Counting On - Part 9: Even the Flashbacks Have Flashbacks

[chris]

Here is a breakdown of all the regular season shows.

The show lost nearly 800,000 viewers from the first episode, about 39% of the initial audience. As the season went on, they lost against all demographics, most of which were below the average for the majority of the season.

[BunnyBee]

@Hiddenomaha how does Counting On compare to Bringing Up Bates in ratings?

[patsymae]

5 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I think a lot of fundies see adoption as another form of missionary work, "saving the souls" of poor black and brown children, even though most, perhaps all, of these children come from Christian cultures (Kirk Cameron said this is why he  adopted). The more fundie lite and mainstream conservatives seem to be into adoption as a way of proving that they care about "widows and orphans" like the Bible says. The problem is that the demand for orphans far outstrips the number, which has lead to fundegelicals inadvertently supporting child trafficking and illegal adoptions. This is especially true in Africa, as many cultures there do not understand adoption in the Western sense and think their children are simply going to school in the West, not leaving them forever to join a new family on another continent. These sorts of abuses are why some Global South countries have ended foreign adoptions. However, I don't think the Duggars seriously plan to adopt, because I think they are very Gothard, even if they have tried to make it seem otherwise. They bring up adoption to increase interest in their show, but I think they privilege having bio children over adoption.

Of course they do. See "The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption," by Kathryn Joyce. If they figure out how to get around the international laws (absolutely believe that if they want domestic infant adoption they will have a sympathetic judge), they will bring home one or more children out of birth order whom they believe they are "saving." They will have no understanding of the trauma inherent in every adoption much less understand that the child may not be grateful to have been introduced to Jesus. The child may turn out to not be grateful or sweet, and thus after the show is over will be "re-homed."

[Kjaerringa]

@Snickles......I'd beg you to write a thank you to the Duggars, since their show helped you to plan your wedding.....but I would NOT want you subjected to the LH's inevitable vicious responses. But I am imagining M &JB's expressions.....and dreaming they would ask TLC to stop filming immediately......if they ever got such a note. What a glorious day that would be! Sadly, not a chance in, umm.....Tonititown that would actually occur.

Also, just thinking here: What time did Cruz announce he was heading home to lick his wounds? That may have impacted the audience size by quite a bit. Because, you know, he just personifies Christian values and all. (NOT!!!!!!!)

 

[CorruptionInc.]

Josh still looks like a smarmy bastard. Did prayhab do anything for him?!

[Chickenbutt]

In last night's episode, didn't Joy say something like "When your sister in law has babies it is not like your own sister's having babies".....shows me where Josh and Anna's kids are in the scheme of things.

[EyeQueue]

9 hours ago, Eternalbluepearl said:

Eew, Josh Duggar. How does his own family stand him? I wouldn't want to play mini golf with him. 

Especially knowing that the mini golf course is a prime humping venue.

[Larry]

3 hours ago, BabyBottlePop said:

Exactly! If you don't know the choices you'd make and whether your potential partner would agree with you on important things, getting engaged is not something I would do. The relationship should be basically engagement without the name before the actual engagement IMO.

But Jill probably couldn't believe it because her father had picked her mate, finally! Considering how JB seems to favor Jill I would have thought he'd kept Jill at home like Jana and marry off Jana, Jessa, et al.

 

I was suprised at that as well. And talking of favouritism I never understood how Jana wasn't seen as a golden child like Jill. Josh was the first boy and even after everything that went on he was the golden boy. John David did say she was rowdy as a child so maybe they've never forgiven her for that!

[EyeQueue]

3 hours ago, slickcat79 said:

Or...something else  

Yes. 70s porn something else.

[missegeno]

6 hours ago, IReallyAmHopewell said:

8. Jinger and Justin work at Tacos for Jesus place

I will almost be surprised if they don't do this now. They did that for Mama Carmen's and Jinger was entertaining after drinking all that caffeine. Given how much they've been promoting that taco place (complete with close-ups of Ben eating), I'm surprised they didn't twist the same story, but for tacos. They would also spend too much time talking about who in the family likes tacos the most or eats the most tacos.

[VelociRapture]

4 hours ago, anotherone said:

I think it's weird to "can't believe I'm engaged."  Normal people actually believe it, since they probably dated a while, discussed the concept of marriage and what would be expected of each (would you both work, what city to live in, how many children, how to spend/save, would you still work after the children, etc.)  So even if the ring and the time and place were a surprise, usually you kind of knew it was coming or not.

Husband and I dated six years before getting engaged. He involved me in picking the ring and the actual proposal. I knew what would happen and when.

I still couldn't believe we were really engaged at times though. I wanted to marry him for so long and was just overwhelmed it actually happened. Same thing happened after our wedding, after we got our dog, and after our nephew was born. So I honestly don't find it weird that Jill couldn't believe they were engaged either. 

[19 cats and counting]

1 hour ago, BunnyBee said:

@Hiddenomaha how does Counting On compare to Bringing Up Bates in ratings?

I'm not sure if that's a fair comparison because TLC is much better known and more widely available than UP.   My parents' cable package includes TLC but UP is on a premium tier (and it's in the 300s, where TLC is 28)

[Kira]

I'll say it again: I can't believe TLC gave them a show for this? I think a courtship fell apart or they're not ready to announce a courtship. What else could explain the two part season finale with 90% old footage. Will TLC renew the show? They have new shows coming uppeople might actually watch , they dont need the Duggars. The problem is I think someone at TLC really loves the Duggars. 

1 hour ago, BunnyBee said:

@Hiddenomaha how does Counting On compare to Bringing Up Bates in ratings?

This is the only thning I could finds about the Bates ratings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bringing_Up_Bates 

 

.

 

[BunnyBee]

20 minutes ago, Kira said:

I'll say it again: I can't believe TLC gave them a show for this? I think a courtship fell apart or they're not ready to announce a courtship. What else could explain the two part season finale with 90% old footage. Will TLC renew the show? They have new shows coming uppeople might actually watch , they dont need the Duggars. The problem is I think someone at TLC really loves the Duggars. 

This is the only thning I could finds about the Bates ratings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bringing_Up_Bates 

 

.

 

 

Thanks! Damn the Wiki already has Tori courting Bobby Smith. That was hella fast 

[anotherone]

2 hours ago, Hiddenomaha said:

Dropped 10 spots to #25! And lost about 200,000 viewers.

Not a good night when you get less viewers than the 11:30 am showing of Paw Patrol......

It wasn't lowest in male viewership.  What could possibly be less interesting to a bunch of 30-something guys.

I wonder if the ratings were affected by about 4 big sports things.

2 hours ago, Handmaiden of Dog said:

Bin is having trouble connecting with his child and his wife.

 

I think he's doing OK - for a 20 yr old!!  I don't think anyone that young could be much more into it.  Derreck has about 5 years on him and that could make a huge difference.  So I believe there's hope for him, unless he gets too discouraged and does something about it.

[Larry]

20 minutes ago, Kira said:

I'll say it again: I can't believe TLC gave them a show for this? I think a courtship fell apart or they're not ready to announce a courtship. What else could explain the two part season finale with 90% old footage. Will TLC renew the show? They have new shows coming uppeople might actually watch , they dont need the Duggars. The problem is I think someone at TLC really loves the Duggars. 

This is the only thning I could finds about the Bates ratings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bringing_Up_Bates 

 

.

 

There is something odd about the season finale. Even for TLC and the Duggars that was way too much old footage, and showing stuff from Jessa's birth which first aired last December was ridiculous. We didn't hear anything about Jana's ''I totally didn't see this coming''. There really is no reason why they should renew it, and it must have caused TLC more stress than it was worth so the sensible thing would be to cancel. Who am I kidding though, they are probably filming more episodes as we speak!

[TuringMachine]

15 minutes ago, BunnyBee said:

Thanks! Damn the Wiki already has Tori courting Bobby Smith. That was hella fast 

I fill like that's jumping the gun a little. They haven't confirmed it yet right? I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the Bate's take their time announcing courtships is because of what happened with Zach. Well that and ratings.

[chris]

2 hours ago, BunnyBee said:

@Hiddenomaha how does Counting On compare to Bringing Up Bates in ratings?

It really wouldn't be a good comparison. Since March, the highest ranked BUB show was 110th place, with 250,000 viewers and a 0.08 P18-49 rating.

As comparison, the highest ranked BUB episode only brought in 525,000...in January 2015

[lascuba]

2 hours ago, Handmaiden of Dog said:

So here is a thought that just occurred to me, if Gothard teaches that adoption is a bad idea because the sins of the father are visited upon the children what does that mean for Josh's children?  Do you think they are regarded as lesser beings than Izzy and Spurge?  I've noticed in the past that Michelle and JB seem less infatuated than most grandparents but I chalked that up to them still having young children of their own.  Now I am thinking about the way Spurge and Izzy are talked about as if they-- rather than the grandchildren with the Duggar name-- are the important offspring.

 

I think it's not too uncommon for people to have a bit of a subconscious preference for the children of their daughters over those of their sons. Or maybe it's not preference so much as they are closer to them. I've seen it in a lot of people from all sorts of backgrounds. I think it has to do with the fact that moms are still primarily viewed as head caregivers, and people tend to have less boundaries with their own daughters--and by extension, their daughters' children--than their daughters-in-law. 

Of course, these are the Duggars. It's entirely possible that there's some "sins of the father" concern there. Or they're just naturally  cold fish and are incapable of feeling affection anymore. 

1 hour ago, Larry said:

I was suprised at that as well. And talking of favouritism I never understood how Jana wasn't seen as a golden child like Jill. Josh was the first boy and even after everything that went on he was the golden boy. John David did say she was rowdy as a child so maybe they've never forgiven her for that!

Years ago, during an interview on a Christian radio program, Jana said something about needing to work on herself because she had a hard time getting a long with a member of the family and it was because she (Jana) was prideful. That coupled with all the talk about how headstrong she was as a child makes me think that she was very often the problem child on a spiritual level, and that she was/is punished for whatever doubts or issues she confesses to her parents. 

[nst]

2 hours ago, Handmaiden of Dog said:

So here is a thought that just occurred to me, if Gothard teaches that adoption is a bad idea because the sins of the father are visited upon the children what does that mean for Josh's children?  ReI've noticed in the past that Michelle and JB seem less infatuated than most grandparents but I chalked that up to them still having young children of their own.  Now I am thinking about the way Spurge and Izzy are talked about as if they-- rather than the grandchildren with the Duggar name-- are the important offspring.

So to sum up this entire season:

Jessa loves her baby very much but her marriage is not in great shape.

Bin is having trouble connecting with his child and his wife.

Jill and Derek aren't doing much for the locals but are growing together as a couple.

Nobody admits to a courtship.

Nobody admits to being pregnant.

All the talk about adoption is just that-- talk.

The girls can't do much other than the usual housework/child rearing without the assistance of their brothers.

Anna is sticking by her man.

The show can survive without the presence of JB, Michelle, or Josh, however there isn't much to work worth because their lives are insanely mundane.

Are we taking bets on the show being renewed?

Re the bolded - I get the impression because the girls had boys first - they seemed the more important ones 

The way Derick kept discussing Spurgeon was all about how natural he was etc - It is all very interesting because what is really happening in that famiily with regards to grandchildren. 

I wonder if  it will be renewed - 

1 hour ago, Chickenbutt said:

In last night's episode, didn't Joy say something like "When your sister in law has babies it is not like your own sister's having babies".....shows me where Josh and Anna's kids are in the scheme of things.

tell me what that means 

are they discriminating? against Anna all of a sudden or is it because it is a precious sister - the baby is more special 

is like that for you all who have kids and sisters or brothers - serious question..........

[calimojo]

I think it was Jinger who made that statement.  And I get it.  I think she was naturally closer to Jill and Jessa and so it is natural that their pregnancies and babies felt differently to her than Anna's.  Plus she is older now and likely relates to pregnancy and childbirth differently than when she was 15 or however old she was when Mackenzie was born.  I get the feeling that Josh has never been well liked by his siblings. I have always felt that, but of course now we know there is good reason for this.   This could impact Jinger's feelings about  it as well. 

 

I think the girls are friendly with Anna now, but I didn't think they were very close with her at first.  It might not be fair to Anna, but the truth is Josh is just not that likable, and that probably influences how the sibs feel about his wife. 

[punkiepie]

2 hours ago, Chickenbutt said:

In last night's episode, didn't Joy say something like "When your sister in law has babies it is not like your own sister's having babies".....shows me where Josh and Anna's kids are in the scheme of things.

 

It was Jinger who said it and I kinda understand what she meant.  Many of you may disagree, but I think that in the beginning, pregnancy and newborn stages, the baby is more the mom's than the dad.  She incubates it for 9 months and then, if she chooses, provides all of the nourishment for the baby for months or more.  Yes, the dad is important and does, or can(not), play a large and important role as well, but barring something major, the mom is usually the most important person in a young baby's life.  So it seems normal that the mom's family would initially feel closer to the baby.  I don't think it means that they love the M Kids any less than they do Izzy and Spurgeon, but the Duggar girls probably did feel more of a bond with them when they were born than they did with the M Kids.  

 

[bucherwurm]

Just finished watching that life changing show. I'm glad I had the forum to read along with as it was playing, as it was snooze worthy. I'd rather watch them visit the dentist again.

[Dandruff]

1 hour ago, Kira said:

I'll say it again: I can't believe TLC gave them a show for this? I think a courtship fell apart or they're not ready to announce a courtship. What else could explain the two part season finale with 90% old footage. Will TLC renew the show? They have new shows coming uppeople might actually watch , they dont need the Duggars. The problem is I think someone at TLC really loves the Duggars.

I don't think there was ever any news.  This is what I think happened:  The Duggars got the word out to massive numbers of leghumpers, telling them to get in touch with TLC.  The leghumpers jumped to the task.  TLC became semi-convinced that a spin-off might be viable, so they offered a show on a very limited budget (it wouldn't surprise me if it had been suggested to TLC that there was going to be some news).  Turned out there was no news, and the viewers were losing interest, so terms like "life-changing" and "season finale" were put out as a last-ditch effort for ratings.  Regardless, they don't seem to have gained advertisers, so - barring actual, filmable news - I believe they're done as a series.

[BabyBottlePop]

I haven't watched the new episode yet, but Pickles posted a bunch of pictures of everyone, including Israel and Spurge meeting. And I have seen lots of pictures of both boys and thought they looks basically like mini JBs- Israel a blond JB and Spurge a brown one. After seeing them together, they still look like JB and yet I didn't think they looked all that alike.