Jump to content

Talk:Natalie Teeger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal

[edit]

I removed the controversy section. Seems like a personal opinion, very unencyclopedic. If anybody wants to revert it, please add provenance. JianLi 04:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Controversy==  	 
Natalie summons a heavy amount of dissent among Monk fans, since she is compared to her well-loved 
predecessor Sharona Fleming, Monk's first assistant. Also, Natalie's shift from a tough associate 
to a more light-hearted personality was heavily discussed among fans of the series.

I like her better. Sharona let Monk get away with too much crap. Anyway, none of this needs to be in Natalie Teeger's entry. If there is any more information on her husband's death that might be good.24.131.12.228 18:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her husband died in Kosovo, and is believed to be a coward / deserter after his plane crashed; he supposedly ran off with the supplies and the radio after abandoning his crew. Nothing was proved. Personally, I think it has the potential to serve as the basis for an episode where Monk proves Mitch had heroic motivations. It's a pretty Monk-like thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclinard (talkcontribs) 07:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that proposal. The first mention of "Mitch", her husband, was that he had apparently deserted in Kosovo, taking all the squad's supplies with him ... and that was all anybody knew. Much later there was a mention of him having died in Kosovo, evidently with some recognition or acknowledgement of that death by the Pentagon, which was at least neutral and may have even indicated a heroic death (and thereafter spoken of without any reference to the accusations against him). Perhaps, now that the series is ending with the solution to the murder of Monk's wife, we have an opening for a reunion movie, in which Monk investigates what happened to Mitch. 173.79.237.45 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sure she's good, but I miss Sharona, and I know that no one can truly replace her. --66.218.28.88 06:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic. The talk page is for editorial discussion of changes to the article, it is not a public forum for you to air your personal opinions about the subject of the article. Canonblack 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does she and her daughter live with Adrian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnum17x (talkcontribs) 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, she and Julie live by themselves. Monk has spent the night on Natalie's couch before.216.138.32.72 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie and Monk in love

[edit]

I think that they do love each other, although it's hard to admit it. Adrian is still devoted to Trudy and has sworn off dating until after her murder is solved. But Natalie has captured his attention. And I don't think it's a coincidence that after all these years, she still calls him Mr. Monk. It's a form of denial. Sharona had no trouble calling him Adrian because she regarded him like a brother. I hope the series does develop their chemistry further. I picked up on it from the first episode she appeared. In the episode where Natalie was running for school board, there is a camera shot in the last scene that I took to be a clue. The camera zeros in on Natalie family pictures of her and Mitch, and then goes back to Monk walking away with Natalie and Julie. I think that it meant that he would eventually be a part of the family. What I would love in the series finale is that after Monk solves Trudy's murder, he does eventually marry Natalie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.250.214 (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Deceased Husband

[edit]

I speculate that the name "Mitch" is a subtle jab at Traylor Howard's role in the film Dirty Work, which was generally disliked by critics. In that film, Norm MacDonald stars as Mitch Weaver, and Traylor as his love interest. It seems too unlikely to be a coincidence, but I guess it's possible. Does anyone know of an interview or anything which might support this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.150.131 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]