Law and Order: Duggars

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I get what you're saying too, except... we did find out what actually happened, so it's by definition possible.

Obviously they would need to change some aspects of how it came to light versus the real version to involve an active investigation, but the timeline and details could be adjusted.

But it wouldn't be something that they'd have found out in NYC while the family was traveling, thereby the show wouldn't have had a reason to cover it.

[CherylV]

If you like true crime stuff...you'd probably enjoy a forum I'm on called websleuths.com

thats where I found FJ from! I mostly lurk there too though! 

[nolongerIFBx]

. . .

 

Please don't misunderstand this as a justification of rape or abuse.  I hold that people have the responsibility to observe the law (even if they disagree with it), that people further have the obligation to be considerate and sensitive towards others and not bully them (even when it is legal to do so). But I also believe that we have to respect the perception of the people involved in an incident, not when we apply the law,, but when we discuss the situation.

. . .

Obviously this is thread drift-- someone mentioned the "Switched at Birth" show up thread. Last season once of the characters had been dating a boy in college, broke it off to be with boyfriend from a few relationships ago. Got in a fight with that boyfriend, went to a part at college boyfriend's dorm. Got drunk then approached the college boyfriend, commenced with some serious kissing. Woke up in bed with college boyfriend with no idea what had happened. College boyfriend confirmed sex had happened. He was portrayed as having no clue that she had drunk to the point that she had no memory but was fully functional otherwise. (I'm willing to state that I may be a little fuzzy on the exact scenario) She had him thrown out of college and charged with rape. While I don't justify rape or abuse, I really had to wonder how the college boyfriend was supposed to determine that she was so drunk that she could not consent when she appeared to be coherent and very consenting. I am NOT saying she was drunk so it was her own fault. That is not a justification for rape. But this fictitious guy is now a dismissed-from-college sex offender because he had not monitored the girl's alcohol intake and had not been able to somehow determine at what point she became intoxicated enough for her to be saying yes but actually mean no.

She felt raped; I do not discount that (okay, a little--saying it was rape meant she wasn't a cheater which was an issue in her relationship with past now current BF). But to so severely alter a college kid's life because he mistook her drunk yes as a real yes seems like wrong was done to him as well.

It made me uncomfortable as I felt that both sides had valid points and I felt for both characters. I realize this is a fictional scenario but it was probably pulled from some real life scenarios. I don't know; it still bothers me.

Nothing at all to do with the Duggar SVU Edition, I know.

Back to the topic, though, I thought they had really done their research. Yes, some skirts were too high and shirts too low (or not enough layers of shirts), but for the most part, it had some bearing in reality. In fact, I was praising it to my somewhat Duggar-sympathetic mother when all the sudden the 14-year-old getting married pops up and it was,"so when did that happen? In which one of these families are fourteen year olds getting married?" I could not think of anyone quite that young getting married; I cited Josh's rumored engagement to Holt girl, but for her the 14-year-old getting married made all the other issues suspect. I really wish that the writers had gone more the way of a forced adoption (Ala Tina Anderson) or even a secret abortion (which I have heard does happen to save face even among the most adamant pro-lifers) rather than the sensational and unexpected child-bride scenario. Still, I thought they had done a good job to that point of staying "real".

As to purity ball cake-toppers, cake-toppers are rather out of style for wedding cakes so maybe that is why they were not present on the purity ball Pinterest page, LOL.

[SilverBeach]

It isn't a documentary, but the writers were very clear they were basing their fictional story on actual events. They made decisions about what aspects of the real situation to keep and which to change. I found it unfortunate that one of the changes they chose to make was to change the sexual molestation into rape resulting in pregnancy, particularly since the Duggars actually used the "it's not like it was rape" defense to completely minimize the actual abuse Josh committed and since they place such a high value on physical virginity.

I didn't get any impression that the writers thought that Josh did nothing wrong or anything like that, but changing the situation so it was rape came off to me like agreement by default that without forced intercourse the story wasn't bad enough.

The writers said no such thing, to me. Inspired by is different than based on. This is how Law and Order works. I have watched it for decades. There is always a tweak or two to the sensational real life events that inspired any given episode. I doubt they were thinking about making a statement about rape. The real life and fictional situations were both horrible. Everybody knows that the Duggars are stupid so what they said doesn't even deserve to be addressed.

I get what you're saying too, except... we did find out what actually happened, so it's by definition possible.

Obviously they would need to change some aspects of how it came to light versus the real version to involve an active investigation, but the timeline and details could be adjusted.

I enjoyed the episode just fine. I guess I just went with flow and didn't analyze it too much. It made harmful aspects of fundy life look bad, and that was good enough for me.

[LadyCrow1313]

Finally found time to watch it too: A "Happy End (in comparison to the cicumstnace Episode" ! As alot of SVU episodes do clearly not have a good/fair ending, I almost thought the Creep would get through with the child marriage!

A bit off topic, but does anyone remember that CSI NY(?) episode where they take on on the FLDS sect and in the end the victim was forced to return to her "husband"?

Glad they didn´t go down this path here.

 

(also: missing Elliot... STILL!)

 

You & me both, Anny Nym! 

[patsymae]

Finally got to see this and it really disappointed me--the mom's reaction to the big reveal was just so, so not in character.The producers or whomever wimped out to avoid being accused of Christian-bashing, IMO. Very disappointing. 

Back in the day (maybe decades ago, I was a long time Law and Order junkie) Law and Order (not SVU, I think) they had an episode in which Joe Piscopo played a controlling father/patriarch and it ended with his daughters that he had brainwashed still defending him and hating the "bitch" of a mother who had challenged him. Stayed true to the characters.

In this one, Ms. adoring Mom, who didn't seem at all to mind that if one of her daughters had been impregnated by her brother (am I remembering this part correctly?) suddenly becomes Tiger Mom, challenges a pastor, uses a curseword and challenges her husband?

 

Very disappointing. 

[VelociRapture]

So I can't find the specific comment now, but I remember seeing it and just didn't get a chance to respond until now.

Someone was asking about the new characters and why the old ones had to leave. Other people have answered for Stabler and Amaro, but I don't think Munch and Cragen have been addressed. Apologies if it has.

From what I remember, the Producers do what they can to try and ground parts of the show in reality. Obviously they can't always do that because of story lines and needing to move things along - for instance, no Lab can get DNA testing back as fast as the ones on TV seem to.

That said, one area that they do an excellent job on keeping realistic is the leaving of old characters. The NYPD has rules about how old you can be when you have to retire - I believe the age is 63. Munch and Cragen both recently hit that age in previous seasons (Season 15 I think) and they had to retire because of it. You can retire before you get to that point - many leave the force around 20 years of service - but 63 is the age where you have to retire.

[Bad Wolf]

Munch was my favorite.

[clueliss]

I was a Munch fan back when Homicide was on the air.  

[Mum2theRoyalFlush]

I watched life on Mars, I prefer british series generally, but all over I am not much of a series watcher, maybe once in a while. my other half calls all drama or crime series soapies xD/

I loved Life on Mars.