I don't know about anyone else, but Helen WAS a flake - Yours, Mine & Ours (2005) Discussion

[–] audree7593 16 years ago

If you'd like to know how the 'real' Helen did things (yes, the original movie was based on a book written by the mother of the real family), I encourage you to read the book. The original movie went for some laughs because 'Lucy' (Lucille Ball) played the mother, but it did get some facts right. This remake completely departed from reality.

The book is called Who Gets the Drumstick? and was written by Helen Beardsley. I found it in my library system; it's also available at Amazon.

God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

reply

[–] dfortier5 16 years ago

The real Helen was exact opposite of the Helen in the 2005 movie.

"I'd rather believe what I believe and be wrong than believe what you believe and be wrong."

reply

[–] sun78 16 years ago

The real Helen was exact opposite of the Helen in the 2005 movie-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's because back in the day when Helen was the mother of all those kids, parents didn't take as much crap from their kids as they do now. Parents actually disciplined their kids. They actually punished them. I'm getting a certifercate in early childhood education and the word "punish" is a bad word. It's been replaced by discipline. The word "rules" is also bad and has been replaced with limits. It's pathetic. No wonder so many kids are so disrespectful.
I also used to work in a daycare until I was laid off last year. There was one little girl who we all knew was very spoiled. She lived with her father and his family, I don't think the mother was in the picture. This little girl had her father wrapped around her fingers. She could be a little turd and usually would not listen well. She was 3 or 4 at the time, but was not at all stupid. This child knew how to listen to adults, she just chose not to. There was one day where she said the words mother f-----. It wasn't out of anger or anything. She said something like "my daddy has a mother f-----. This came out of the mouth of a preschooler. Children back in the real Helen's day didn't even know such words because usually men didn't swear in front of women and children. I didn't even know such words until I was much older and I'm in my mid-twenties.
Anyways, back to the story. I didn't discipline this child or even send her to time out. I told her that we don't use those kinds of words and wrote a note in her file. I blame her father for that because he seemed like the kind of guy who probably thought it was funny to hear his kid say bad words.

All I have to say is that parents these days let their kids run the show and it's pathetic. I've been seeing news article on this conservative news site called Worldnetdaily about spanking becoming illegal. I'm like "excuse me, but the government has no right to tell a parent how to raise and discipline their children." Like I said in my first post, spanking is not bad as long as it's done sparingly and NEVER in anger.

reply

[–] dfortier5 16 years ago

A few years ago in Canada the supreme court declared that reasonable spanking was an acceptable form of punishment for children.

I don't like Judge Judy. In fact I think she's a tyrant and complete idiot, who lives in lala land, but I did like it one time when I happen to hear her say to a kid "Your parents own the air you breath." That is the way it's been in my house. NONE of my kids rebelled as teans. The trick to parenting is having control over your children. Teachers have always complimented us on how well our children were raised. We've received many compliments over the years that we were good parents. At least they recognized it and although it embarassed us to receive the compliments, we were very proud of our work.

"I'd rather believe what I believe and be wrong than believe what you believe and be wrong."

reply

[–] jaynemanfieldscar 14 years ago

um wow OWN the air they breathe? thats just wicked. my parents do not control my right to live or anything like that. i obey them adn they are NOT my freaking jailors or dictators. they do not have 'control' over me, they set rules and i choose to obey them coz they gently told me i needed to. THAT is the "trick" to getting your kids to be good, not ruling over them with an iron fist like you Hitlers seem to think. cant wait till your kids do drugs or end up pregnant or even cuss.

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

You're right, smileyfacesteph. You don't know about me. I don't think Helen was a flake, and Frank was a jerk for calling her one especially in front of her kids. She was just a relaxed and patient parent who knew that being in a family wasn't all about rules and discipline, and it's not. Also, Frank was actually the one who told the 2 little kids that drawing all over his silly board was naughty. Helen told them it wasn't a good idea and reminded them that the chart was very important to Frank and they should apologize, and they did. And since when is it being a flake to tell your kids you're disappointed in them? My mom would've said the same thing if me or my siblings threw a party w/o her permission and she's not a flake. Honestly, what sounds more like a parental thing to say in a situation like that; "I'm very disappointed in you" or "FALL IN! FRONT AND CENTER!"? Helen obviously was a good parent for knowing what her kids wanted, and let's face it, what kid actually WANTS to be disciplined?
So just think about what I just said and Helen will seem like less of a "flake". Thanks!

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

1 other thing, if you were listening to Helen after Frank used the term "flake" at her, she explained to him her "falkish" ways in a way anyone could understand. She did not feel that having rules was useful because she only lived by 1 rule, which was, "At any time, all of this could be over. Taken away from you forever." And in many ways, that is the only rule anybody should live by. What's the point in living on something that frustrated you if it's done forever? Plus, if you think about it, that was pretty much the moral of the story. By the end of the film, the kids grew to like each other, the parents stopped fighting, and they all lived happily ever after. I still don't see how you could be so hard on Helen, especially after seeing Frank's parenting. Not that Frank was a bad parent, but if I were in his family, I would've run away and joined the circus by the time I could walk. Why would anyone wanna live in a house that's expected to be clean all the time just cuz the man of the house likes it? "A clean ship is a happy ship," Frank said. But the last time I checked, THEY DON'T LIVE ON A FREAKING SHIP!!!! And his brainwashed kids only referred to him as Admiral or Sir and in return he called them his "crew" (while Helen's kids called her Mom and she called them her kids), they wore tucked-in collared shirts, slacks, and loafers around the house, they acted like they actually lived in the military, and they were evil little brats (but that's another story).

reply

[–] Crossingthegulf 15 years ago

I stepped in a house the other day that could have used Frank Beardsley. The clutter was insane, and I sat on a couch that had at least inch layer of dirt on it. It was disgusting.

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

"Homes are for free expression, NOT for good impressions." - Helen North

reply

[–] Crossingthegulf 15 years ago

Then they succeded.

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

That's the spirit!

reply

[–] Crossingthegulf 15 years ago

though part of me wonders why a house could not be for both. it could be for good impressions and free expressions.

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

That's what my mom says every time I tell her that. She always insists on having a spotless, perfect house whenever we have relatives visiting, even if it's just for an hour or so. And when I remind her of what Helen said, she says, "Most of the time that's true, but when you have company homes are for good impressions." I think Helen just had that sort of "I don't care what people think of me" attitude. She probably knew people thought her house was a mess but as long as she and her kids liked it like that, she must've not cared what people thought of her. I'm not denying that her house was disorganized, but honestly I think organization is more for work rather than homes. Someone might wanna tell that to Frank. I mean room assignments? Bathroom schedules? Chore charts? Nutcase!

reply

[–] Crossingthegulf 15 years ago

I must admit I have never lived in a spotless house. I am too lazy to achieve such a thing. In truth clean to me is emptying the trash cans and sweeping the floor. Also making sure there are no crumbs on the table or counters. But the bathroom schedule thing I can agree with being nutty.

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

Lol that's my definition of clean too. Well and dust kinda drives me crazy, but otherwise I would hardly consider myself a neat freak. I'd feel right at home if I was in Helen's family. I'm artsy just like them and I love to sing. Plus I have several friends who are the definition of "free spirits". Most of them are tree huggers, vegetarians, some are punk rockers, very much like Helen's kids. Maybe that's why the 1st time I saw the movie, I thought the Norths were supposed to be the "normal" family and the Beardsleys were the creepy, brainwashed family... actually I still think that lol. Plus the fact that the Norths call Helen mom as opposed to the Beardslys who call their dad Admiral or Sir (creepy).

reply

[–] ixfireprincessxl 15 years ago

They called Frank sir/admiral as a sign of respect. do you remember in the beginning when Frank was getting ready for his date and he told his youngest, Ethan that he could call him dad but he still called him admiral?

Believe it or not back in the day children addressed their elders as sir and ma'am as a sign of respect but also used informal as well. sir was much more common than dad.

also i'm all for living life but come on. in the beginning if aldo had been a few inches off when he fell off the ladder he would've had a concussion and an ER visit. and Dylan is just a future vandalist.

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

Yes I do remember Frank saying that, but the fact that all the kids only called him dad about 10 percent of the time is just awkward.

I do find that believable, but this isn't the old days. These days, kids call their parents Mom and Dad.

I'm not denying that thing about Aldo, but fortunately he landed on those pillow things and sparkles flew everywhere (LOL by the way). And I will admit Dylan wasn't my favorite of the North kids but I think he had enough of a conscience to avoid vandalism and prison. Every family has at least one "bad" kid and the Norths had Dylan. Then again, Naoko seemed like a bit of a hardcore chick but her hobby would never get her arrested.

Also, maybe he would be a future vandalist but William was a present know-it-all, Christina was a present skank, Harry was a present crybaby (then again I do kinda feel for him what with having to move all the time but still all he ever did was mope about it), Michael was a present punk, and the twins were present screaming brats. But I liked Ethan and tolerated Kelly.

reply

[–] ixfireprincessxl 15 years ago

i didn't think that Christina was a skank. They actually made her slightly less of a stereotypical cheerleader by not going after Phoebe's bf. To me Dylan was the rotten kid of the Norths. He was somewhat cocky and always had something sarcastic to say. and Ethan was the Gold star of the Beardsley. He pretty much saved them from completely sucking in the beginning.

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

I agree with you on the part about Phoebe's boyfriend but until the middle I just thought Christina was totally unoriginal. A blonde cheerleader/queen bee who looks down on other girls, constantly insults their taste in clothes, and does that annoying hissy sound every time she's ticked off. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a character like that before. Phoebe was more original, humble, down to earth, and pretty. And maybe you're right about Dylan's sarcasm, but I thought he was funny. "I AM asleep." "Mom get's married and we get drafted." "Have 'em catch you and Phoebe together?" Those are all classic! Besides, the Beardsleys kind of deserved to be insulted by him. When they're on the dad's boat, he's taking a nap then Christina, who totally saw him there, starts throwing rope on him and not caring. The rope gets stuck on his foot, then they "raise the jib", and up Dylan goes. The Beardsleys all laugh at him, he goes, "GET ME DOWN!", and they're like, "Ok," and instead of lowering him slowly like nice people would do, they all let go and almost kill him. Then they all laugh at him and Michael (who makes me sick by the way) calls him a loser. If I were Dylan, I would never be nice to people who almost killed me on purpose.

reply

[–] jaynemanfieldscar 14 years ago

phoebe was NOT original.... OR humble. you see characters with exactly the same bland, "down to earth", "nice girl but dont you dare cross her cause she'll get you and WIN" personality who can never do wrong, but when she does (like throw the party or trick christina) it's ok cuase shes the one we're "supposed" to like Phoebe sneaky, conniving, at LEAST as vain as christina, and was making out with the guy like an animal in front of everyone and started drama with christina. sounds like a skank to me. christina was pretty realistic and was not nearly as preppy and mean as Hollywood adores making cheerleaders seem (IRL, they are NOT like that). christina was pretty too, but what is this, a disney movie, where beauty = goodness?

also, the Norths started all the fighting. what did the Beardsleys do to deserve thinking the house was on fire? oh yeah, those "humble, down to earth" Norths didn't wike dem

reply

[–] blynnpatton 15 years ago

I agree. She should have still let them know she was disappointed, and disciplined them at the same time. I agree with what you said about spankings if it isn't abusive. Spanking, however, probably wouldn't be appropriate for older children.

Also, the discipline or consequence needs to work for an individual child. Take time outs, for example. A child who does not like to sit still will probably be more motivated by a time out than a child who is a daydreamer.

reply

[–] kristen1165 12 years ago

The thing is that all we got to see is Helen saying she was disappointed,and then Frank flying off the handle. He didn't give her a chance to do or say anything else. He just wanted to bend them over and spank them before having any rational discussion.

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

Ok, I will admit that Helen wasn't exactly a disciplinarian. Regardless, she was still a good parent who loved her kids and let them know that. And she was a much better parent than most I hear about in the real world. I went to public elementary, middle, and high school. I can't tell you guys how many kids I've met whose parents couldn't care less about their actions, who had their kids at very young ages, who had like five kids from all different fathers, and some kids' parents weren't even married. Heck, some kids even thought it was strange that my parents got married and THEN had kids. Can you believe that?
Also, you guys honestly think HELEN was a flake just for going, "I'm very disappointed in you," to her kids? You wanna know what a flake is? My ninth grade English teacher and my eleventh grade Spanish teacher. My English teacher honestly spent more time on her phone and computer than she did teaching my class. And if someone would start slacking off and talking, she'd just be like, "Get to work," without even looking up. As for my Spanish teacher, he was the worst teacher I've ever had in ANY subject/grade. The whole class was like a circus! Everyone was screaming at each other, throwing stuff, and our teacher never did anything. Heck, sometimes the students would even scream at him! And if he saw someone throw something, he'd just give them a look and then get back to lecturing us. It was so bad, I had to transfer to another class. Helen was far better at gaining control of her kids than they were.

reply

[–] blynnpatton 15 years ago

That's true, but this was a just a movie. In real life, it works better if kids have discipline and boundaries. They didn't really explain how she disciplined her children.

I don't think Helen was a flake for telling her kids no that she was disappointed in their actions. I never said that. Sometimes it's okay if that's all you say to a child when they do something wrong. Other times, other consequences work better. Also, different discipline techniques work better in some situations and for some children. It depends on the child.

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

I know YOU never said she was a flake. I was actually referring to the original poster for being all like, "All she did was say she was disappointed in them," and the people who agree with that. Anyway, that's what my mom says too. She says all kids need to be disciplined in different ways. If they do something wrong, they have to pay the consequences. Let's admit it, Helen's kids may have been a bit wild, but they weren't bad kids. They never did anything to truly get busted for.

reply

[–] blynnpatton 15 years ago

The only thing they did that could have resulted in an arrest was the party. The children of the family didn't order beer, but apparently some of their "friends" ordered beer without their knowledge.

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

True. Plus the $379.00 (plus tip) worth of pizza that they didn't pay for cuz Frank scared everyone away before the kids could get the money. I always wondered if they ever payed for it.

reply

[–] blynnpatton 15 years ago

The party really got out of hand.

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

The kids should have put more consideration into who should've been invited.

reply

[–] blynnpatton 15 years ago

I agree. The problem was that their goal for having the party was to break their parents up. They didn't even think that all the way through. If they had, they would have thought about the heartache their parents were going to suffer.

reply

[–] kaw0964 15 years ago

That is rather common though. From time to time, we all tend to not think some things all the way through and when we finally get what we originally wanted, we realize that we've made a terrible mistake. At least the kids fixed it in the end.

reply

[–] blynnpatton 15 years ago

That's true. It certainly was the case in this movie. They were really sorry when they thought they had split up their family.

reply

[–] Crossingthegulf 15 years ago

Was William ever actually sorry? That was the one thing that bothered me about the film. It never seemed like there repentance on his part, that they only reason wanted to stay was because he wanted to be class president and not because he wanted the family to be together. Or maybe I am being too harsh?

reply

[–] blynnpatton 15 years ago

They didn't do a good job with his character showing remorse, but I think it's implied. He didn't want the family to stay together because of his presidency. He made the final decision to go get his dad after his littlest brother pleaded with him. His little brother told him that he didn't want to loose another mother. He was just going to walk off and ignore the other kids until his little brother stopped him.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]