Jon and Kate Plus 8, Official Thread--Part 7

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Not exactly full time...children can't film onset as long as adults, that is why they often use twins to play the rold of a child (like the olsen twins on full house) so that between the 2, they have a full time actor, but laws could be written for the reality genre restricting the amount of time filmed at their home...so at least they would have some safe haven from all of the filming. Some measures of privacy.

Actually--you misunderstand the intentions.

The reason for using twins has to do with the age of the actors typically and the ability to have the child "on" for when they need them.

Babies are often twinned a lot. And for some reason, Full House just kept up with that plan. But at the shows conclusion, the children were older than "stephanie tanner" was when she began the show as a singleton actress.


If you review CA labor law--children in enterainment can work up to 8 hours per day on set for a show and no more than 48 hours per week (which permits 6 filming days.) Interesting enough--baby restrictions with very limited hours on only in place for infants under the age of 6 months. So the Olsen twins were not even under infant restrictions when they began the show.

In contrast, you often hear of actors over the age of 18 working much longer hours.

While a law for children in reality will provide some beneft, my whole point is that it doesn't guarantee that the children will be working less. And in some cases, it may just provide the permission for the child to work more than the show had planned.

As for Coogan's law--it was in the same section I was reading to provide the above information. The mandatory trust account only is obligated for 15% of the child actor's earnings.

There is no legal accountability for the remaining 85%.

We have no proof of what was put away for the 8 children, but Kate did say that College was taken care of.

I know in my state--figures have a 4 year public education that far ahead of time in the 6 figures.

Throwing out the $4 million dollar figure we have heard about that the Gosselins have made just off of this show (Kate's book sales would be immune as she has a first amendment right to write about her children)--15% of that number is ONLY $600,000.

So for 8 kids at the most basic $100,000 for 4 years of college, I would have to say that we can only presume that the parents have indeed done their part to share the income with the kids. And even in the best of circumstances, the children would not be entitled to all of that money anyway as no child star is on any show or film that they do. (For clarification--what I mean is that other actors woudl be on payroll. Just b/c this show focuses on 8 children would not mean that Jon and Kate would be stuck doing the show for free while any compensation would go exclusively to the children. I do not mean to imply that if the children say were contracted to make $10,000 that they would not be entitled to their full contracted salary. I was speaking to the overall payroll of anyone on camera that is paid, that the kids would not be entitled to be the only one receiving pay for what they did.)

To sum up--this is why I think the Gosselins have been treatd a bit unjustly by the naysayers.

A law with specific protection for reality children would surely GUARANTEE these things would occur.

But I find it interesting that even in the worst of circumstances, it seems the Gosselins are "mostly" complying with laws that presently don't even apply to them.

It fascinates me--and I know it annoys some people who disagree with the Gosselins and with me, but one cannot ignore the facts that from a filming perspective and a monetary perspective, it really doesn't appear that the children have been mistreated at all.

 

[DMRick]

I like recaps and opinions, good and bad. That's why I read them. Why would they get more readers for negative writing? Any and all Gossein publicity generates traffic these days.

I guess for me, it's often a waste of time to read the comments on something I have seen, if the person has hated J & K for most of the time it's been on. I have looked at a few, and I think..are they talking about what I just saw for myself??? If you hate her or Jon, you (from what I have read) are always looking for the negative and ignore anything good. I'm sure the same can be said if you like them..you look more for the good.

You only have to look at this thread to see why they get more readers for negative writing. Post something that someone thinks Jon or Kate did wrong (if they did, or if just that poster thinks so) and we have way more posts. We (collective, not you, and not everyone) like to read the 'stuff' they do (IMO) that we don't think they should. People don't want to read, Kate answered questions last night and she did a good job. She stayed true to what she believed was true, etc. They want to read that it's all about Kate, that she didn't mention the kids much, that she wants to continue to work them. More gossipy stuff IMO. Human nature, I think.

 

[talulabelle]

I've said it before and I will say it again. I am a video editor. The way this show appears to be shot is not like other reality shows. It is so easy to shoot in a limited amount of time and get the footage you want. Much of the actual work is done by J&K when they do the interviews. That is probably the most time consuming. The producers have to be sure to get the right dialogue to fit with the storyline. The interviews with the kids that they show probably do not take long at all. You could get all that footage done in 15 minutes. While playing the camera men ask them to tease the show, "say, coming up on Jon & Kate plus 8." They play and then perhaps they say "show me what you found there." They have more than one camera to get different angles and shots of the kids playing simultaneously.

Most of the work is done with J&K and the producers planning out what will be done where and how. They probably have the kids re-enact something that they missed.

I used to work at a TV studio in NYC. There was this one sitcom that they did that had a couple of kids on it. The pilot episode had Christina Ricci in it when she was 11. They were on set for the allotted amount of hours, but when not on set, you think they went home? No, they were in the building, playing or working with a tutor. The Gosselin kids have a lot more freedom since they are home and can go to their rooms.

but they used to get followed to their rooms...ok Mady put a stop to that...but still at one point, nothing was off limits to Kate. And I will have to find the article, but I remember reading somewhere that TLC producer or camera man or Kate or someone said that they might get one episode out of three full days of filming. I'm sorry, but kids are cute when you splice all the cute stuff together in one hour, but they are that entertaining (when they aren't your own kids) if you watch it real time. The cute things are every few hours. Jeez, I have so much home video I have that is SOOOOO BORING to watch because it isn't edited and spliced and there is SOOO much dead time of the kids just playing and nothing happening. Then once in a while a cute thing is said. They are not getting all the footage out of 15 minutes of those childrens days. I do agree most of the work was on J and K's side, but you can't tell me that the filming wasn't hours upon hours of many days of the week.

 

[LoraJ]

Actually--you misunderstand the intentions.

The reason for using twins has to do with the age of the actors typically and the ability to have the child "on" for when they need them.

Babies are often twinned a lot. And for some reason, Full House just kept up with that plan. But at the shows conclusion, the children were older than "stephanie tanner" was when she began the show as a singleton actress.


If you review CA labor law--children in enterainment can work up to 8 hours per day on set for a show and no more than 48 hours per week (which permits 6 filming days.) Interesting enough--baby restrictions with very limited hours on only in place for infants under the age of 6 months. So the Olsen twins were not even under infant restrictions when they began the show.

In contrast, you often hear of actors over the age of 18 working much longer hours.

While a law for children in reality will provide some beneft, my whole point is that it doesn't guarantee that the children will be working less. And in some cases, it may just provide the permission for the child to work more than the show had planned.

As for Coogan's law--it was in the same section I was reading to provide the above information. The mandatory trust account only is obligated for 15% of the child actor's earnings.

There is no legal accountability for the remaining 85%.

We have no proof of what was put away for the 8 children, but Kate did say that College was taken care of.

I know in my state--figures have a 4 year public education that far ahead of time in the 6 figures.

Throwing out the $4 million dollar figure we have heard about that the Gosselins have made just off of this show (Kate's book sales would be immune as she has a first amendment right to write about her children)--15% of that number is ONLY $600,000.

So for 8 kids at the most basic $100,000 for 4 years of college, I would have to say that we can only presume that the parents have indeed done their part to share the income with the kids. And even in the best of circumstances, the children would not be entitled to all of that money anyway as no child star is on any show or film that they do.


To sum up--this is why I think the Gosselins have been treatd a bit unjustly by the naysayers.

A law with specific protection for reality children would surely GUARANTEE these things would occur.

But I find it interesting that even in the worst of circumstances, it seems the Gosselins are "mostly" complying with laws that presently don't even apply to them.

It fascinates me--and I know it annoys some people who disagree with the Gosselins and with me, but one cannot ignore the facts that from a filming perspective and a monetary perspective, it really doesn't appear that the children have been mistreated at all.

I agree with everything you wrote.

 

[talulabelle]

They would be housebound like most people born with disabilities or multiple children with disabilities. Therapy comes to you in your home & they are on social security most of the time.

Jon & Kate do not have to handle things alone they can afford help. Most people can afford baby sitters. Maybe if your really poor but if that is the case you get free day care.

Therapy doesn't come to my nephew home for him and he is profoundly disabled.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I don't care WHO it is doing it, thank GOD they are doing it! So that people like Jone AND Kate can't do this to their kids (or in this case so that people like Kate can't do this to her kids and force her weak husband along for the ride)

and as for what I bolded, apparently not ALL of us see how people really are after watching them long enough (Kate).

Filming of this nature will never be banned.

People have a right to live how they wish to live.

It can be controlled, but it won't be banned.

And even under controls as I posted above, it won't be as limited as many advocates believe it will be.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Therapy doesn't come to my nephew home for him and he is profoundly disabled.

Depends on the state, the services, and what is involoved.

My son is in Early Steps for speech. If for whatever reason, I couldn't take him to speech (which I can and do as it is adjacent to my girls gym for gymnastics), they would and must get services to my house.

Early steps is for children under 3 and is fully covered by the state (no out of pocket money what so ever to me.)

The services run a wide range of offerings. I am only familiar with speech though.

I have known other families who have gotten varying therapies in their home.

I Don't know what happens after age 3 b/c then they transition to the school system and at that point I think you might have to take them to the school for the therapies that the state will pay for.

I have no idea what it is for Pennsylvania--but at this point condemning the Gosselines for a situation that doesn't even apply to them really doesn't make any sense.

 

[LoraJ]

but they used to get followed to their rooms...ok Mady put a stop to that...but still at one point, nothing was off limits to Kate. And I will have to find the article, but I remember reading somewhere that TLC producer or camera man or Kate or someone said that they might get one episode out of three full days of filming. I'm sorry, but kids are cute when you splice all the cute stuff together in one hour, but they are that entertaining (when they aren't your own kids) if you watch it real time. The cute things are every few hours. Jeez, I have so much home video I have that is SOOOOO BORING to watch because it isn't edited and spliced and there is SOOO much dead time of the kids just playing and nothing happening. Then once in a while a cute thing is said. They are not getting all the footage out of 15 minutes of those childrens days. I do agree most of the work was on J and K's side, but you can't tell me that the filming wasn't hours upon hours of many days of the week.

But the show has changed now hasn't it? Now they have planned activities so that it takes less time to get the shots they want. Instead of just having them randomly play, now they have an activity "let's walk to the river" "let's do a movie night" "let's go camping in the back yard". People have been complaining about all of these planned activities, that it is not normal, but it sets up a storyline for the show without them having to sit around for days shooting the kids waiting for something cute to happen.

 

[talulabelle]

Actually--you misunderstand the intentions.

The reason for using twins has to do with the age of the actors typically and the ability to have the child "on" for when they need them.

Babies are often twinned a lot. And for some reason, Full House just kept up with that plan. But at the shows conclusion, the children were older than "stephanie tanner" was when she began the show as a singleton actress.


If you review CA labor law--children in enterainment can work up to 8 hours per day on set for a show and no more than 48 hours per week (which permits 6 filming days.) Interesting enough--baby restrictions with very limited hours on only in place for infants under the age of 6 months. So the Olsen twins were not even under infant restrictions when they began the show.

In contrast, you often hear of actors over the age of 18 working much longer hours.

While a law for children in reality will provide some beneft, my whole point is that it doesn't guarantee that the children will be working less. And in some cases, it may just provide the permission for the child to work more than the show had planned.

As for Coogan's law--it was in the same section I was reading to provide the above information. The mandatory trust account only is obligated for 15% of the child actor's earnings.

There is no legal accountability for the remaining 85%.

We have no proof of what was put away for the 8 children, but Kate did say that College was taken care of.

I know in my state--figures have a 4 year public education that far ahead of time in the 6 figures.

Throwing out the $4 million dollar figure we have heard about that the Gosselins have made just off of this show (Kate's book sales would be immune as she has a first amendment right to write about her children)--15% of that number is ONLY $600,000.

So for 8 kids at the most basic $100,000 for 4 years of college, I would have to say that we can only presume that the parents have indeed done their part to share the income with the kids. And even in the best of circumstances, the children would not be entitled to all of that money anyway as no child star is on any show or film that they do. (For clarification--what I mean is that other actors woudl be on payroll. Just b/c this show focuses on 8 children would not mean that Jon and Kate would be stuck doing the show for free while any compensation would go exclusively to the children. I do not mean to imply that if the children say were contracted to make $10,000 that they would not be entitled to their full contracted salary. I was speaking to the overall payroll of anyone on camera that is paid, that the kids would not be entitled to be the only one receiving pay for what they did.)

To sum up--this is why I think the Gosselins have been treatd a bit unjustly by the naysayers.

A law with specific protection for reality children would surely GUARANTEE these things would occur.

But I find it interesting that even in the worst of circumstances, it seems the Gosselins are "mostly" complying with laws that presently don't even apply to them.

It fascinates me--and I know it annoys some people who disagree with the Gosselins and with me, but one cannot ignore the facts that from a filming perspective and a monetary perspective, it really doesn't appear that the children have been mistreated at all.

The kid were given free scholoarships to any PA state run school already. There are some good school in that system. They don't need to worry about that.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I do agree most of the work was on J and K's side, but you can't tell me that the filming wasn't hours upon hours of many days of the week.

No I can't tell you that and wouldn't tell you that--but even following CA filming laws, out of 48 hours and 6 days of filming, they would have ample footage to get what they need.

I used to say they weren't working (I mean seriously--as babies they were truly being documented!).

Now I agree that they are to a great extent working.

But it won't change that if you include reality children under child labor laws--they they will still be able to "document" their "work" for "hours on end".

And I feel the advocates are missing that entirely.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The kid were given free scholoarships to any PA state run school already. There are some good school in that system. They don't need to worry about that.

Do you have the source of this.

B/c out of the "proven" statements I have seen, a fund was opened for deposits, but scholarships were not part of the picture.

 

[DMRick]

The kid were given free scholoarships to any PA state run school already. There are some good school in that system. They don't need to worry about that.

I wish you would show me where that happened. They got accounts set up for them, that's all. They didn't get a free ride. I believe the state didn't contribute at all..just set up the accounts. If you have the account number you can put money in. Jon and Kate have each said it is not a funded acount.

 

[LoraJ]

No I can't tell you that and wouldn't tell you that--but even following CA filming laws, out of 48 hours and 6 days of filming, they would have ample footage to get what they need.

I used to say they weren't working (I mean seriously--as babies they were truly being documented!).

Now I agree that they are to a great extent working.

But it won't change that if you include reality children under child labor laws--they they will still be able to "document" their "work" for "hours on end".

And I feel the advocates are missing that entirely.

Exactly!!! Even with laws in place, there wouldn't be much if any changes in the way it is filmed at all. They appear to be in compliance.

 

[barkley]

They would be housebound like most people born with disabilities or multiple children with disabilities. Therapy comes to you in your home & they are on social security most of the time.

Jon & Kate do not have to handle things alone they can afford help. Most people can afford baby sitters. Maybe if your really poor but if that is the case you get free day care.

a totaly housebound family due to a child's disability (unless they are totaly bedridden or have something like an extreemly compromised immune system such that it precludes public contact) is a very rare circumstance these days. disability advocates and service providers want these kids out in the world so they get exposed to different environments vs. the walls of their homes/rooms.

ds receives services from one of the very few in home occupational therapy program-it in large part was made 'in home' not because of kids/parents being homebound but because of the extreemly rural nature of where we live which compounded with at times very severe weather could prevent a parent from being able to transport their child to regular, on-going o.t. (another goal of the program is to have children/parents learn to do o.t. using available household items vs. getting the mindset that only with all the 'fancy' stuff at the o.t. centers it can be accomplished).

even though ds's therapy is technicaly 'in-home', he and the other participants do regular off site o.t.. during the summer months this can be at the ymca, the local lakes or public parks. during the winter months it is more difficult, but (at least for ds and the kids that live right near us) thanks to some indoor facilities at a local university that are open to the public we still manage to do about 59% offsite (indoor pool, indoor rock climbing walls, indoor ice rink).

most insurers won't consider paying for in-home services (if they are even available in a region) without extremly extenuating circumstances-and generaly that would not include a person finding it difficult to do because they had additional children absent a childcare provider to leave them with.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

a totaly housebound family due to a child's disability (unless they are totaly bedridden or have something like an extreemly compromised immune system such that it precludes public contact) is a very rare circumstance these days. disability advocates and service providers want these kids out in the world so they get exposed to different environments vs. the walls of their homes/rooms.

ds receives services from one of the very few in home occupational therapy program-it in large part was made 'in home' not because of kids/parents being homebound but because of the extreemly rural nature of where we live which compounded with at times very severe weather could prevent a parent from being able to transport their child to regular, on-going o.t. (another goal of the program is to have children/parents learn to do o.t. using available household items vs. getting the mindset that only with all the 'fancy' stuff at the o.t. centers it can be accomplished).

even though ds's therapy is technicaly 'in-home', he and the other participants do regular off site o.t.. during the summer months this can be at the ymca, the local lakes or public parks. during the winter months it is more difficult, but (at least for ds and the kids that live right near us) thanks to some indoor facilities at a local university that are open to the public we still manage to do about 59% offsite (indoor pool, indoor rock climbing walls, indoor ice rink).

most insurers won't consider paying for in-home services (if they are even available in a region) without extremly extenuating circumstances-and generaly that would not include a person finding it difficult to do because they had additional children absent a childcare provider to leave them with.

Well as it stands--

Let's use Table for 12. They have a disabled daughter who is wheelchair bound. I do not know the nature of her disability or if she receives regular services.

But assuming that she does, I'm sure they do what they can to accomodate her needs as I doubt they drag all of the other 9 kids to therapy with her. I haven't watched the show so have no idea if they ever even talk about dealing with that or not.


I have had my share of PT for a variety of things and when I can avoid bringing my kids, I did. But there was a time or two when I was stuck and took them with me. Other times I was able to have my husband take time off and watch the kids and a time or two where I have gotten a sitter.

I mean really--if Kate needed to she would deal.

The only difference between now and when the kids were little is that she now pays for all the care and way back then she had lots of helpers who helped her for free.

Not to open that can of worms or anything--but if she got dealt with a disability, she would deal much as any family would do.

 

[daughtersrus]

They would be housebound like most people born with disabilities or multiple children with disabilities. Therapy comes to you in your home & they are on social security most of the time.

Not where I live. Therapy only comes to your home for the 0-3yo program(Early Intervention). Once your child turns 3yo, they fall under the public school system and are no longer part of EI. At that point, the school district is only required to provide "educationally based" therapy based on the goals written into the child's IEP not medically based therapy. Depending on your private health insurance coverage, you may be able to get services through them but my experience is that in only very rare instances will health insurance cover home-based therapy.

You're mistaken about Social Security as well. That is based on the parent's income and assets so it's extremely unlikely that they would qualify.

The only difference between now and when the kids were little is that she now pays for all the care and way back then she had lots of helpers who helped her for free.

I thought that TLC paid for the nannies and not Kate?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

You're mistaken about Social Security as well. That is based on the parent's income and assets so it's extremely unlikely that they would qualify.

What about Disability checks?

Maybe that is what that poster is talking about.

I really don't know much about the system for minors, so I humbly plead ignorance.

 

[daughtersrus]

What about Disability checks?

Maybe that is what that poster is talking about.

I really don't know much about the system for minors, so I humbly plead ignorance.

I'm not sure what you mean by Disability checks but SSI is based on parent income and assets for children under the age of 18yo. The parent's primary home, one vehicle and retirement fund are not included in the assets but pretty much everything else is. TANF and Veteran payments are about the only thing that is excluded from parental income.

Once the child turns 18yo, he/she would most likely qualify for SSI but that depends on how much money that child has in his/her name. I say most likely because if the child has any money or assets that are not in a Special Needs Trust, they will need to "spend down" to the max limit before they will get any government assistance.

 

[FergieTCat]

Never mind ... redundant post ...

 

[LoraJ]

I haven't had a chance to check back through the thread, so ... has anyone else seen this yet?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009...main5424331.shtml?tag=contentBody;cbsCarousel

I wonder if Jon put Kevin and Jodi up to this new crusade.

What do you think Jon will do for a viable source of income after the show is over? Sue Kate for alimony? Could that be done since she would be the one with the greater income?

I fully expect Kevin and Jodi to be shopping around to the tabloids within the next week or two.

We've been discussing that even with child protection laws, it would not stop the show. None of us know how many hours a day they actually "work", but from what I can tell, they seem to be compliant with any laws that other states have. So the show could still go on. Well, as kate+8.

Not sure about alimony.