This Is Us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I loved it, but was baffled as to why they didn't do a csection from the beginning (sounds like the doctor knew a baby wasn't in the right position). Did they not do csections for multiples in 1980?

This was my first sign that something was "off" in the show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved it, but was baffled as to why they didn't do a csection from the beginning (sounds like the doctor knew a baby wasn't in the right position). Did they not do csections for multiples in 1980?

This was my first sign that something was "off" in the show.

Me too! I kept wondering why she didn't have a scheduled c-section. It makes sense thought, as I assume C-sections were not as widely performed back than. Although still hard to believe that in a high risk multiple birth they wouldn't do one.

I really liked it though and I am looking forward to watching how it will all unfold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I agree that it looked more like the 1970s. But I wonder if it might have been and the show will go a little ahead of time too, meaning that what now looks like present day may be 2012 or '14. That could help explain the Challenger timing.

This was exactly my thought. I don't recall them ever saying that the present day took place in 2016. It could be a few years ago and the show will work its way up to the present. I loved it. I haven't enjoyed a premiere this much since the Grey's Anatomy premiere many eons ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved it, but was baffled as to why they didn't do a csection from the beginning (sounds like the doctor knew a baby wasn't in the right position). Did they not do csections for multiples in 1980?

This was my first sign that something was "off" in the show.

When I watched it, I thought it was odd that they didn't know about the issue with the third baby before the birth. Now, it makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved it, but was baffled as to why they didn't do a csection from the beginning (sounds like the doctor knew a baby wasn't in the right position). Did they not do csections for multiples in 1980?

This was my first sign that something was "off" in the show.

When I watched it, I thought it was odd that they didn't know about the issue with the third baby before the birth. Now, it makes sense.

Also that they didn't know the genders.

How they knew the position was off but didn't know anything else is still odd, though - but I don't expect tv to be perfect.

[Anonymous]

After watching, I'm now really hoping Rory ends up with Jess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After watching, I'm now really hoping Rory ends up with Jess.

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved it, but was baffled as to why they didn't do a csection from the beginning (sounds like the doctor knew a baby wasn't in the right position). Did they not do csections for multiples in 1980?

This was my first sign that something was "off" in the show.

When I watched it, I thought it was odd that they didn't know about the issue with the third baby before the birth. Now, it makes sense.

Also that they didn't know the genders.

How they knew the position was off but didn't know anything else is still odd, though - but I don't expect tv to be perfect.

+1. I think they could tell positioning using doppler without ultrasound back then. Nevertheless, I was born via a c-section in 1980 in the middle of rural nowhere, so the lack of a section is TV magic.

[Anonymous]

Born in 1979 here. My mother delivered twins vaginally (one was breech). Rural Ohio. The show is a little bit plausible. We were 38 minutes apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved it, but was baffled as to why they didn't do a csection from the beginning (sounds like the doctor knew a baby wasn't in the right position). Did they not do csections for multiples in 1980?

This was my first sign that something was "off" in the show.

When I watched it, I thought it was odd that they didn't know about the issue with the third baby before the birth. Now, it makes sense.

Also that they didn't know the genders.

How they knew the position was off but didn't know anything else is still odd, though - but I don't expect tv to be perfect.

+1. I think they could tell positioning using doppler without ultrasound back then. Nevertheless, I was born via a c-section in 1980 in the middle of rural nowhere, so the lack of a section is TV magic.

I got the impression the doctor just wanted to talk to them about the possible positioning problems, not that he actually know there would be any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved it, but was baffled as to why they didn't do a csection from the beginning (sounds like the doctor knew a baby wasn't in the right position). Did they not do csections for multiples in 1980?

This was my first sign that something was "off" in the show.

When I watched it, I thought it was odd that they didn't know about the issue with the third baby before the birth. Now, it makes sense.

Also that they didn't know the genders.

How they knew the position was off but didn't know anything else is still odd, though - but I don't expect tv to be perfect.

+1. I think they could tell positioning using doppler without ultrasound back then. Nevertheless, I was born via a c-section in 1980 in the middle of rural nowhere, so the lack of a section is TV magic.

i have a 42 yr old friend who is a twin and her mother didn't know she was having twins until they were born.

[Anonymous]

A little heavy on the melodrama, but I really liked it.

[Anonymous]

Watched last night. Loved. Really like the brother/sister dynamic and her budding romance, and loved the twist. (Also couldn't believe she wouldn't have a section but figured tv was asking us to suspend our disbelief.) Figured it out when the guy said a baby had been left at the fire station and then lit a cigarette, but had no idea before that.

Tough thing for me to buy: the birth dad is so well spoken and lovely, which seems odd for an addict who spent much of his life on the streets. Will this part go another direction as well? Maybe they'll tell us how he pulled himself up or something? Sort of weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watched last night. Loved. Really like the brother/sister dynamic and her budding romance, and loved the twist. (Also couldn't believe she wouldn't have a section but figured tv was asking us to suspend our disbelief.) Figured it out when the guy said a baby had been left at the fire station and then lit a cigarette, but had no idea before that.

Tough thing for me to buy: the birth dad is so well spoken and lovely, which seems odd for an addict who spent much of his life on the streets. Will this part go another direction as well? Maybe they'll tell us how he pulled himself up or something? Sort of weird.

I disagree. Real people have dimension. We still don't know what the father's background was before he started using. Plenty of people with "normal" lives end up as addicts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watched last night. Loved. Really like the brother/sister dynamic and her budding romance, and loved the twist. (Also couldn't believe she wouldn't have a section but figured tv was asking us to suspend our disbelief.) Figured it out when the guy said a baby had been left at the fire station and then lit a cigarette, but had no idea before that.

Tough thing for me to buy: the birth dad is so well spoken and lovely, which seems odd for an addict who spent much of his life on the streets. Will this part go another direction as well? Maybe they'll tell us how he pulled himself up or something? Sort of weird.

I disagree. Real people have dimension. We still don't know what the father's background was before he started using. Plenty of people with "normal" lives end up as addicts.

Absolutely. Especially these days with addiction frequently stemming from prescriptions. But in the 70s, drug addiction and life on the streets probably didn't affect educated adults that frequently, no? I admit little understanding of the addictive drug culture before 80s coke, so I could be totally off base. I'm just thinking that whatever killed the guy's mom and left his dad homeless wasn't your 70s pot/LSD. Maybe I'm way off base.