I would say yes, the last season of AITF sucked. Too much screen time for stephanie to be a new addition. Did like that last season at all.

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
I would say yes, the last season of AITF sucked. Too much screen time for stephanie to be a new addition. Did like that last season at all. I personally enjoyed every season of All in the Family, but I was not very fond of Archie Bunker's Place...

I'd say yes. I liked all seasons of AITF, but Season 9 was too slow-paced. Also, I agree that Stephanie had too much screen time in S9. I loved all of ABP, however.

Originally posted by cheers_rules
I'd say yes. I liked all seasons of AITF, but Season 9 was too slow-paced. Also, I agree that Stephanie had too much screen time in S9. I loved all of ABP, however.


I never agreed with a new character having a lot of screen time. They could have gradually let the viewers get to know Stephanie with occasional appearances but not turning her into a MAIN character over night especially when there was never any kids on the All in the Family set.

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
I would say yes, the last season of AITF sucked. Too much screen time for stephanie to be a new addition. Did like that last season at all.

I thought you said that Archie Bunker's Place was not a spin-off of All In The Family, but rather a continuation of the series under a new name.

Originally posted by GeeBee
I thought you said that Archie Bunker's Place was not a spin-off of All In The Family, but rather a continuation of the series under a new name.


Yeah it actually is a continuation. not a spinoff

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
Yeah it actually is a continuation. not a spinoff


Well, okay then... watch how you word things. If you're not going to follow the rules you made up, why should the rest of us?

Id say Archie Bunker's Place is better.


In fact, I've always like Archie Bunker's Place, but only recently started to enjor All in the Family.
The early seasons of AITF are the best, but ABP is better than the last season of AITF.

For me it just felt kind of strange seeing Archie in his famous house with Billie,Stephanie and Mrs.Cambie,as opposed to Edith,Mike and Gloria.It was like two different worlds in the same setting.

I think it was. To me, it would have made more sense to end AITF with "The Stivics Go West" and then start ABP with "Little Miss Bunker." That's what I would have done.

Carroll O'Connor should have been involved in another type of sitcom because Archie Bunker's Place was nothing but the 10th-13th seasons of All in the Family without Edith, Gloria, and Mike.

Archie Bunker's Place is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. It was too boring and depressing. Without Edith, Mike, and Gloria, the show was not the same. I could see why TVLand did not air it that long.

Originally posted by Michael72581
Archie Bunker's Place is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. It was too boring and depressing. Without Edith, Mike, and Gloria, the show was not the same. I could see why TVLand did not air it that long.


I'm surprised ABP did so well in the ratings

first season-ranked #11
second season-ranked #13
third season-ranked #12
last season-ranked # 22


That was pretty good for a show without Edith, Mike and Gloria and a lot of new characters.

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
I'm surprised ABP did so well in the ratings

first season-ranked #11
second season-ranked #13
third season-ranked #12
last season-ranked # 22


That was pretty good for a show without Edith, Mike and Gloria and a lot of new characters. I was not fond of Archie Bunker's Place..I thought the show was very dull, and Archie alone did not do very well without his supporting cast from All in the Family. I think the reason why ABP did well in the ratings, because Carrol O'Connor has a large fan base, and besides that he is an excellent actor, but his solo-project and spin of All in the Family, was not one of his shinning moments...

Originally posted by ~*Twist Of Kate*~
I think it was. To me, it would have made more sense to end AITF with "The Stivics Go West" and then start ABP with "Little Miss Bunker." That's what I would have done.

Very easy for you to say with hindsight, isn't it? For the record, after the Stivics left, every season after that was said to be their last, and yet they kept continuing. No one knew when the plug was going to be pulled (kind of like Friends), but the network kept wanting to renew the show since it was still very popular.

Jean Stapleton kept saying she wanted out for years. What kept her coming back was the promise that the next season would be the last one, but the show ended up continuing "for one more season". Eventually she stuck to her guns by stipulating that the next season she'd only appear in about a handful of episodes. This is what prompted the show to change from All in the Family to Archie Bunker's Place. Then she quit altogether, which resulted in her character Edith dying.

There was talk of ending the show then, especially since Norman Lear was dead set against killing off Edith, but again, the show was still popular and CBS wanted it to continue. There was talk to have Edith remain alive but never seen, but this would limit all plots and stories to the bar, since you can't show Archie at home without Edith if Edith is still alive (how many trips to relatives could Edith make, especially since the Bunkers really didn't have that much money to spend on airfare?). Also, Carroll O'Connor, having creative control, insisted that he could make the show work not only without Edith but even if Edith were killed off, thus that's what happened. Later on, there was talk of Gloria coming back to the show. That plan soon changed to her starring in her own spin-off when one realizes that having Gloria move back into her father's house with her son while Stephanie is still there would result in contrived, repeated plots. A little too much of 'been there, done that'. Plus, Sally Struthers was attracted to the idea of being the star in her own show instead of being a supporting actress to her original show.

It's easy to see now what could have happened and, more importantly, what SHOULD have happened, but with actors/actresses wanting to stay and then wanting to leave, and the network never making more than another year's committment to the show, there was never really a plan for the show to follow. It simply made itself up as it went along.

Under these circumstances, I think the show did very well indeed...

Ed

Originally posted by Edster2973
Very easy for you to say with hindsight, isn't it? For the record, after the Stivics left, every season after that was said to be their last, and yet they kept continuing. No one knew when the plug was going to be pulled (kind of like Friends), but the network kept wanting to renew the show since it was still very popular.

Jean Stapleton kept saying she wanted out for years. What kept her coming back was the promise that the next season would be the last one, but the show ended up continuing "for one more season". Eventually she stuck to her guns by stipulating that the next season she'd only appear in about a handful of episodes. This is what prompted the show to change from All in the Family to Archie Bunker's Place. Then she quit altogether, which resulted in her character Edith dying.

There was talk of ending the show then, especially since Norman Lear was dead set against killing off Edith, but again, the show was still popular and CBS wanted it to continue. There was talk to have Edith remain alive but never seen, but this would limit all plots and stories to the bar, since you can't show Archie at home without Edith if Edith is still alive (how many trips to relatives could Edith make, especially since the Bunkers really didn't have that much money to spend on airfare?). Also, Carroll O'Connor, having creative control, insisted that he could make the show work not only without Edith but even if Edith were killed off, thus that's what happened. Later on, there was talk of Gloria coming back to the show. That plan soon changed to her starring in her own spin-off when one realizes that having Gloria move back into her father's house with her son while Stephanie is still there would result in contrived, repeated plots. A little too much of 'been there, done that'. Plus, Sally Struthers was attracted to the idea of being the star in her own show instead of being a supporting actress to her original show.

It's easy to see now what could have happened and, more importantly, what SHOULD have happened, but with actors/actresses wanting to stay and then wanting to leave, and the network never making more than another year's committment to the show, there was never really a plan for the show to follow. It simply made itself up as it went along.

Under these circumstances, I think the show did very well indeed...

Ed


I just wish i could ask Norman Lear why a kid was added to the show in the 78-79 season when it was strictly an a adult comedy from 1971-1978.

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
I just wish i could ask Norman Lear why a kid was added to the show in the 78-79 season when it was strictly an a adult comedy from 1971-1978.

To provide conflict and, more importantly, to keep the show fresh. There had to be something done. No way could it have continued with only Archie & Edith. Eventually the ideas would've run dry.

Edith needed someone to defend against Archie since, even though he was abrasive to Edith, no way would he be deliberately cruel to her. She was his world, and she knew it.

It also propelled the show to tackle some ideas and to help maintain its newness:

How were they to provide for a kid when they weren't that rich to begin with? How could they care for a younger kid when they were reaching well over middle age themselves? How will Archie deal with the kid being Jewish? What happens when Stephanie's parents/guardians want her back? How will Archie & Edith react? (Admittedly, this last idea was explored after Edith died, when Stephanie's aunt came by wanting to adopt Stephanie).

Archie needed a foil to contend with, and it had to be someone he couldn't get away from, which is why it was a kid. Half the time Archie had to act more mature than Stephanie and it was hysterical how he tried very hard not to stoop down to her level. Plus, it helped soften Archie, something that needed to happen I think. Characters, like people, if they're any good, evolve, and Archie evolved into a mellowed person.

I'm not saying it was the best way for them to go, but I can understand why they did it. And pretty soon, I warmed up to Stephanie. Yeah, we all know who she was meant to replace (Gloria & Mike), but she also came to possess elements that Archie used to get from in Edith (once she had died). Stephanie encompassed a lot and brought more to the show than took away. In fact, had she left the show at some point, I'd miss her as well...

Ed

Originally posted by Edster2973
To provide conflict and, more importantly, to keep the show fresh. There had to be something done. No way could it have continued with only Archie & Edith. Eventually the ideas would've run dry.

Edith needed someone to defend against Archie since, even though he was abrasive to Edith, no way would he be deliberately cruel to her. She was his world, and she knew it.

It also propelled the show to tackle some ideas and to help maintain its newness:

How were they to provide for a kid when they weren't that rich to begin with? How could they care for a younger kid when they were reaching well over middle age themselves? How will Archie deal with the kid being Jewish? What happens when Stephanie's parents/guardians want her back? How will Archie & Edith react? (Admittedly, this last idea was explored after Edith died, when Stephanie's aunt came by wanting to adopt Stephanie).

Archie needed a foil to contend with, and it had to be someone he couldn't get away from, which is why it was a kid. Half the time Archie had to act more mature than Stephanie and it was hysterical how he tried very hard not to stoop down to her level. Plus, it helped soften Archie, something that needed to happen I think. Characters, like people, if they're any good, evolve, and Archie evolved into a mellowed person.

I'm not saying it was the best way for them to go, but I can understand why they did it. And pretty soon, I warmed up to Stephanie. Yeah, we all know who she was meant to replace (Gloria & Mike), but she also came to possess elements that Archie used to get from in Edith (once she had died). Stephanie encompassed a lot and brought more to the show than took away. In fact, had she left the show at some point, I'd miss her as well...

Ed


IMO, the show should have either ended after the 77-78 season or added another adult to the show. A child had no business on the set of All in the Family.

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
IMO, the show should have either ended after the 77-78 season or added another adult to the show. A child had no business on the set of All in the Family.

And why do you feel this way? You're entitled to your opinion, but I feel differently. The show at that point had made its points known about several controversial issues so what would another adult provide? Did Murray accomplish anything? Even the added exposure given to Barney didn't work. There had to be something sympathetic to Archie's new foil, as well as something that would make Edith bend over backwards for. What better way than for it to be a child? It also helped to serve for those moments where Archie's tenderness came through, like in the times when Gloria lost her baby or when Edith almost died the first time. These were those tearjerker moments that gave more insight to the character as Archie evolved. Stephanie helped with that.

You obviously don't care for her, which is your right. But please come up with something more substantive than saying it's an 'adult' show. The show is more kid-friendly than a lot of the cleaner shows out today. Plus, who's to say that kids back then watched the show when it was aired in prime time? Adults watching the show aren't going to be turned off just because a kid is now in the show. Should the same claim be made for Archie's grandson Joey?

I'm curious as to why you feel that way. One thing's for sure. I'm glad it wasn't cancelled back then. As sad as the show ended, there were still a lot of funny stories to tell and special moments to witness. I'd hate to have missed out on that for the sake of being spared the addition of Stephanie...

Ed

Originally posted by Edster2973
And why do you feel this way? You're entitled to your opinion, but I feel differently. The show at that point had made its points known about several controversial issues so what would another adult provide? Did Murray accomplish anything? Even the added exposure given to Barney didn't work. There had to be something sympathetic to Archie's new foil, as well as something that would make Edith bend over backwards for. What better way than for it to be a child? It also helped to serve for those moments where Archie's tenderness came through, like in the times when Gloria lost her baby or when Edith almost died the first time. These were those tearjerker moments that gave more insight to the character as Archie evolved. Stephanie helped with that.

You obviously don't care for her, which is your right. But please come up with something more substantive than saying it's an 'adult' show. The show is more kid-friendly than a lot of the cleaner shows out today. Plus, who's to say that kids back then watched the show when it was aired in prime time? Adults watching the show aren't going to be turned off just because a kid is now in the show. Should the same claim be made for Archie's grandson Joey?

I'm curious as to why you feel that way. One thing's for sure. I'm glad it wasn't cancelled back then. As sad as the show ended, there were still a lot of funny stories to tell and special moments to witness. I'd hate to have missed out on that for the sake of being spared the addition of Stephanie...

Ed



The Joey character was different because it was Mike and Gloria's son. But to just add a 9 year old out of no where was dumb in my opinion. Archie Bunkers Place should have started a year earlier if they had plans on bringing the Stephanie character on. There was no need to see her during the AITF family era, only the ABP era.

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
The Joey character was different because it was Mike and Gloria's son. But to just add a 9 year old out of no where was dumb in my opinion. Archie Bunkers Place should have started a year earlier if they had plans on bringing the Stephanie character on. There was no need to see her during the AITF family era, only the ABP era.

They had no way of knowing there was to be an Archie Bunker's Place era (some era... it was only 4 years!). Every season after year 5 was projected to be the last one, and this was the case after the Stivics left. Jean Stapleton wanted to be out but kept coming back with the idea that the next season was to be the "last season". Since it turned out not to be the case, she stuck to her guns and told them that the next season she'd only appear sparingly. This is what prompted the show to be retitled to Archie Bunker's Place. Had Jean chosen to appear more frequently, the show wouldn't have been retitled nor retooled to have the bar as the main setting. Stephanie had nothing to do with it.

And your response about Joey being different puzzles me. You said that Stephanie shouldn't have been on the show since it was an adult show and kids had no business being there. But it's ok if the kid is Gloria's kid? How does that change the fact that it was still an adult show? Sometimes your reasoning (or lack thereof) confuses me...

Either way, no matter how much you wish it had been different, what happened is what happened. If you dislike what followed after the Stivic's exits, then simply don't watch the shows. When those episodes get around to being released on DVD, simply don't buy them. Easy enough, no?

Ed

Originally posted by Edster2973
They had no way of knowing there was to be an Archie Bunker's Place era (some era... it was only 4 years!). Every season after year 5 was projected to be the last one, and this was the case after the Stivics left. Jean Stapleton wanted to be out but kept coming back with the idea that the next season was to be the "last season". Since it turned out not to be the case, she stuck to her guns and told them that the next season she'd only appear sparingly. This is what prompted the show to be retitled to Archie Bunker's Place. Had Jean chosen to appear more frequently, the show wouldn't have been retitled nor retooled to have the bar as the main setting. Stephanie had nothing to do with it.

And your response about Joey being different puzzles me. You said that Stephanie shouldn't have been on the show since it was an adult show and kids had no business being there. But it's ok if the kid is Gloria's kid? How does that change the fact that it was still an adult show? Sometimes your reasoning (or lack thereof) confuses me...

Either way, no matter how much you wish it had been different, what happened is what happened. If you dislike what followed after the Stivic's exits, then simply don't watch the shows. When those episodes get around to being released on DVD, simply don't buy them. Easy enough, no?

Ed


I have already stated i'm only buying these seasons on DVD. Seasons 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
I have already stated i'm only buying these seasons on DVD. Seasons 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Hey dude, get a life. I wasn't really concerned about whether you were going to buy the sets or not. I was actually trying to engage in some sort of dialogue. You made a statement about Stephanie not belonging to the show and that it should have ended. I asked why you thought that:

And your response about Joey being different puzzles me. You said that Stephanie shouldn't have been on the show since it was an adult show and kids had no business being there. But it's ok if the kid is Gloria's kid? How does that change the fact that it was still an adult show? Sometimes your reasoning (or lack thereof) confuses me...

But leave it to you to rattle off a one sentence answer that has little to offer to a topic that YOU started. It's about as pointless as the many tirades about Good Times not being a spin-off of Maude.

Good grief...

Ed

Originally posted by Edster2973
Hey dude, get a life. I wasn't really concerned about whether you were going to buy the sets or not. I was actually trying to engage in some sort of dialogue. You made a statement about Stephanie not belonging to the show and that it should have ended. I asked why you thought that:

And your response about Joey being different puzzles me. You said that Stephanie shouldn't have been on the show since it was an adult show and kids had no business being there. But it's ok if the kid is Gloria's kid? How does that change the fact that it was still an adult show? Sometimes your reasoning (or lack thereof) confuses me...

But leave it to you to rattle off a one sentence answer that has little to offer to a topic that YOU started. It's about as pointless as the many tirades about Good Times not being a spin-off of Maude.

Good grief...

Ed

Season 9 was ASS all because of Stephanie. JMO. And if you want to debate the GT topic you can go to the Maude board.

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
Season 9 was ASS all because of Stephanie. JMO. And if you want to debate the GT topic you can go to the Maude board.

Spoken like a kid who needs to get the last word. Dude, your posts are ASS. And no, I don't want to debate the GT topic, because I couldn't care less. It isn't important to me. I have better things to concern myself with, unlike someone else I could name...

ahem...

Originally posted by Edster2973
Spoken like a kid who needs to get the last word. Dude, your posts are ASS. And no, I don't want to debate the GT topic, because I couldn't care less. It isn't important to me. I have better things to concern myself with, unlike someone else I could name...

ahem...



Why is it a problem that I don't like Stephanie character?-LOL

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
Why is it a problem that I don't like Stephanie character?-LOL

Sigh...

It isn't a problem that you dislike the Stephanie character. You just won't elaborate as to why, and I've given ample opportunity for you to do so. The reasons you stated prior just didn't make any sense. Do you comprehend what I write?

It just seems that you get caught up in the minutae instead of the bigger things. This topic had the potential to be an interesting exchange but alas it was not to be:

I ask about Stephanie, you say you dislike her since she had no business being on an adult show.

I ask why is it ok for Joey to be on an adult show, and I ask why a kid would be out of place on an adult show, and you say Gloria's kid is the exception.

I ask why that is and you respond focusing on how you won't buy those seasons if/when they're released on DVD.

It's just a tad tedious, that's all. But I give up, since I honestly don't care one way or the other. The show lasted 5 more years with Stephanie, which shows she had something to offer.

For what it's worth, Steph isn't my favorite, but I liked the direction it gave the series and the impact it had on Archie. It made Archie's softening gradual and believable. There was a depth there that wasn't present before.

I could ask why you dislike that, but you'll probably comment on how she was too young to be with the crew or something inane like that. Either way, I'm done with this thread...

It's been hell... :rolleyes:

Ed

Originally posted by Edster2973
Sigh...

It isn't a problem that you dislike the Stephanie character. You just won't elaborate as to why, and I've given ample opportunity for you to do so. The reasons you stated prior just didn't make any sense. Do you comprehend what I write?

It just seems that you get caught up in the minutae instead of the bigger things. This topic had the potential to be an interesting exchange but alas it was not to be:

I ask about Stephanie, you say you dislike her since she had no business being on an adult show.

I ask why is it ok for Joey to be on an adult show, and I ask why a kid would be out of place on an adult show, and you say Gloria's kid is the exception.

I ask why that is and you respond focusing on how you won't buy those seasons if/when they're released on DVD.

It's just a tad tedious, that's all. But I give up, since I honestly don't care one way or the other. The show lasted 5 more years with Stephanie, which shows she had something to offer.

For what it's worth, Steph isn't my favorite, but I liked the direction it gave the series and the impact it had on Archie. It made Archie's softening gradual and believable. There was a depth there that wasn't present before.

I could ask why you dislike that, but you'll probably comment on how she was too young to be with the crew or something inane like that. Either way, I'm done with this thread...

It's been hell... :rolleyes:

Ed




Honestly i just don't like watching little kids in a sitcom only adults. The youngest character I can tolerate is about 16 and older. Defintely not a preteen.

I'd have to see the reruns of ABP to make any kind of decisions on that one. Haven't seen it since it went off the air in 1983. I can't remember how good it was, but I do remember always missing the Edith character after they killed her off. The scenes at the house were always "darker" or something.

My favorite moments on the last season of AITF were the scenes between Archie and Edith. Didn't really care for the Stephanie character too much.

Originally posted by Jefffalan
I'd have to see the reruns of ABP to make any kind of decisions on that one. Haven't seen it since it went off the air in 1983. I can't remember how good it was, but I do remember always missing the Edith character after they killed her off. The scenes at the house were always "darker" or something.

My favorite moments on the last season of AITF were the scenes between Archie and Edith. Didn't really care for the Stephanie character too much.


I remember another black couple moved next door in 1979 which should have been an idea for the start the 78-79 season instead of bringing on Stephanie. By time the bkack couple was brought on the show was winding down to the END.

Originally posted by Edster2973
Very easy for you to say with hindsight, isn't it?

Ed

There's no need to be rude. I was merely stating my opinion. If you can't post in here without that snippy attitude then please don't bother coming back.

Originally posted by ~*Twist Of Kate*~
There's no need to be rude. I was merely stating my opinion. If you can't post in here without that snippy attitude then please don't bother coming back.


Don't worry about ED, he's on medication-LOL LOL

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
Don't worry about ED, he's on medication-LOL LOL

LOL. He needs a stronger prescription.

Originally posted by ~*Twist Of Kate*~
There's no need to be rude. I was merely stating my opinion. If you can't post in here without that snippy attitude then please don't bother coming back.

My my, we are a *tad* sensitive, aren't we...

For the record, I wasn't copping an attitude. I merely was pointing out that it's easy for us to say what could (or should) have happened since we know how the show ended. When the show was going through this, they didn't know. I even explained it further what was going on. I wouldn't have bothered if all I was trying to accomplish was to be snotty. I mean, why bother? Life's too short for that stuff.

And I'll continue to post here if I want to, even if you're not convinced of my intentions. I think I have enough to say without having to justify it. It's better than some of the discussions that go on here, like who wore what on what episode. Puhleeze. (Now this is me being snippy... :D )

I think a little lightening up (and not medication) is needed, as well as not getting so caught up in the unnecessary minutae (are you listening TVShowAnalyzer?). Just my 2 cents...

Ed

Originally posted by ~*Twist Of Kate*~
LOL. He needs a stronger prescription.

Honey, I ain't the one who needs the St. John's Wort...

Ed

Originally posted by Edster2973
Honey, I ain't the one who needs the St. John's Wort...

Ed


Calm down Ed, it's not serious man-lol

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
Calm down Ed, it's not serious man-lol

I know dude; that's my point... Glad to see *we're* on the same wave length anyway... :D

Ed

I liked Archie Bunker's Place. But it could have captured a little of All in the Family's glory if Edith hadn't got killed off. It doesn't work if the second banana is not around. People just don't know how important the second fiddle is to these shows.

Originally posted by Edster2973
Honey, I ain't the one who needs the St. John's Wort...

Ed


Lose the attitude. I am going to put my foot down. I have zero tolerance for remarks such as the one I quoted above. Just be nice or any more negative posts will be edited.

Originally posted by Brian
Lose the attitude. I am going to put my foot down. I have zero tolerance for remarks such as the one I quoted above. Just be nice or any more negative posts will be edited.

Stamp your foot all you like. I was the one who was said to have need of medication. Where is your stand on that? And all because someone took offense to a prior post of mine that wasn't even meant to be offensive. I mean, why on earth would I write a 5 paragraph explanation of AITF's history just in order to tick someone off? I have better things to do.

Sorry, but I think my comment was warranted. At least it didn't contain vulgar language and it was, at best, a half-hearted attempt at being somewhat humorous, or as humorous as the first attack was on me.

I just think it's a bit off to single out my comment when it was just a response to what was said to me. Perhaps if you had stepped in sooner my 'attitude' wouldn't have had to surface.

Ed

I would agree that the medication comment was unwarranted. But you shouldn't have responded back and carried it on. I'm not putting all the blame on you here.

Your posts sounded really testy to me. It probably sounded that way to the other posters here, too, which is why there was this problem. I'm not saying don't state your opinion. Just don't state it in a way that those who read it don't make them feel like an ass. That's all.

Originally posted by Brian
I would agree that the medication comment was unwarranted. But you shouldn't have responded back and carried it on. I'm not putting all the blame on you here.

Your posts sounded really testy to me. It probably sounded that way to the other posters here, too, which is why there was this problem. I'm not saying don't state your opinion. Just don't state it in a way that those who read it don't make them feel like an ass. That's all.

How does saying "Very easy for you to say with hindsight, isn't it?" sound testy? How could one feel like an ass by reading that? Perhaps there is a bit of OVER sensitivity here.

To isolate that sentence (while ignoring everything else I wrote in that same post) and to read more than what is there is your perogative, but honestly, if you read on, I think it's obvious the spirit that the post was written in. The show had gotten to a point where it was determined to try to do its best but didn't know how to. With actors coming and going, how could it? It was making itself up as it went along. I was trying to explain that.

With hindsight, anyone can see that mistakes were made (killing off Edith I'm still not comfortable with to this very day) but some of the people who complain about the show later on come off as if their viewpoint is a matter of common sense, and I was trying to inform them that it's not always that cut and dried. I think I succeeded in that. For what it's worth, I've had private emails sent to me assuring me of that.

The posts that came later were due to TVShowAnalyzer's lack of support for his statement about Stephanie's involvement. All I was asking for was *why* he felt that way. He hadn't done so, perhaps due to a lack of understanding or what have you. Hence my responses.

There have been several other posts that seem to have been rattled off without much thought. It's almost as if there's really no desire to discuss anything of merit as much as it's people just wanting to kill a few minutes of their time. I mean, how many times can one argue whether Good Times is a spin-off? Who cares really? All I know is it's a show that I consider to be related under the All in the Family umbrella and it's one I also happened to have enjoyed. End of story. I suspect that that is the way with most of us. But TVShowAnalyzer will constantly post about that ad nauseum. And I am far from being the only one who gets annoyed about it.

Why? Because people feel as if their original post that was shared ends up becoming lost in a series of one liners that have absolutely no insight whatsoever. Sometimes it feels as if it's done deliberately because the poster simply has too much time on their hands. It becomes a waste of time. I mean, who cares who wore what on what episode?

If I write in with an interesting thought and that's what it gets reduced to, then yes, I will ask the poster to make his point, which is what I did with TVShowAnalyzer. He kept missing the boat as far as that went. Feeling that I was wasting my time, perhaps I got "testy".

I think under those circumstances I was more than entitled. I don't walk on egg shells for anybody but I also don't think I am deliberately rude. I could be if I wanted to (as could anyone else). Usually, if there's wiggle room when it comes to figuring out if one is being insulting, chances are they're not. If they want to be insulting, they'll be more upfront about it.

I won't pander to people who randomly post in what seems to be an effort to just gain attention, especially if it blocks a well thought out post that I wrote up. Who else would want to contribute to a thread when it's made up of aimless one line posts? The original idea gets buried and lost. And all so a poster can get attention? Sorry, but I think that's the much bigger offense...

Ed

Originally posted by Edster2973
How does saying "Very easy for you to say with hindsight, isn't it?" sound testy? How could one feel like an ass by reading that? Perhaps there is a bit of OVER sensitivity here.

To isolate that sentence (while ignoring everything else I wrote in that same post) and to read more than what is there is your perogative, but honestly, if you read on, I think it's obvious the spirit that the post was written in. The show had gotten to a point where it was determined to try to do its best but didn't know how to. With actors coming and going, how could it? It was making itself up as it went along. I was trying to explain that.

With hindsight, anyone can see that mistakes were made (killing off Edith I'm still not comfortable with to this very day) but some of the people who complain about the show later on come off as if their viewpoint is a matter of common sense, and I was trying to inform them that it's not always that cut and dried. I think I succeeded in that. For what it's worth, I've had private emails sent to me assuring me of that.

The posts that came later were due to TVShowAnalyzer's lack of support for his statement about Stephanie's involvement. All I was asking for was *why* he felt that way. He hadn't done so, perhaps due to a lack of understanding or what have you. Hence my responses.

There have been several other posts that seem to have been rattled off without much thought. It's almost as if there's really no desire to discuss anything of merit as much as it's people just wanting to kill a few minutes of their time. I mean, how many times can one argue whether Good Times is a spin-off? Who cares really? All I know is it's a show that I consider to be related under the All in the Family umbrella and it's one I also happened to have enjoyed. End of story. I suspect that that is the way with most of us. But TVShowAnalyzer will constantly post about that ad nauseum. And I am far from being the only one who gets annoyed about it.

Why? Because people feel as if their original post that was shared ends up becoming lost in a series of one liners that have absolutely no insight whatsoever. Sometimes it feels as if it's done deliberately because the poster simply has too much time on their hands. It becomes a waste of time. I mean, who cares who wore what on what episode?

If I write in with an interesting thought and that's what it gets reduced to, then yes, I will ask the poster to make his point, which is what I did with TVShowAnalyzer. He kept missing the boat as far as that went. Feeling that I was wasting my time, perhaps I got "testy".

I think under those circumstances I was more than entitled. I don't walk on egg shells for anybody but I also don't think I am deliberately rude. I could be if I wanted to (as could anyone else). Usually, if there's wiggle room when it comes to figuring out if one is being insulting, chances are they're not. If they want to be insulting, they'll be more upfront about it.

I won't pander to people who randomly post in what seems to be an effort to just gain attention, especially if it blocks a well thought out post that I wrote up. Who else would want to contribute to a thread when it's made up of aimless one line posts? The original idea gets buried and lost. And all so a poster can get attention? Sorry, but I think that's the much bigger offense...

Ed


If I recall, i told you i didn't like Stephanie because i was never a fan of kids in a TV Sitcom.

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
If I recall, i told you i didn't like Stephanie because i was never a fan of kids in a TV Sitcom.

Here we go again...

Look, there's no need to rehash this. I was merely explaining my posts to Brian, not trying to resurrect your point. Again, I think that is obvious. So why repost this?

You're entitled to feel anything you want, but as I recall I asked you to elaborate on why you disliked kids in a sitcom and you didn't. You're merely proving my point.

Either way, Brian stated that my posts were "testy" and I was explaining why. In order to do so, I had to bring up what went on before. Do not take that as a cue to resurrect the thread and repeat the pattern over again. I am definitely not interested...

Ed

Yes, ABP was better than the last season of All In The Family. I thought on AITF, Stephanie was juse there to look cute, but she showed good acting in ABP, particulary Growing Up Is Hard To Do(2-Parter) and Archie Alone(2-Parter).

Much better because more characters got pulled in. Edith was awesome, in small doses, but she wasn't gonna carry the show and as a result season 9 of AITF just kinda dragged along.

I asked this question in 2004 and didnt realize it wasnt a spinoff just a continuation of the original series. And all the seasons of Archie Bunkers place is better and more watchable than season 1 and 9 of All in the family