MovieChat Forums > The Honeymooners (1955) Discussion > Why no children?

Why no children?

posted 14 years ago by cuzzucr1
43 replies | jump to latest

I've read that Gleason didn't write in children so they could keep it simple, use certain jokes, etc.

By using the actors ages, Alice is 29, and Ralph is 39. Factor in that they are married 14-15 years. That means they got married when Alice was 16. Just seems odd, especially when their best friends and neighbors, the Nortons, are in the same situation. I guess there was no time to explore and develop this situation is just 39 episodes. Haha.

What I really want to say is I have a crush on Alice Kramden. She was so pretty and had the coolest hair on TV!

“Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull?”

[–] McGannahanSkjellyfetti 9 years ago

They did have children. They named them Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm...

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] McGannahanSkjellyfetti 9 years ago

If the Kramdens or the Nortons for that matter wound up with children, that would truly be a jump the shark moment. The show definitely works well WITHOUT them having kids. Having kids would slow things down. They would just get in the way of the storylines and the comedy routines. If people REALLY want to see the Honeymooners with children, they can go watch the Flintstones... 

[–] liscarkat (19396) 5 years ago

Believe it or not, many people just do not have any interest in children.

[–] Keelai (36124) 5 years ago

Not all couples can have children because of fertility problems. I just assume that's the issue with both couples. In reality, child actors are harder to work with and there are child labor laws. This show was filmed live.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I must have missed the part about how long they had been married. I thought they were recently married. I never really gave it a lot of thought. As you say, many people don’t have children, and they don’t need to explain it.