This Is Us. Season 3

[Anonymous]

I really enjoyed this episode. I'm still bothered by how Randall is going to run for city council in center city Philly when he lives in NJ. What gives?

[Anonymous]

In case you are interested, you can see when your birthday was called:

http://www.historynet.com/whats-your-number.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In case you are interested, you can see when your birthday was called:

http://www.historynet.com/whats-your-number.htm

My father is so lucky that he was a year too young in 1970. He had one of the worst numbers in the draw that year.

This link has all the subsequent lotteries.

https://www.sss.gov/About/History-And-Records/lotter1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tonight's episode: I wept the whole way through. OMG.

I wanted to react that way, but for me, it just fell flat. It didn’t seem realistic to me. I couldn’t suspend disbelief. Jack should have had a military buzz cut, especially as he seemed to be a natural leader and straight arrow. Getting the foot shot off? It seemed sensational, like a patient on Grey’s Anatomy impaled on their bicycle’s handlebars. Those are just a couple of little things. Maybe post Private Ryan and Ken Burns’ Vietnam documentary, etc., we have a more realistic idea of what war looks like, and this just seemed like a Hollywood creation.

Grooming standards for various branches of the military have changed for garrison and theater over the years. Yes, Marines traditionally and since the Vietnam era have adhered to the traditional buzz cut. Other branches is services may have had more relaxed standards of grooming while in theater. Jack wasn’t a marine and in a few google searches, you can see some soldiers (not marines) have hair that would be out of standards by today’s grooming standards. And as for your comment balling at the foot being blown off, as someone who served at a hospital in Afghanistan and having seen someone, many in fact, who had their leg blown off, it’s not sensationalized. One second he was patrolling hoping for an uneventful duty, expecting to go to lunch chow, then not 12 minutes later he was being wheeled through our doors with his leg blown off. Nothing sensational about it, it’s war. Below is a pic of a Soldier in Vietnam with seemingly shaggy hair under his Kevlar.
https://alphahistory.com/vietnamwar/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/vietnampatrol.jpg

PP here. I take your points, although those were just two little things. Even if they were different, it still felt like they were on a set, for whatever amorphous reasons.

Regarding the foot— of course a foot blown off was not unusual. It was more the way it was treated in the scene. The soldier asking for Jack to find his foot, holding it under his arm, passing it to Jack almost in jest as they awaited the helicopter. Some of that just seemed gratuitious, which weakened the dramatic effect. I googled the hair. Jack’s hair still seemed a little long on the sides. I didn’t expect a full on buzz cut, but I think the scene would have worked better if he didn’t have the exact same haircut, minus some sideburns, as he had before enlisting.

But the set-like feel was more intangible than those two things.

Also, this was in 1970 or 1971. No one really gave a **** about grooming standards in Vietnam by then. I found it completely plausible. This was guerilla warfare by the VC. One minute you could be walking along, the next blown to bits.

PP again. I don’t disagree. When I think of those images of lax grooming in Vietnam, I picture the GIs as shaggier, because they don’t GAF anymore. Jack still looked clean cut, with the same hair. Not short enough to match the leadership/good guy role, but not one of the guys with attitude and long hair. If he’s still going to be clean cut, why not get a regulation haircut. Anyway, I’m beating that dead horse too long. . .

Agree with the PP who recommended Ken Burns’ Vietnam. It was one of the best films I’ve ever seen, documentary or otherwise. Riveting. It took weeks for me to stop ruminating about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In case you are interested, you can see when your birthday was called:

http://www.historynet.com/whats-your-number.htm

First thing I did after watching was look up my own birthday! I was good until 1973, then hit the top ten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really enjoyed this episode. I'm still bothered by how Randall is going to run for city council in center city Philly when he lives in NJ. What gives?

Wondering the same thing! Guess we will find out, but I hope it isn't a 6 month flash forward and Randall has moved his family.

[Anonymous]

My birthday is Oct 18 (happy birthday to me today) so I guess if I were a guy that age, I know what would’ve happened to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In case you are interested, you can see when your birthday was called:

http://www.historynet.com/whats-your-number.htm

My father is so lucky that he was a year too young in 1970. He had one of the worst numbers in the draw that year.

This link has all the subsequent lotteries.

https://www.sss.gov/About/History-And-Records/lotter1

I'm not going to check all of them, but for 1970, my dad would have been 365! But he was too old to be drafted at that point anyhow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had no idea they broadcast the draft lottery on tv! Jesus. Reminded me of the Hunger Games.

For real. What a weird thing.

I also didn't realize that the draft was based on picking birthdays.

This stuff should be taught in history in school. I am in my 50s (I was 7 in 1969) and remember this vaguely, mainly because my parents were anti-war and so horrified by the lottery process. What unimaginable pressure on young men (especially poor young men because those in college could be deferred) to have to watch their fate be decided on live TV.

i went to a really good public school and though i'm no history buff per se, i have a really good memory and would've remembered this had it been taught. so horrifying. and if you're # isn't called then whoopty damn the other families' kids get to go. this was heartbreaking.

i vaguely remember forms asking for males age due to selective service but everyone saying that it "really doesn't happen anymore" but it still appeared on forms anyway.

[Anonymous]

None of you ever talked with 70 yr old relatives about the draft and Vietnam war? Have you been to the Vietnam Vet war memorial? Be sure to do both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of you ever talked with 70 yr old relatives about the draft and Vietnam war? Have you been to the Vietnam Vet war memorial? Be sure to do both.

Yeah, really. I'm surprised about the ignorance here. My dad told me from a young age that he was really lucky to have turned 18 in 1973, after the draft ended. My uncle was lucky to not have been drafted, but was planning on running away to Canada if his number had been called.

[Anonymous]

I know one uncle’s draft number. He wasn’t called. Another family friend enrolled in college to avoid the draft. They still both have lots of war stories from their brothers and friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of you ever talked with 70 yr old relatives about the draft and Vietnam war? Have you been to the Vietnam Vet war memorial? Be sure to do both.

Yeah, really. I'm surprised about the ignorance here. My dad told me from a young age that he was really lucky to have turned 18 in 1973, after the draft ended. My uncle was lucky to not have been drafted, but was planning on running away to Canada if his number had been called.

Most people I know with relatives of that age don’t like to talk about it. For those of us of a certain age, Vietnam was really history yet. I graduated from high school in 1985. The war had ended less than 10 years earlier. It was still fresh and painful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tonight's episode: I wept the whole way through. OMG.

I wanted to react that way, but for me, it just fell flat. It didn’t seem realistic to me. I couldn’t suspend disbelief. Jack should have had a military buzz cut, especially as he seemed to be a natural leader and straight arrow. Getting the foot shot off? It seemed sensational, like a patient on Grey’s Anatomy impaled on their bicycle’s handlebars. Those are just a couple of little things. Maybe post Private Ryan and Ken Burns’ Vietnam documentary, etc., we have a more realistic idea of what war looks like, and this just seemed like a Hollywood creation.

Grooming standards for various branches of the military have changed for garrison and theater over the years. Yes, Marines traditionally and since the Vietnam era have adhered to the traditional buzz cut. Other branches is services may have had more relaxed standards of grooming while in theater. Jack wasn’t a marine and in a few google searches, you can see some soldiers (not marines) have hair that would be out of standards by today’s grooming standards. And as for your comment balling at the foot being blown off, as someone who served at a hospital in Afghanistan and having seen someone, many in fact, who had their leg blown off, it’s not sensationalized. One second he was patrolling hoping for an uneventful duty, expecting to go to lunch chow, then not 12 minutes later he was being wheeled through our doors with his leg blown off. Nothing sensational about it, it’s war. Below is a pic of a Soldier in Vietnam with seemingly shaggy hair under his Kevlar.
https://alphahistory.com/vietnamwar/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/vietnampatrol.jpg

PP here. I take your points, although those were just two little things. Even if they were different, it still felt like they were on a set, for whatever amorphous reasons.

Regarding the foot— of course a foot blown off was not unusual. It was more the way it was treated in the scene. The soldier asking for Jack to find his foot, holding it under his arm, passing it to Jack almost in jest as they awaited the helicopter. Some of that just seemed gratuitious, which weakened the dramatic effect. I googled the hair. Jack’s hair still seemed a little long on the sides. I didn’t expect a full on buzz cut, but I think the scene would have worked better if he didn’t have the exact same haircut, minus some sideburns, as he had before enlisting.

But the set-like feel was more intangible than those two things.

Also, this was in 1970 or 1971. No one really gave a **** about grooming standards in Vietnam by then. I found it completely plausible. This was guerilla warfare by the VC. One minute you could be walking along, the next blown to bits.

DH (ex-military) says conventional grooming standards were not enforced for a variety of reasons. Including frequent lack of access to electricity and barbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of you ever talked with 70 yr old relatives about the draft and Vietnam war? Have you been to the Vietnam Vet war memorial? Be sure to do both.

Yeah, really. I'm surprised about the ignorance here. My dad told me from a young age that he was really lucky to have turned 18 in 1973, after the draft ended. My uncle was lucky to not have been drafted, but was planning on running away to Canada if his number had been called.

Most people I know with relatives of that age don’t like to talk about it. For those of us of a certain age, Vietnam was really history yet. I graduated from high school in 1985. The war had ended less than 10 years earlier. It was still fresh and painful.

I agree, the men in my family did not discuss. Neither my uncles who served nor my married father, who enrolled in college (first in his family) and did not.