What if the Wilkersons weren't poor? - Page 3
Malcolm in the Middle Voting Community Forum Episode Guide Gallery Watch & Download Episodes Home FAQ About Contact Home Store




Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: What if the Wilkersons weren't poor?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,258

    Default Re: What if the Wilkersons weren't poor?




    Very true--great observation! It's so interesting that they were financially healthy at one time. Their kids ruined them.



  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    10

    Default Re: What if the Wilkersons weren't poor?

    Good point about the neighborhood not being so bad, come to think of it I agree. But im sure they'd have moved if they were rich, but then again they could live in that same neighborhood even if they could go somewhere else and be cheap, but I doubt it he he .

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,026

    Default Re: What if the Wilkersons weren't poor?

    Very intersting topic. I agree with pretty much everything you all said. The show would be uninteresting if they were rich because the boys they would be nowhere near as close as they are now. Their personalities would still be the same, but that sense of family-togetherness that you get from watching the show would be gone. The boys would all have separate rooms and Hal and Lois would be out pampering themselves and buying useless stuff like a 10,000 doll house or a steamroller. They would probalby have a full-time nanny, like Polly, and Lois and Hal wouldn't be as much an influence on the boys lives as they are now.

    Malcolm would still be a genius and Reese would still be Reese, but I think they would probably fit in and be part of the popular crowd. Only it would be because of their wealthy social status, not because the people they hung out with actually liked them for who they are. Most of Francis's storylines wouldn't even exist because I seriously doubt that the spoiled son of a wealthy family would ever be a cook in a greasy kitchen in Alaska, or a stablehand/maintainence man at a ranch. He would still get into trouble, but he'd probably just buy his way out of it. Dewey would be affected in that he would have a lot more material things, but I don't think his actions would be that different, overall, if he had access to a lot of money. I can't see him being a snob or anything like that. I think he would use the money to do things for other people--like he did for Jaime in Morp.
    .

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Age
    29
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: What if the Wilkersons weren't poor?

    I think the family would be harder to relate to if they weren't poor. The Wilkersons would be another dysfunctional TV family where they don't eat dinner together and have poor relationships with each other. I agree that they are in fact more functional than most families. The parents don't indulge their children with material things they want and siblings share a room.

    In an interview with Jane Kaczmarek that was on another thread she said that "these people never got away with anything" and they stood up for each other. If they were wealthy it wouldn't be so important for Malcolm to be in the Krelboyne class. Reese would be an annoying, rich trouble-maker. Lois wouldn't be so happy when Hal bought her the expensive red shoes. In Waterpark Lois was mad because they don't have the chance to have fun trips like wealthy people. Being poor is an important part of the show because as Lois tells Malcolm "it'll make your heart bigger; you'll be the only president who ever gives a crap about people like us." Being poor and suffering shaped Malcolm's character.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    483

    Default Re: What if the Wilkersons weren't poor?

    Quote Originally Posted by rzombie1988
    They would never stay rich. As we have seen when they had money before, they do dumb things with it and it is gone.
    I agree. Hal grew up with money, so it would be nothing new to him. From the flashbacks and the Family Reunion ep, we can see that he has always been this way. He simply does not know how to conserve money. In his childhood he didn't learn how to save up because money was no issue. And now, he doesn't know how to save up because money comes by so rarely that when he does have some, he wants to enjoy it.

    Lois grew up poor. So, she understands the need to save up. But I believe her basic personality is frivolous. In her current situation, she knows that she need to conserve money and consciously does so, making sure not to overspend on daily things. But when she is pushed, she cannot control herself. Eg. the Hal's Christmas Gift incident in the parking lot. There are other examples, but I can't think of them now. She would not know what to do with money. She likes to indulge herself and she is too easily pushed.

    It's very hard to predict how the boys would have turned out because so much of their personality was shaped by the conditions they grew up in. Their poverty made Malcolm want to escape, Francis bitter, Reese angry at his parents and left Dewey with a whole lot of self-pity. Their various responses shaped their actions and personalities.
    In a world gone mad, only a lunatic is truly crazy -Homer Simpson

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Age
    25
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Chucking a bunch of money their way would sap all of the situation out of the sitcom. Then you would only have a com! Com isn't a word!
    you wanna follow the laws of man?
    bloody apron, leg of lamb.
    it's so hard to win...
    when there's so much to lose.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Age
    35
    Posts
    931

    Default

    unless it's . com

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Age
    25
    Posts
    572

    Default

    That's an extremely useful group of characters, but still not sure it's a word. Lol.
    you wanna follow the laws of man?
    bloody apron, leg of lamb.
    it's so hard to win...
    when there's so much to lose.

Similar Threads

  1. Is 2006 the year for Jane Kaczmarek to finally win an emmy?
    By Ryebeach in forum News & Announcements
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 30, 2006, 12:58 PM
  2. I have a question about Craig
    By vinnymonster in forum The Wilkerson Times
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jan 10, 2006, 03:12 PM
  3. Frankie/Jamie at the Playboy Mansion
    By kimmyob in forum Tiki Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct 31, 2005, 11:25 PM
  4. Wilkerson award show
    By allison in forum The Wilkerson Times
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Aug 22, 2005, 05:55 PM
  5. MITMVC Upgrades to Version 4 of FlashChat
    By admin in forum News & Announcements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 25, 2005, 09:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •