Talk:Nurse Jackie

|class=C|importance=Low}}

PR

I wonder if Showtime to could think up more mixed metaphors to describe the show: "a high wire act... juggling" "juggling... daily grind."

If they need a writer to make $12,000 an episode who can actually write in proper vernacular, they should perhaps recruit some starving, soon-to-be-out-of-work college writing instructors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.60.230 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess what, it's the regular-salaried people in the Showtime PR department who write the promo copy, not the WGA members who write the series itself. Also, a talk page is a place to discuss the article, not editor opinions on the show or its marketing.— TAnthony^Talk 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Critical Response

I added a small section about the critical response. Please expand with more reviews if you have the time. GRHooked (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. How about this: Brent Bozell complaining (This Is Your Nurse On Drugs by Brent Bozell) about a show by "Twisted Hollywood and its twisted parade of tastemakers" starring a woman who is "a filthy degenerate" playing God ("anything approaching the right moral course would completely ruin all the 'black comedy' fun Showtime is having"). Asteriks (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, just be sure to sound neutral. GRHooked (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideological reviews of any topic are going to be nothing short of -- ideological. Who expects Nurse Jackie to be liked by conservative Christians? This is a joke and has no place in an article like this. It's an attempt by social conservatives to curb art and social analysis to preserve their religious pursuits. Has nothing to do with art. -- Ogidog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.121.160 (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The reviews/praise/criticism are handled fairly and in a neutral manner; the info on Bozell's comment makes it clear that he a Christian conservative, and as he is a notable person, it is certainly notable that he has singled it out for derision. By the way, I personally think he's an idiot and a zealot, but I think this info has a place in the article.— TAnthony^Talk 19:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, he doesn't have a place in the article because the purpose of such reviews are not to critique art, but to evaluate whether the show conforms with a set of religious and social beliefs. This is why it should be removed. Think about it this way, we all know how the Christian conservatives (or any religious conservatives for that matter) would react to pretty much anything. If their "reviews" are predictable, being that their tenets are so well-known, then why even bother publishing it.

Nonetheless, this is the first time I see that anyone is including religious commentary into an review of TV show and I think it's inappropriate and reeks of agenda. --Ogidog

I don't see any difference between someone criticizing a show because they find it blasphemous and someone criticizing it because they think the writing or acting is poor. I know this guy probably bashes any show that he finds anti-Christian, but I actually find this type of controversy more notable than a TV Guide reviewer saying a show is slow or stupid. Other articles do have similar controversy, like Dan Quayle questioning Murphy Brown's family values or the Vatican (and others) calling for a boycott of The Da Vinci Code film. We can certainly debate the merits of this particular opinion by this particular individual, but don't tell me that religious backlash isn't a notable point of view. And I'm a gay guy who doesn't go to church, so I'm not defending this viewpoint, I'm defending its right to be presented.— TAnthony^Talk 06:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A review has a purpose to evaluate the artistic value of a piece of art. What they Christian fellow said is actually *not* a review. That's the point. It's an *evaluation* of the work as fitting religious principles/morality. That's why it doesn't belong here. Let's get to the merits of this. Democracy is about the freedom to speak out -- I'm fine with right-wing Christians saying whatever their Jesus-loving selves want to say -- to each their own. But let's call things with their names -- a religious evaluation is not a review in the sense "critical response" is supposed to entail. Therefore I find it oddly misplaced here. Also, if you think it's fair, let's just have a subsection saying "Religious response" and give a place for all religions to state how they feel about the pill-popping nurse Jackie or Murphy Brown or Madonna. Nobody would call the RC Church's outrage with Madonna a "review". Am I clear now? -- Ogidog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.121.160 (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been clear throughout this discussion, I just don't agree with you, and after re-reading the "review" right now, I am still opposed. I have to say that Bozell's summation doesn't really come off as a religious rant. I really like this show, but let's face it, the lead character is seriously flawed. It is his opinion that she is a "degenerate," but as much as the more secular among us might describe her as a well-meaning person who has some f-ed up issues, you can't say his criticisms are baseless. Every review has pointed out that Jackie is no saint, and you are deluding yourself if you think all respectable reviews of television and film focus solely on the "artistic value of a piece of art." Sometimes they just say characters or situations are stupid or unbelievable or crass, and save the flowery analysis for Merchant-Ivory films. Bozell's opinion is extreme but valid, and I really do feel like it would be biased to exclude it. The Variety quote and the criticism from the NY Nurses are no less damning, really. I am interested in other editors' opinions on this though. Perhaps Bozell's reaction could be better presented in the article. The RC Church coming out with a statement criticizing a particular act or performance by Madonna would of course be considered a controversy rather than a "review" because it's a massive religious body. This is one guy empowered by a certain community to judge stuff like this. I don't see the difference between him hating the show because he finds the lead character distasteful and this Entertainment Weekly review of Living Lohan. Everyone has a different opinion of what "trash TV" is.— TAnthony^Talk 05:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Because Jackie for him is "degenerate" since she doesn't conform with Christian morality. Again, his "review" was not a review, it's religious propaganda. The fact that a character is stupid and/or flawed *is an artistic tool. Jackie is, of course, flawed, that's not even the point. It's the inclusion of religious propaganda out of context. This is what they're doing recently -- the zealous religious people -- trying to infuse every aspect of life, to the point where freedom of speech becomes jeopardized. This is why the place for this "review" is under "religious backlash", rather than critical response. To go back to Madonna, it is the same thing when NBC censored her "Live to Tell" live act. I agree that it may have been tacky, but it *got censored only due to the offense to religious morality. So much for the freedom of speech. See, this is not even at issue in more liberal societies. Religion is free and has its place within society, but it's clearly labeled, and far better separated from state. The strength of the Christian right in the United States made their (degenerate??? or I'd just call them intolerant and hypocritical) views become a part of mainstream. Only in America... -- Ogidog

I know the guy is a Christian talking head, but the character is still a pill-popping adulteress who violates the law and the nursing code of ethics as she pleases, it's not necessarily "religious propaganda" to call someone like that a degenerate. I love the character and agree with you that her issues are an artistic tool, but this guy is hardly overstating it. The nurses hate her too.— TAnthony^Talk 03:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the "critical response" section should be used for well known *critics*, not just well-known people. In fact Bozell seems to not put himself in the critics category, referencing critics as a separate entity in his article. All he does is say "critic #1 said this" and "critic #2 said this" and "well that's Hollywood for you, all morally wrong so they can have their fun." Hardly a review of anything at all. JoeD80 (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Season Finale summary

I'll admit I don't have much experience with swallowing morphine or attempting suicide, but I didn't get the impression that Jackie was attempting to kill herself in the season finale. Rather, as a drug addict, it just seemed like she wanted to get high again to deal with stress. Would anyone protest if I updated the summary to reflect this? --Simply Agrestic (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that was editor POV, we can't interpret in our plot summaries. I removed that info and quickly cited the rest, which is lifted from the official website. I'm guessing that most of the plot summaries are taken from Sho.com as well, they should really be rewritten with the site referenced.— TAnthony^Talk 21:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Daughters main/recurring

Why is Jackie's daughter Fiona Peyton listed as a main character and the other daughter Grace as a recurring one? They almost always seem to be in scenes together so I don't understand why there's a distinction? Gymnophoria (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)