I in violation of Child Labor laws?


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

The Wikipedia entry for Kid Nation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Nation is pretty interesting. Take a look at the Green District in the challenges - they started out always at the bottom and by the end of the show were finishing either first or second. I'm very proud of the Green District kids - they did a great job.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

dthmj said:


> I didn't see the kids doing anything that I would not (and have not) made my Girl Scout troop do while on a camping trip. Am I in violation of Child Labor laws?


Are you paying them to haul water and do other manual labor for 10 hours a day? Every day? For 40 days?

I don't think the investigation is complete. From what the kids have said about their experience, it sounds like a pretty clear violation of the labor laws. But perhaps they were exaggerating about the actual hours worked.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

Magnolia88 said:


> Are you paying them to haul water and do other manual labor for 10 hours a day? Every day? For 40 days?


Were the kids being paid to perform the labor or be on the show? Was the labor a natural by product of living?

At Girl Scout camp they don't get paid - in fact, they pay to go to camp. But, if they want to have a functioning camp, eat, etc they are going to have to do some labor to make it happen.

From what I saw on the show, they weren't being forced to do the labor - but if they wanted to eat, have clean clothes, etc they were going to have to do some work.

No one pays me to cook my food, wash my clothes, wash dishes, dispose of trash, but I do it because other wise I would fail miserably as a human - and that's what I saw these kids doing. They had to do those things or they wouldn't function.

While I guess it can be argued that they provided entertainment to the masses by doing these activities, they also were just doing what was necessary to function.

I don't think anyone carried water, washed dishes, cooked, etc for 14 hours a day - I think 14 hours was probably the time the kids were "on camera".


----------



## LlamaLarry (Apr 30, 2003)

dthmj said:


> I'm very proud of the Green District kids - they did a great job.


Laurel picked an outstanding district and had the good sense not to monkey with something that was working - even with the other districts whined about how unfair it was she did not weaken her district to strength theirs.

The Green District really was the Gold district as they won 8 out of the total 16 (20K and 50K) stars (Sophiax2, Michael, Morganx2, Kennedy, Laurel, Hunter); 5 to blue (Mallory, Greg, Nathan, Alex, Migle), 2 yellow (Blaine, Zach), 1 red (DK).

I was surprised at the Migle award as I was really pulling for Laurel, but there would have been a stink over all three 50K going to Green district.

My whole family will miss the show and it was watched while in progress every week. I'm glad they constantly put their ages up on the screen because most weeks I was surprised by how mature (in general) they all acted in their diary sessions and when dealing with conflict. Very impressive stuff.

Not sure we needed the riot scene, but I am guessing/hoping that it was heavily encouraged by the producers.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

LlamaLarry said:


> I was surprised at the Migle award as I was really pulling for Laurel, but there would have been a stink over all three 50K going to Green district.


I think Jonathan (and no one has said it, but I think he was a great host) said two would go to either previous winners or council members (ie, leaders of the group) and one to go to someone who had never won.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

dthmj said:


> Were the kids being paid to perform the labor or be on the show? Was the labor a natural by product of living?
> 
> At Girl Scout camp they don't get paid - in fact, they pay to go to camp. But, if they want to have a functioning camp, eat, etc they are going to have to do some labor to make it happen.
> 
> ...


Will they did get paid to be on the show ($5,000 just for being on the show to $50,000 from the gold stars), But even then i don't see anything wrong with this show I bet some if not all of us here when we were young did work and got paid for it(these kids just happen to get $5,000 for it )


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Magnolia88 said:


> Are you paying them to haul water and do other manual labor for 10 hours a day? Every day? For 40 days?
> 
> I don't think the investigation is complete. From what the kids have said about their experience, it sounds like a pretty clear violation of the labor laws. But perhaps they were exaggerating about the actual hours worked.


Where do you get that they hauled water for 10 hours a day for 40 days?

They and their parents signed up to do this, not as professional actors on a job, but as kids taking part in an event. There was medical Staff and Psych staff on hand to step in if/when it was deemed needed.

The state's child labor laws changed after the shoot in New Mexico, (the changes were in the works before they started) and if a season 2 does happen it will need to be done differently I'm sure.

None of them were forced to do anything by the production crew as proven by Taylor and a few of the others, if they didn't want to do anything, they didn't have to.

These kids were not exploited, and I'm betting most had a lot of fun. I think the lawsuit by Divad's family isn't due to the grease burn, but a way to get some $$ since she didn't get a gold star. Great lesson to teach your child.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

AJRitz said:


> Sorry Mikkel - the "illusion" that the were "alone in the wilderness" was never the real concern. That was clearly just marketing hype. But there remain very real concerns about kids being taken advantage of, in violation of Federal law.


Sorry but seeing the net result it was a once in a lifetime experience which any rational parent would have seen having gone through the process. Seemingly the ones with issues with it were the one or two irrational parents and outsiders who were not a part of the experience at all.

My point stands. In retrospect I am amazed there was any controversy at all. As Mikkel pointed out that the kids were left in some kind of egregious environment to fend for themselves was simply an illusion, and the kids were not working in the traditional sense of the word, they were essentially being filmed living in a town. Certainly they had to perform certain tasks, but that was a minuscule part of their day. Unless you want to claim them doing rootbeer shots was somehow them working.

If I go film a documentary on a family and there are kids involved, I am not violating labor laws by filming the kids.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Magnolia88 said:


> Are you paying them to haul water and do other manual labor for 10 hours a day? Every day? For 40 days?


This is the same nonsense that came out of it. First of all they hauled water because they decided amongst themselves they needed water to exist there. Secondly there is never any indication that those kids had to spend 10 hours doing anything. In fact it looks on a bad day they may have worked a couple of hours.

Remember everyone having to get their chores done after breakfast before their arcade could be opened? They essentially could have all the work they decided to do done by 10 am.



> I don't think the investigation is complete. From what the kids have said about their experience, it sounds like a pretty clear violation of the labor laws. But perhaps they were exaggerating about the actual hours worked.


I would have to go back and review those initial assertions because honestly I did not pay attention to them.. but those claims sound spurious at best. Those kinds seemingly had what amounted to a summer camp where they had to a moderate to little amount of real work.



> Forman calls the criticism "inaccurate and wildly premature" and denies there were labor violations. "[The kids] don't have SAG cards," he says. "They took part in an experience. We followed them some of the time with cameras."


That was in response to some of the allegations before the show aired.

By the way I don't find any issue by any parent of any child but those of the worst kid on the show. So again, I don't see what the issues were, are. The whole thing came about from her mother's accusations. Amazingly, none of the other 39 parents had a complaint.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

marksman said:


> Secondly there is never any indication that those kids had to spend 10 hours doing anything. In fact it looks on a bad day they may have worked a couple of hours.


Many of the children interviewed said they worked 10-12 hours a day, from morning until bedtime, for most of the time they were there.

As I said, some of it may have been an exaggeration, but that was their story, and that was just from the kids that CBS _allowed_ to be interviewed. (The contracts required permission and CBS wouldn't allow the complainers to talk to the media at all.) You can google it to read all about it.

I have no idea if they were telling the truth, but there was certainly a reasonable basis for the investigation. Afaik, no fines are going to be issued but the Nevada authorities have expressed their concerns to the production company and they might be doing things differently if they do it again.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

According to the Wiki page, one of the requirements for auditioning for a possible Season Two is a valid passport. What are the ramifications if they do this across the border in Mexico?


----------



## Mikkel_Knight (Aug 6, 2002)

marksman said:


> Sorry but seeing the net result it was a once in a lifetime experience which any rational parent would have seen having gone through the process. Seemingly the ones with issues with it were the one or two irrational parents and outsiders who were not a part of the experience at all.


I dunno - thinking as a (now) adult, I would have absolutely LOVED this challenge as a kid. I would have loved to have done something like this...

Thinking as a (now) parent, I wonder if I would allow my child to be exploited like this...

Don't get me wrong - I think this was about as positive an experience as these kids could EVER have had for themselves - they will come away with memories and stories and character-defining moments out of this... But as a parent, I can't help but sit and wonder if I would allow CBS to essentially "use" my child for entertainment.

Look at the (IMO well deserved) abuse Taylor has taken from many of us here (myself included) - what if (assuming like Taylor's parents) I thought my child was perfect and fine - and I KNOW my child is a perfect child  - and I look at and watch the show and see how CBS exploited my child for entertainment's sake even though that's not what my child said actually happened...

As a parent, I'm not quite sure I would sign off on this - as a child, I would absolutely be BEGGING my parents to let me go on this adventure...


----------



## Mikkel_Knight (Aug 6, 2002)

macquariumguy said:


> According to the Wiki page, one of the requirements for auditioning for a possible Season Two is a valid passport. What are the ramifications if they do this across the border in Mexico?


They don't need to worry about Bullsh^^ laws ???


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Mikkel_Knight said:


> and I KNOW my child is a perfect child


There's plenty of us here who will be willing to tell you otherwise if he acts up in about 11 years


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Mikkel_Knight said:


> They don't need to worry about Bullsh^^ laws ???


I'm going to guess it's not that simple.


----------



## Martha (Oct 6, 2002)

Magnolia88 said:


> Many of the children interviewed said they worked 10-12 hours a day, from morning until bedtime, for most of the time they were there. .


While I won't argue with you that they "said" they were working, my kids regularly complain about having to do chores at home after having "worked" at school for 7 hours.  Kids have a skewed idea of work.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Good show. I enjoyed it.

While I'm sure there were adults all around camp and just off camera, it seemed pretty sincere.

Someone should start a summer camp off this theme, though they already kind of exist. To me this felt like a big summer camp -- finite time period, work and play, teams, bunks, sad goodbyes, etc.


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

Magnolia88 said:


> Many of the children interviewed said they worked 10-12 hours a day, from morning until bedtime, for most of the time they were there.


$5000/40 days/12 hours a day = $10.42/hour


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

marksman said:


> Unless you want to claim them doing rootbeer shots was somehow them working.


Which reminds me.. now we know what was in the shot glasses... at least I think we know.. it was chocolate syrup, right?


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

dthmj said:


> I didn't see the kids doing anything that I would not (and have not) made my Girl Scout troop do while on a camping trip. Am I in violation of Child Labor laws?


No, because you didn't take video to enable you to "sell" their labor in interstate commerce.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Langree said:


> Where do you get that they hauled water for 10 hours a day for 40 days?


Not really relevant - under Federal law children under the age of 14 are prohibited from being employed, with the exception of work on family farms and a very narrow exception for acting. Furthermore, the kids were engaged in a number of activities that are explicitly prohibited for children under age 16, including: baking, cooking with open flames, meat processing, and excavation.



> They and their parents signed up to do this, not as professional actors on a job, but as kids taking part in an event. There was medical Staff and Psych staff on hand to step in if/when it was deemed needed.


Also not relevant. The applicability of child labor laws is non-waivable.



> The state's child labor laws changed after the shoot in New Mexico, (the changes were in the works before they started) and if a season 2 does happen it will need to be done differently I'm sure.
> 
> None of them were forced to do anything by the production crew as proven by Taylor and a few of the others, if they didn't want to do anything, they didn't have to.


I'm not suggesting that this was a prison camp, but the producers of this show profited from the labor of these children. Regardless of state law, this activity was clearly violative of federal law. I enforce this statute for a living. Were an investigation of this show to land on my desk, I would prosecute it in an instant.



> These kids were not exploited, and I'm betting most had a lot of fun. I think the lawsuit by Divad's family isn't due to the grease burn, but a way to get some $$ since she didn't get a gold star. Great lesson to teach your child.


Use whatever words you want. But these kids were exploited, by definition. Federal child labor laws define the work those kids were doing as exploitative. Whether the kids had fun or not is irrelevant. The obligation is on every employer to actively prevent violations of the law. An employer may not "suffer or permit" work that is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The producer of this show failed to do so.

And I haven't even touched on the OSHA violations. Frankly, I had to make myself ignore them after the first episode so that I could just enjoy the show.

Yes, despite all of the above, I loved the show. But just because I liked it doesn't make it legal.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

Ok, here is a question... How is the "labor" of Kid Nation any different than the game show type programs that I see on Nickelodeon? 

And AJRitz... I defer to you as the expert and accept that what they did was probably illegal, but to me, it wasn't "wrong".


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> Furthermore, the kids were engaged in a number of activities that are explicitly prohibited for children under age 16, including: baking, cooking with open flames, meat processing, and excavation.


Except, of course, that the kids weren't being paid for these activities any more than they are at Girl Scout camps.



AJRitz said:


> I'm not suggesting that this was a prison camp, but the producers of this show profited from the labor of these children.


Only if the labor you're referring to is performance. You can't have it both ways. If you're calling their cooking and cleaning labor, then you can't say that the show profited from it. How did it profit? Did it sell the food that they cooked?


AJRitz said:


> Regardless of state law, this activity was clearly violative of federal law.


Nope. You might feel it's in violation, but it's far from clear. 


AJRitz said:


> Use whatever words you want. But these kids were exploited, by definition. Federal child labor laws define the work those kids were doing as exploitative.


Again, you seem to be confused as to the "work" that the kids were doing. They were merely agreeing to be filmed. It's no different than if you filmed the activities at a Girl Scout camp and then sold that film. The mere act of filming doesn't instantly make the activities "exploitive".


AJRitz said:


> And I haven't even touched on the OSHA violations.


Do you also worry about the "OSHA violations" at a Girl Scout camp?


AJRitz said:


> But just because I liked it doesn't make it legal.


And just because you didn't understand it doesn't make it illegal.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Except, of course, that the kids weren't being paid for these activities any more than they are at Girl Scout camps.


Wow, Amnesia are you a labor lawyer also?


----------



## Mikkel_Knight (Aug 6, 2002)

Langree said:


> There's plenty of us here who will be willing to tell you otherwise if he acts up in about 11 years


That's what I mean - it would appear as if a lot of these parents (I can specifically see Taylor's parents) think that their child is the perfect little angel and refuse to acknowlege that their child can be a little turd.

I can only hope that I raise my son better than some of the children I've seen raised... I can only do what I think is right and hope...


----------



## Mikkel_Knight (Aug 6, 2002)

AJRitz said:


> Not really relevant - under Federal law children under the age of 14 are prohibited from being employed, with the exception of work on family farms and a very narrow exception for acting. Furthermore, the kids were engaged in a number of activities that are explicitly prohibited for children under age 16, including: baking, cooking with open flames, meat processing, and excavation.
> 
> Also not relevant. The applicability of child labor laws is non-waivable.
> 
> ...


So based on this, every single camp that I was sent to (vacation bible school, confirmation, summer, cub scouts, boy scouts - all when I was under 16) was in legal violation?

I think there's some flaws in the law if that's the case...


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

macquariumguy said:


> Wow, Amnesia are you a labor lawyer also?


Everyone is these days, Local,State, And Federal police never filed charges, It is there opinion that only matters and to them they did not see any laws violated(If they did they would have filed charges, It has been months sense the show was announced + 13 weeks when the show was airing + 2 days when it was done)


----------



## borther (Jan 22, 2004)

macquariumguy said:


> Wow, Amnesia are you a labor lawyer also?


Does it matter? Anyone here can claim anything.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

borther said:


> Does it matter? Anyone here can claim anything.


Credibility. While you can claim anything you want, in some cases I know the person can back up their claim. For instance, I am as sure as I can be that AJRitz is an attorney who works for the Fed in the area of labor law. Writing up a rebuttal to his post as Amnesia did would either indicate that Amnesia has similar expertise or that he's talking out his arse.

I suspect I know which is the case, I was just trying to confirm.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Mikkel_Knight said:


> I dunno - thinking as a (now) adult, I would have absolutely LOVED this challenge as a kid. I would have loved to have done something like this...
> 
> Thinking as a (now) parent, I wonder if I would allow my child to be exploited like this...
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I think this was about as positive an experience as these kids could EVER have had for themselves - they will come away with memories and stories and character-defining moments out of this... But as a parent, I can't help but sit and wonder if I would allow CBS to essentially "use" my child for entertainment.


Yeah but sometimes people can just look at what they are getting out of it and not worry about the other guy. The kids got a priceless experience. One that no amount of money could probably buy. Even the wealthiest kids in the world could not demand/pay for that kind of experience they got.

On top of that they got some monetary compernsation, and in some cases pretty good monetary compensation. I certainly would not deny a child of mine a once in a lifetime experience because I thought Tom Forman was paying for a Summer Home.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

AJ,

I have a lot respect for your position and expertise on this. But I just think the basics don't jibe with me. Can you define what is classified as Child Labor?

As others have mentioned, things like going to summer camp or even filming a documentary on a family would constitute any children involved as being subject to child labor laws. So I don't understand what the actual definition of child labor is.

I would point out, and I still stand by my point that I don't understand the hubbub from before the show aired. I did some research yesterday and there has been ZERO news coverage of these issues since the show actually started airing. I understand what you do for a living and your concerns, and I think it is an admirable thing, but just because you would choose to prosecute them does not necessarily mean they did anything wrong.

I certainly would not approve of them exploiting the kids here, but regardless of what the law says, I have an issue with saying that was the underlying theme of their existance there. I am also curious if you could detail some of the OSHA violations you noted. More for my own enlightenment than anything else.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

macquariumguy said:


> For instance, I am as sure as I can be that AJRitz is an attorney who works for the Fed in the area of labor law. Writing up a rebuttal to his post as Amnesia did would either indicate that Amnesia has similar expertise or that he's talking out his arse.


The answer is "neither".

AJRitz is certainly entitled to his or her opinion, but I wanted to point out that it is just that: an opinion. If it was so "clearly" a violation of the law, then federal or state child labor charges would have already been filed. Since we all know that they have not, then the only thing that's *clear* is that others do not share AJRitz's opinion of the situation. I am one of those people who disagrees. I don't need to be a labor lawyer to have an opinion, nor does AJRitz's position exclude him or her from being incorrect.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> If it was so "clearly" a violation of the law, then federal or state child labor charges would have already been filed.


You're sure of that but I'm not.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

macquariumguy said:


> You're sure of that but I'm not.


But really, AJ can only go by what he saw on TV, he has no more of an idea how things were there then we do.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

It's a shame that given how the show ended in what seemed to be seen as an uplifting and positive way, it has spawned another thread (much like at the beginning of the season) where it's a debate on the child labor law issue and what actually happened on the show seems to have been lost. I'll continue to weed through that drek (which people are totally entitled to post about) to see the comments about the actual show. Oh well, I hoped for better, but once the first of those posts hit, I knew we were doomed to revisit that all over again.


----------



## jhausmann (Aug 21, 2002)

EMoMoney said:


> $5000/40 days/12 hours a day = $10.42/hour


You've failed to include overtime in your calcs,,,


----------



## scottykempf (Dec 1, 2004)

EMoMoney said:


> $5000/40 days/12 hours a day = $10.42/hour


Sophia
$70,000/40 days/12 hours a day=$145.83 an hour.

Where do I sign up?


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

OK - I will do my best to address the employment law issues that I appear to have stirred up again. I chose the follow posts to multi-quote as representative questions, and I hope my answers will help folks understand what I'm saying.


Mikkel_Knight said:


> So based on this, every single camp that I was sent to (vacation bible school, confirmation, summer, cub scouts, boy scouts - all when I was under 16) was in legal violation?
> 
> I think there's some flaws in the law if that's the case...


No. See my earlier post when Tami asked the same thing about girl scout camp. The difference between Kid Nation and your camp experiences is that the producers of Kid Nation "sold" the labor of the children working there, using that labor to make money selling advertising, probably to sell DVDs, etc.



Enrique said:


> Everyone is these days, Local,State, And Federal police never filed charges, It is there opinion that only matters and to them they did not see any laws violated(If they did they would have filed charges, It has been months sense the show was announced + 13 weeks when the show was airing + 2 days when it was done)


I can't speak for state authorities. As far as the Federal government, no investigation took place during the production of the show, likely because no one called and complained while it was going on. There are far more businesses that the Wage & Hour inspectors need to inspect than they have time to cover. So unless there's a specific complaint, whether or not a violation gets caught is a crapshoot. A post-production investigation is possible, but much more difficult. It is as likely to be precluded by budgetary and political considerations as anything else.


marksman said:


> AJ,
> 
> I have a lot respect for your position and expertise on this. But I just think the basics don't jibe with me. Can you define what is classified as Child Labor?


1. The Fair Labor Standards Act, which includes the child labor provisions of federal law, applies to any business enterprise that has at least two employees and does $500,000 in business in the year being investigated. _Though I don't have the actual numbers at my disposal, I'm confident that the production company that made Kid Nation did more than $500k in business and has more than two employees._
2. The term "employee" is defined by statute at 29 U.S.C. sec. 203. Essentially, anyone who performs work on behalf of an employer, and does not fall into one of three listed exceptions, is an "employee". The exceptions are limited to: volunteer work for a public agency, work on a family farm, purely humanitarian volunteer work.
_This is probably the hardest part to understand. But the Kid Nation kids were present for no purpose other than to provide the Kid Nation producers with a product to sell to advertisers (and the public, via DVDs). Therefore, they provided work for an employer. The employer even paid them for their work. So it's awfully difficult for the employer to later claim that they were not employees._
3. 29 U.S.C. sec. 203(l)(1) defines "Oppressive child labor" as "a condition of employment under which any employee under the age of sixteen years is employed by an employer in any occupation." At subsection 2, the statute directs the Department of Labor to determine particular jobs in which 14-16 year olds may be legally employed. Additionally, there are very narrow exceptions for even younger children employed by their own parents, particularly in agriculture (family farms).
_What it comes down to is that there are NO categories of jobs in which children under the age of 14 are permitted to be employed (other than in agriculture and/or by the own parents. There is a narrow interpretive exception for actors, but that exception is neither in the statute or in a promulgated regulation. As such, it is very narrow, and is unlikely to exempt the kind of hours that were being worked by the Kid Nation kids._


marksman said:


> As others have mentioned, things like going to summer camp or even filming a documentary on a family would constitute any children involved as being subject to child labor laws. So I don't understand what the actual definition of child labor is.


See above for my explanation regarding summer camps. Documentary film makers handle this kind of thing very carefully. Most importantly, they limit any "performing" by children (as opposed to simply filming their normal activities in their usual setting) to a very limited daily schedule. No more than a few hours/day.



marksman said:


> I would point out, and I still stand by my point that I don't understand the hubbub from before the show aired. I did some research yesterday and there has been ZERO news coverage of these issues since the show actually started airing. I understand what you do for a living and your concerns, and I think it is an admirable thing, but just because you would choose to prosecute them does not necessarily mean they did anything wrong.
> 
> I certainly would not approve of them exploiting the kids here, but regardless of what the law says, I have an issue with saying that was the underlying theme of their existance there. I am also curious if you could detail some of the OSHA violations you noted. More for my own enlightenment than anything else.


Like I've said, repeatedly, I loved the show and thought the kids were great. But it does trouble me that people are willing to write off the child labor violations so readily, simply because of their admiration for the character of the kids involved. Would it be OK to make a reality TV show about a dozen nine-year-old children, working 10 hours a day hand-making Persian rugs - as long as we also got to see the wacky hijinks and personal growth that went on after "work" and a few of them got big financial rewards for their work?

As for OSHA violations, I don't have the episodes saved to go back and look again. But things that come to mind immediately include possible violations of housekeeping standards (especially in the kitchen area); trenching standards when they were digging the garbage trenches; lack of fall protection when working at heights above four feet.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

AJRitz said:


> Not really relevant - under Federal law children under the age of 14 are prohibited from being employed, with the exception of work on family farms and a very narrow exception for acting.


I'm pretty darn sure I was under 14 when I had a paper route..


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> Though I don't have the actual numbers at my disposal, I'm confident that the production company that made Kid Nation did more than $500k in business and has more than two employees.


I'm sure it did, but the children were not numbered among those employees.

Let me say that again in case you didn't understand: They were not employees. They were paid a stipend for their participation, but they did not get "hired" by Magic Molehill or CBS.

Let me give you an example: Let's say you go to the mall and someone asks you to fill out a survey and upon completion, gives you a $20 mall gift certificate. Does that mean you're an employee of the survey company? No, of course not. What if they filmed you? Nope, still not an employee. What if the survey company's whole business is getting survey results and selling those results to companies? Still no.

The person giving the survey is an employee. The person taking the survey would be a participant. It doesn't matter whether or not you were paid.

So what's the difference between the mall survey and _Kid Nation_? It's a matter of degree, not a matter of kind.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

Ok, so what makes Kid Nation different from say John & Kate +8 (following the Gossling family of sextuplets in TLC). While I think it is more of a documentary following their normal activities, I think maybe the producers pay for some of those activities - they recently went to Disney World and got all sorts of special treatment.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> I'm sure it did, but the children were not numbered among those employees.
> 
> Let me say that again in case you didn't understand: They were not employees. They were paid a stipend for their participation, but they did not get "hired" by Magic Molehill or CBS.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but you are sorely incorrect.
It's a completely different situation. The legal relationship between the person taking a mall survey and the mall survey company is an independent contractor relationship. But the Kid Nation situation is an employer-employee relationship, regardless of the "title" that the employer gives it. The test is an examination of the elements of the relationship. Among them are: Who sets the work rules? Who determines the hours of work? Who provides the tools? Whose insurance covers accidents on the job? How much direction is provided by the employer?

In answer to every one of the common law tests of an employer-employee relationship, those kids were employees. It doesn't matter that the remuneration received by the kids was called a "stipend". The legal status of the employment relationship is determine based on what is called an "economic realities" test.

There's absolutely NO similarity between the legal relationship between the kids on Kid Nation and the producers of the show and the legal relationship between a survey taker and a survey company. You're simply wrong. It's not a matter of degree. It is, indeed, a matter of kind.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

dthmj said:


> Ok, so what makes Kid Nation different from say John & Kate +8 (following the Gossling family of sextuplets in TLC). While I think it is more of a documentary following their normal activities, I think maybe the producers pay for some of those activities - they recently went to Disney World and got all sorts of special treatment.


I can think of at least three differences, each of which have an impact on the analysis:
1) The parents are present at all times
2) The taping is documenting their normal activities - not activities chosen by the party doing the recording
3) I can't say for sure, because I've never seen the show, but I strongly suspect that the amount of time any one child spends being recorded is carefully logged and limited.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

mattack said:


> I'm pretty darn sure I was under 14 when I had a paper route..


Your paper route was probably not covered by the FLSA, because it was a local paper and therefore not an activity in interstate commerce. The contractor that hired you to throw also probably wasn't doing $500k/year.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Thanks Aaron. I love insights from experts. I hope someday they make a TV show about writing software that rates commercial lines insurance policies so I can be the expert!


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

AJ,

I think the crux of the argument though, is the producers don't beleive the children were working. So things like oSHA standards would not be relevant.

If you filmed a bunch of kids in the park climbing trees, you would not be responsible for providing them fall safety.

I am not saying it is right or wrong, but I think that is the premise the production company has taken.

And reading your definition of work and employee, I still think an argument can be made that they are not employees.

Traditional reality show contestant adults are not considered employees as far as I know. In fact only in limited circumstances, ie being in the Final 10 on American Idol do reality show contestants cross over to become performers.

I think a lot of that would be relevant when deciding if these kids are working or not. I would also say the fact that the kids were not required to do anything while they were there would also be something against them actually working.

It is quite possible if the kids are employees that child labor laws were violated. Still not clear to me that the kids are really employees, as opposed to being game show/reality show participants/contestants.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

AJRitz said:


> Among them are: Who sets the work rules? Who determines the hours of work? Who provides the tools? Whose insurance covers accidents on the job? How much direction is provided by the employer?


So by that logic Girl Scouts are employees of the camp?

Sorry, there is no difference between the survey situation and _Kid Nation_:
*Who sets the work rules?* If by "work" you mean taking the survey, then it's the company. If by "work" you mean the entire _Kid Nation_ experience, it's the production company.
*Who determines the hours of work?* If by "work" you mean time to take the survey, then it's the company. If by "work" you mean the 40-day schedule, it's the production company.
*Who provides the tools?* If by "tools" you mean the pen, paper, etc, then it's the survey company. If by "tools" you mean Bonanza city, it's the production company.
*Whose insurance covers accidents on the job?* Frankly, I don't know what the situation was at _Kid Nation_, but I know that the parents had to sign liability waivers. I certainly have no inside knowledge that the production company accepted legal liability for any accidents at _Kid Nation_ any more than a survey company accepts liabilities for accidents that occur when I take a survey.
*How much direction is provided by the empolyer?* For the survey, complete direction. For _Kid Nation_, less than complete direction



AJRitz said:


> In answer to every one of the common law tests of an employer-employee relationship, those kids were employees.


No, in answer to each of these questions, those kids were no different than the survey taker.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

AJRitz said:


> I can think of at least three differences, each of which have an impact on the analysis:
> 1) The parents are present at all times
> 2) The taping is documenting their normal activities - not activities chosen by the party doing the recording
> 3) I can't say for sure, because I've never seen the show, but I strongly suspect that the amount of time any one child spends being recorded is carefully logged and limited.


1. Yeah, the parents are there - but also in Kid Nation it was the parents that sent them off to participate (and signed various contracts in the process).

2. While some of it is normal activities, I suspect the producers have them do certain activities - like they had a celebrity chef come and teach the mom about cooking (and they then filmed the kids napping (or not napping as they case may be) - this could not have been a "normal activity" - no way a celebrity chef comes to my house - it was done because TLC was taping. Same as taking all 10 of them to Disney World - I doubt they could have afforded that trip on their own. I think that the producers of that show set things up that are outside of their normal activities for the entertainment of the masses. And while I like that show as well, and I think the Gosslings are doing what they need to do for their 8 children, there is a degree of "exploitation" going on.

3. So what is the amount of time one kid can be recorded? How do we know in Kid Nation that same precaution was not taken?

P.S. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand and take advantage of the expert in the room 

Edit - I found another show that is probably a closer analogy to Kid Nation - Endurance on Discovery Kids. They take 20 kids (between the ages of 13-15 it looks like) and the compete survivor style. More info - http://kids.discovery.com/fansites/endurance/howitsplayed.html


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

AJRitz said:


> But the Kid Nation situation is an employer-employee relationship, regardless of the "title" that the employer gives it. The test is an examination of the elements of the relationship. Among them are: Who sets the work rules? Who determines the hours of work? Who provides the tools? Whose insurance covers accidents on the job? How much direction is provided by the employer?
> 
> In answer to every one of the common law tests of an employer-employee relationship, those kids were employees. It doesn't matter that the remuneration received by the kids was called a "stipend". The legal status of the employment relationship is determine based on what is called an "economic realities" test.


Then by these standards, how is this any different from any child actor? Unless you have read the contract that was signed by the children and parents, I do not understand how you can claim there were violations of any federal labor laws.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

The contract is available: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0823071kidnation1.html


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but there is a blurb in this week's Entertainment Weekly about KN and they mention that New Mexico has dropped their investigation of the production.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

Okay, was this the thread I was called to?

I skipped over the legal argument.

My friend's kid was Nathan. I believe I am allowed to tell you that now that the show is over. One of the reasons I didn't post in a lot of these threads is she had no insight into the show as she sent Nathan off to boarding school for music, and they didn't watch the show together. They would talk about it in conversations later, but for Nathan, it happened a while ago and he's moved on. 

She did say he now has a rabid fan in another state. 

I found it interesting that in the scenes of the kid's singing, Nathan never appeared in them, but he is a fabulous singer of the Morman Tabernacle type. The only time we heard him sing was one scene at night where he was apparently annoying the other kids, and the producers were trying to make him seem "weird" but I'm guessing that was fake singing because it was off-key.

The only new tidbit I got was her surprise that many of the things that happened were shot over. It wasn't as spontaneous as you would think. In fact, Nathan admitted that there were recreations of events that had happened previously. There was one scene that was shot at a different time and place than it had happened - that was the scene where the kids were apologizing to Nathan. So, these kids had to have been chosen, in part, for their acting abilities or potential acting abilities. 

Another tidbit: he never considered the red kids friends, and on the last night slept with yellow just to get away from Jared's "anger management problem". His best friend there was Alex.

She is going to give an explanation of what the last day of shooting was like, and I'll post it here, with her permission. Maybe I'll ask her to participate here so she can answer your questions directly.


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

JAP,

When you talk to your friend, can you ask her if the Q&A on the CBS KidNation page is really Nathan's own words, or hers, or the producers'? I was just looking at it and it doesn't sound at all like an 11 year old's answers to me. Of course, I know none of these kids were "average" kids.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

I'll ask but I'm pretty sure Nathan wrote it.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

BrandonRe said:


> JAP,
> 
> When you talk to your friend, can you ask her if the Q&A on the CBS KidNation page is really Nathan's own words, or hers, or the producers'? I was just looking at it and it doesn't sound at all like an 11 year old's answers to me. Of course, I know none of these kids were "average" kids.


How so?


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

What was the stuff they made as part of the final challenge? It was supposed to be pasta, but it looked like mashed potatoes.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

I was thinking, too, that sure didn't look like pasta and I am as positive as I can be (not having been there) that the "pasta" that they made was definitely not something they wound up eating. Served it's purpose for the challenge though.

And JAP, THANK YOU for getting this back to a discussion about the actual show!


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

I liked Nathan. A bit reserved and OCD perhaps (due to show editing), but a good kid and hard worker.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

I'm not sure why, but Sophia kept reminding me of Jodie Foster. She doesn't really look like her, but I dunno..maybe it was the tomboy aspect of her personality. 

I was surprised to see that Jared didn't really look anything like his parents.


----------



## MisterBubble (Oct 30, 2005)

JLucPicard said:


> I was thinking, too, that sure didn't look like pasta and I am as positive as I can be (not having been there) that the "pasta" that they made was definitely not something they wound up eating. Served its purpose for the challenge though.
> 
> And JAP, THANK YOU for getting this back to a discussion about the actual show!


bahahaha yes... that "pasta" had me laughing too. It was like one of those play-doh pumper things. The "noodles" came out so thick yet mushy looking. Cut later to the parents enjoying the meal they cooked, and it looked straight out of a box.

Count me in as sorry to see this show end (and I was one who never thought I'd be interested in this show in the least) - but I thought they did a great job with the finale. And I was a Sophia fan since Day One - so her second star really pleased me. She was the heart and soul of Bonanza City.

Hey, I have an idea... if they DO film a second season, bring Sophia back to run the challenges and moderate the council meetings. She IS a 40-year-old trapped in a 14-year-old body, after all! Then it could really seem like the kids were without adult influence. Now if we could just get an all-kid camera crew and drop the corny journal.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

justapixel said:


> It wasn't as spontaneous as you would think. In fact, Nathan admitted that there were recreations of events that had happened previously. There was one scene that was shot at a different time and place than it had happened - that was the scene where the kids were apologizing to Nathan.


I noticed the following in the finale....

Right before they started the challenge, they do a bird's-eye shot looking down at the kids standing in a group while the host does a count down to the start of the challenge... "Three!.... Two!....".
They cut to a ground shot for a second, and then cut back to the aerial group shot...
"One!...". The kids are now standing in *completely* different positions within the group.
Some that were in the front are now in the back, some that were to the right of the group are now to the left, etc. It was obviously something they filmed twice for some reason requiring the kids to regroup and go through the same motions.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

Here's Nathan's mom's reply to the question about the bio:



> I helped him write the bio because he kept putting off working on it and we were
> up against the deadline. He's totally not into politics. We are libertarian
> and so I made suggestions and explained why he might say certain things and he
> was free to veto or reword things. The short sentences and odd wordings like
> ...


Also, she pointed me to a scrapbooking group where the mom of the two sisters hangs out. Here's a thread where Tina is discussing her kid's experience.

http://twopeasinabucket.kaboose.com/mb.asp?cmd=display&thread_id=2438698&pg=1

She said the one thing that was different was she did get the call right after Nathan won the gold star, not the next morning, as the other mom says. She also says Nathan isn't OCD - he really, really wanted that gold star and worked so hard to get it. At home, he works like any other boy.  And, he's very much into bionicles. Which is interesting, as I think his IQ is higher than my son (who is "gifted" - hate that word - and extremely articulate and sounds just like those children when he speaks) and my kid wouldn't be caught dead playing with toys. 

Oh, for the record, this is an online friend, we've never met in real life. We've been members of the same group since we were pregnant with our children who were both born in January of 97.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

justapixel said:


> Here's a thread where Tina is discussing her kid's experience.
> 
> http://twopeasinabucket.kaboose.com/mb.asp?cmd=display&thread_id=2438698&pg=1


That's some very interesting reading. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Thanks for the link. I really enjoyed reading her posts.

This stood out to me and is why I have always done my best not too be openly negative about any of the kids (or any reality TV folks)



Olivia and Mallory's Mom said:


> But I know her mom read the message boards and was really upset by the mean things people were saying about her.
> 
> People were cruel about my girls too, especially Olivia, so I just had to quit reading the stuff, it really skewed how I viewed the experience for a minute.


These days you can just never be sure who is lurking on various forums reading your posts.

Interesting though that she did not have anything nice to say about Greg. Apparently, we never saw him at his worst.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Maui said:


> This stood out to me and is why I have always done my best not too be openly negative about any of the kids (or any reality TV folks)


:up:


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

The HUGE signatures on that message board are crazy-distracting. But I did apPEAciate reading the mom's comments.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I never took a labor law class and never worked in the area.

However, I've worked for both the government and in private practice in the area of tax law. And as sure as AJ is of his position, I am sure that CBS has some very high paid labor lawyers who could tell you all the reasons that he is wrong.

I'm not saying he is wrong, he's probably not. But I also know that if AJ was in private practice, and CBS hired him to defend them against any civil, criminal, or regulatory labor law complaints, he'd be able to come up with plenty of arguments as to why this was permissible. 

Damn lawyers. ;-


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> Damn lawyers. ;-


At least we can all agree on something!


----------



## Mikkel_Knight (Aug 6, 2002)

Maui said:


> This stood out to me and is why I have always done my best not too be openly negative about any of the kids (or any reality TV folks)


No shame in calling a spade a spade...

Taylor acted and behaved atrociously. The only hope is that she realizes her behavior was inappropriate and disgusting and strives to grow and change into a better person...


----------



## rich (Mar 18, 2002)

I wonder what happened to the big memorial sign? Is it in a dumpster somewhere now?


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

Mikkel_Knight said:


> No shame in calling a spade a spade...
> 
> Taylor acted and behaved atrociously. The only hope is that she realizes her behavior was inappropriate and disgusting and strives to grow and change into a better person...


+1 I would want someone to tell me my child was a brat when I was not around then lie to me.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Laurel's mom posted in the Laurel thread on TWOP.

http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3159042&pid=9426997&st=135&#entry9426997

There are also threads dedicted to each of the kids and one to the "redshirts."


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Just finished watching the finale last night and just caught up on the thread. I really enjoyed the whole show and would have loved to do something like that when I was a kid. As for letting my kids do it, I'd have to see what they're like when they're that age. My oldest is seven and she loved the show. In a couple of years, I think she could handle something like that.

I see that people have mentioned the possibility of a second season. I was under the impression that the ratings were pretty poor and that, more than any of the other issues, would kill the chances of a second season. What were the ratings actually like and do we know if they're actually going to film a second season?

Also, it appears that they filmed this in April/May and ran into some very cold weather. Do we know why they didn't wait until kids were out of school for the summer and temperatures were a little more hospitable?


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Finally had some time to watch this show through its conclusion.

I enjoyed it, but the end left be a bit unsatisfied. For one thing, it bugged me that we basically knew nothing at all about one of the super-ultra gold star winners (Migle). I don't even remember hearing her name until the next-to-last episode. To me, that speaks of poor editing. They knew she was going to win that prize when they were editing the show -- why not give her a little bit of the presence throughout the show, some interviews, some scenes, some talk about her, so that it made some sense? As the show was going on, I started to feel connected to the happennings and personalities in Bonanza City, and then suddenly at the end when a total unknown wins the biggest prize, I realized I really had no idea at all what was going on. It left me empty and there really was no reason to structure the show that poorly.

I was also a little disappointed for Laurel that she didn't win one of the super stars. From what we were shown, I thought she deserved it.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I see that people have mentioned the possibility of a second season. I was under the impression that the ratings were pretty poor and that, more than any of the other issues, would kill the chances of a second season. What were the ratings actually like and do we know if they're actually going to film a second season?


I found this last week...

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007712130365

I think I remember reading something about them beginning casting for another season (and that, interestingly, passports are required for contestants). That doesn't mean they'll go through with it; it might just mean they're going through the motions in case they think they "need" it due to the writer's strike. Throwing out a casting net and maybe even doing some pre-production for a show that ultimately never comes to fruition is pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things.



> Also, it appears that they filmed this in April/May and ran into some very cold weather. Do we know why they didn't wait until kids were out of school for the summer and temperatures were a little more hospitable?


Just guessing, but maybe they thought it was better temperature-wise. It was filmed at a time when Santa Fe temperatures were in the 60's during the day. It was really the nights (and morning/evening transitions) when it was harshly cold. To film in the Summer months would have maybe been subjecting the kids to hot temperatures and harsh summer sun? Which could just make them lethargic and not want to do anything but sit around, not to mention having to worry about them overheating during challenges, etc.

Also, I think I remember reading once that the show was originally to be aired during the Summer, very soon after it finished filming. CBS held it until Fall, though.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I must have seen a different episode, because I thought it was by far the worst episode of the season. I for one am glad the show is over. I do want to hear more about alex's microbes, though.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Enrique said:


> +1 I would want someone to tell me my child was a brat when I was not around then lie to me.


I don't understand this. First they should tell you that your child was a brat, and then they should lie to you and tell you they aren't?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

JETarpon said:


> I don't understand this. First they should tell you that your child was a brat, and then they should lie to you and tell you they aren't?


This Enrique to English Translation is brought to you by the Letter Q.



Enrique said:


> +1 I would rather someone tell me the truth about my child's behavior when I was not there to observe it, even if it is negative, than lie to me and tell me my child was acting appropriately when that is not the truth.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Oh, just pesky little words like 'rather' and getting "than"/"then" right. Would have been clear from the start.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

In the program guide description, the teaser line that I don't think was obvious was "...an unlikely hero emerges"...

Who was this unlikely hero?


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

MikeekiM said:


> In the program guide description, the teaser line that I don't think was obvious was "...an unlikely hero emerges"...
> 
> Who was this unlikely hero?


Probably Migle.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

MikeekiM said:


> In the program guide description, the teaser line that I don't think was obvious was "...an unlikely hero emerges"...
> 
> Who was this unlikely hero?


I thought maybe Zach because he started cleaning up from the looting.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

justapixel said:


> Another tidbit: he never considered the red kids friends, and on the last night slept with yellow just to get away from Jared's "anger management problem". His best friend there was Alex.


Did anyone else find it interesting that Ann's kid's friend said his best friend on the show was Alex, and he had to get away from Jared? The show made it seem like Jared and Alex were best friends.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Did anyone else find it interesting that Ann's kid's friend said his best friend on the show was Alex, and he had to get away from Jared? The show made it seem like Jared and Alex were best friends.


Maybe they (Jared and Alex) were buds. I know I've got friends who are friends with people I don't like.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

I thought I had heard Jared say that Alex was his best friend there, but that doesn't necessarily go both ways.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Checked out some of Time magazines 10 best list and this show was #10 for best new shows.


----------



## visionary (May 31, 2006)

I still can't believe they gave council members nothing, who would EVER want on that in a second season? The obvious prize I had expected, being intelligent, and them being gifted kids, was a SCHOLORSHIP to college. Something like that, for the council members and hard workers. I also agree who was Mingle? And when she won, why not show a recap of what she had done then? I still think the whole show was scripted, and I am still mad about the NO ADULTS in the title, and then one walks out with the instructions for the kids. I think they meant no parents. I still think hottubs would have been an authentic and fun touch for them and us, and have a town doctor who is an adult who would have led the challenges rather than an adult that appears out of thin air. Board games like they had in the old west would have made so much more sense than video games, and we could have followed some of the games, or used some as challenges between teams. The producers had very little imagination.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

visionary said:


> SCHOLORSHIP


LOL


----------



## visionary (May 31, 2006)

Scholership? Well, that dang money to pay your tuition with...


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

visionary said:


> Scholership?


Oh dear.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

I noticed that many of the children managed to overlook the oddball ways of their peers. 

Interesting how children can have more restraint than adults.


----------

