Season 4 DVD News? [Archive] - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Edster2973

12-02-2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by vashti1999
No, it's "DAMN DAMN DAMN!!!" :lol: Good Times season 4 still has Esther Rolle. It wasn't all about John Amos.

EXACTLY. Not only that, but there's the rest of the cast that is important as well. Sure, the show wasn't the same without John Amos, but there was still JJ, Thelma, Michael, and especially Willona, not to mention the late, great Florida.

Besides, John Amos wasn't exactly innocent in this. He was a bit of a pain in the booty, as was Esther Rolle. The interviews that I've seen, the actors express their dismay about how the show didn't reflect the 'black' community accurately. Part of me listens to that and I want to yell and say that they should've been grateful to have a job to begin with. It was a high paying and high profile job, something that most 'whites' don't get, let alone 'blacks'.

So the reflection of the 'black' community wasn't as authentic as they would've liked. Sheesh, cry me a river. For crying out loud, I don't think 'women' were reflected accurately either back then, and they're still not, yet no one balks. How about 'gay' people. Most, if not all of the time, they're stereotypical cartoons or whores. And then there's the dumb 'blondes' as well or the so-called dumb 'Polack'. The list goes on and on.

And here we had Esther Rolle & John Amos moaning that Good Times wasn't deeper than it was. Well, sheesh, I could've told you that. It was a comedy for crying out loud, not Shakespeare. Did anyone think that Good Times was a true reflection of 'blacks'? I surely didn't. I'm much smarter than that, and I think most, if not all, the show's audience is as well. Me thinks the actors merely wanted more control. It may have had something to do with how they felt 'blacks' were portrayed, but I think there was also a bit of ego on their end as well.

TVShowAnalyzer is very eager for more season releases of The Jeffersons, and I don't blame him. It was a great show and gave us a lot of laughs. Dude, I hope more seasons do get released. For some reason that show is even slower than the releases of All in the Family. But is The Jeffersons any more a truer reflection of 'blacks' than Good Times was? Hardly. But who cares? It was well acted, it made us laugh, and we all have a fondness for it. End of story.

I think anybody who expects ANY part of our society to be accurately reflected on TV needs to have their heads examined.

With that said, I agree that the quality of Good Times waned once John Amos was killed off, and when Esther Rolle left (and then came back again). But I forgive the show for that. What was the show to do with rebellious and jealous actors? It was trying to make the best out of a bad situation, a situation that these 2 actors were partially responsible for. John Amos & Esther Rolle aren't completely the victim here. If they had been less of a pain in the booty, who knows how things would have turned out?

Sure, the show could've been written better during the last seasons, but would any of us have been able to come up with something better without these 2 actors? Doubt it, and I include myself in that.

There's a proud legacy in Good Times but all I hear is how the show stank for the actors. It'd be nice to hear how grateful they were for what the show did for them instead of hearing complaints all the time. You'd swear that they were in VietNam or something...

Ed

TVFactFan

12-02-2004, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Edster2973
EXACTLY. Not only that, but there's the rest of the cast that is important as well. Sure, the show wasn't the same without John Amos, but there was still JJ, Thelma, Michael, and especially Willona, not to mention the late, great Florida.

Besides, John Amos wasn't exactly innocent in this. He was a bit of a pain in the booty, as was Esther Rolle. The interviews that I've seen, the actors express their dismay about how the show didn't reflect the 'black' community accurately. Part of me listens to that and I want to yell and say that they should've been grateful to have a job to begin with. It was a high paying and high profile job, something that most 'whites' don't get, let alone 'blacks'.

So the reflection of the 'black' community wasn't as authentic as they would've liked. Sheesh, cry me a river. For crying out loud, I don't think 'women' were reflected accurately either back then, and they're still not, yet no one balks. How about 'gay' people. Most, if not all of the time, they're stereotypical cartoons or whores. And then there's the dumb 'blondes' as well or the so-called dumb 'Polack'. The list goes on and on.

And here we had Esther Rolle & John Amos moaning that Good Times wasn't deeper than it was. Well, sheesh, I could've told you that. It was a comedy for crying out loud, not Shakespeare. Did anyone think that Good Times was a true reflection of 'blacks'? I surely didn't. I'm much smarter than that, and I think most, if not all, the show's audience is as well. Me thinks the actors merely wanted more control. It may have had something to do with how they felt 'blacks' were portrayed, but I think there was also a bit of ego on their end as well.

TVShowAnalyzer is very eager for more season releases of The Jeffersons, and I don't blame him. It was a great show and gave us a lot of laughs. Dude, I hope more seasons do get released. For some reason that show is even slower than the releases of All in the Family. But is The Jeffersons any more a truer reflection of 'blacks' than Good Times was? Hardly. But who cares? It was well acted, it made us laugh, and we all have a fondness for it. End of story.

I think anybody who expects ANY part of our society to be accurately reflected on TV needs to have their heads examined.

With that said, I agree that the quality of Good Times waned once John Amos was killed off, and when Esther Rolle left (and then came back again). But I forgive the show for that. What was the show to do with rebellious and jealous actors? It was trying to make the best out of a bad situation, a situation that these 2 actors were partially responsible for. John Amos & Esther Rolle aren't completely the victim here. If they had been less of a pain in the booty, who knows how things would have turned out?

Sure, the show could've been written better during the last seasons, but would any of us have been able to come up with something better without these 2 actors? Doubt it, and I include myself in that.

There's a proud legacy in Good Times but all I hear is how the show stank for the actors. It'd be nice to hear how grateful they were for what the show did for them instead of hearing complaints all the time. You'd swear that they were in VietNam or something...

Ed

Esther Rolle and John Amos main argument was the Oldest Son looking and acting TOO STUPID. John Amos said when they made the J.J character wear that chicken on top of his head, he was DONE.

Edster2973

12-02-2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
Esther Rolle and John Amos main argument was the Oldest Son looking and acting TOO STUPID. John Amos said when they made the J.J character wear that chicken on top of his head, he was DONE.

This is precisely the point I'm making. Why should it have mattered whether JJ was wearing a chicken on top of his head? Granted, it is a bit foolish, but to be honest, it's not the very first thing I think of when I think of Good Times. This is simply a case of them taking themselves too seriously. The show wasn't meant to be anything other than a comedy, and Esther Rolle & John Amos sometimes made it sound like it was part of the Martin Luther King, Jr. campaign. They took the show too seriously. Sure, it might have benefitted from some of their input, but surely, the way they decided to handle their argument was less than sound. In the end, it's the fans who ended up losing out. This show could've gone far longer (with the original cast intact) if it weren't for these unnecessary politics...

C'est la vie...

Ed

TVFactFan

12-02-2004, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Edster2973
This is precisely the point I'm making. Why should it have mattered whether JJ was wearing a chicken on top of his head? Granted, it is a bit foolish, but to be honest, it's not the very first thing I think of when I think of Good Times. This is simply a case of them taking themselves too seriously. The show wasn't meant to be anything other than a comedy, and Esther Rolle & John Amos sometimes made it sound like it was part of the Martin Luther King, Jr. campaign. They took the show too seriously. Sure, it might have benefitted from some of their input, but surely, the way they decided to handle their argument was less than sound. In the end, it's the fans who ended up losing out. This show could've gone far longer (with the original cast intact) if it weren't for these unnecessary politics...

C'est la vie...

Ed

The point they were making was the J.J character was getting too old to be acting so silly.

jamesanthony

12-02-2004, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Edster2973
TVShowAnalyzer is very eager for more season releases of The Jeffersons, and I don't blame him. It was a great show and gave us a lot of laughs. Dude, I hope more seasons do get released. For some reason that show is even slower than the releases of All in the Family. But is The Jeffersons any more a truer reflection of 'blacks' than Good Times was? Hardly. But who cares? It was well acted, it made us laugh, and we all have a fondness for it. End of story.

Ed

Ed, you raise a good point about these shows being exaggerated, but for some reason Good Times was always considered to be more of a show that had a social impact than the Jeffersons which is considered by a lot of the critical analyses that I've come across to be more like traditional entertainment.

I've read a lot of analyses that considered Good Times to be a show that was saddled with the responsibility of addressing serious social issues. And it was the first show to depict an entire African American family: father, mother and kids- and they were lower income at that- so a lot of sociologists, journalists, the NAACP etc looked to this series to be something that was way more than just escapism, but a show that would educate white America about the urban black experience. Things like JJ with the chicken or the cow on his head were viewed as being coonish and many blacks and liberal whites and others were deeply offended by this because they thought that the average white who had limited or no interactions with blacks would think all young black males were ignorant like JJ and that young black males would copy JJ's not so studious behavior.

The Jeffersons was never put under the same scutiny and one major reason is that not only were George and Weezy upwardly mobile, but Lionel was educated (he and Jenny eventually got advanced degrees)- those characters exemplified the American dream. That series reinforced the idea that anyone can make it with hard work and determination. The Good Times family was poor on top of being black and the show was designed for them to stay poor for the entire duration of the series, so it just invited a lot more scutiny and made it a show that had to bear a heavy weight on its shoulders.

Had James lived, theoretically James and Florida could have gotten their GEDs (did Florida ever get hers? Did she need it to drive a school bus in the 70s? I don't know). They could have both enrolled in community college or some sort of job training program and gotten out of the projects. At the very least if JJ had gotten the ad exec job while James was still alive he could've moved out and they would've been doing better. If Thelma had married Keith or Larry or whoever they would've moved out too and they'd probably have a little money to give Michael a chance to move out too if he wanted to go to a dorm or something. But this was a show that was designed to keep all of those characters in that project apartment up until the very last episode. In that regard, I'm glad it only ran 6 seasons, because any more seasons of those people stuck in that project apartment would've been depressing.

Jefffalan

12-02-2004, 08:31 PM

While I can see both sides of the argument, in my opinion Esther Rolle and John Amos were the very backbone of "Good Times", and without them the show floundered and eventually came down. First the crucial blow of Amos leaving and his character being killed off in an auto accident, and then Esther Rolle quitting and her character moving to Arizona. These were two leads that truly held the show together. J.J. provided the laughs, Rolle and Amos were the HEART. If you don't believe it, watch the episodes with them and then catch a few after they were gone. JMO

Lady T

12-02-2004, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Jefffalan
While I can see both sides of the argument, in my opinion Esther Rolle and John Amos were the very backbone of "Good Times", and without them the show floundered and eventually came down. First the crucial blow of Amos leaving and his character being killed off in an auto accident, and then Esther Rolle quitting and her character moving to Arizona. These were two leads that truly held the show together. J.J. provided the laughs, Rolle and Amos were the HEART. If you don't believe it, watch the episodes with them and then catch a few after they were gone. JMO I agree, but when both Amos and Rolle was not on Good Times, the show did loose a lot of depth when the main lead character and focus point on a lot of the episodes from the latter seasons were based around JJ. I believe the show lost a little of it's deversity without the strong and soild pressence of John Amos, and little of the show's original heart and soul when Esther Rolle departure from the 5th season.

robby76

12-03-2004, 01:11 AM

I think any loss of a main character will have a direct affect on any show. I'm sure if JJ left instead of Amos/Rolle, the show would've lost just as many if not more fans/viewers!

Edster2973

12-03-2004, 01:17 AM

My point that I'm trying to make is that Amos & Rolle were partially responsible for their leaving. I'm not saying their absences had no effect on the show; of course they did, but they're not just the victims here. There was jealousy on their part of Jimmy Walker (whether they thought JJ was a clown is immaterial; they resented Walker's success since he was an unknown while they were the seasoned pros) as well as their need to have more control.

In essence, the writers aren't the only ones to blame when it came to Good Times descent into mediocrity. Had there been less ego involved all around, things might have turned out differently...

Ed

robby76

12-03-2004, 08:25 AM

I came to that conclusion to. You can tell some of the cast are envious of JJ getting the biggest laugh. I almost felt a pity for Jimmy Walker having to work knowing all the issues that were going on. Oh well that's showbusiness I suppose.

vashti1999

12-06-2004, 10:26 AM

Here's the season 4 cover

Caffeine King

12-06-2004, 05:21 PM

:D I can't wait!!!

I just came over here to post the DVD cover but I see I've already been beaten! :p

robby76

12-06-2004, 09:59 PM

Isn't that the exact same picture used for Season 2, but with Bookman superimposed in and John Amos taken out? Do they not have original cast photo's to use?

Caffeine King

12-06-2004, 10:59 PM

It's a bit different.

JJ's other arm is on Florida's shoulder whereas in the season 4 cover it's down.

And they're all closer together.

It looks alot the same though...

Maybe they got cheap and did something with a computer kinda like you said. :o

robby76

12-07-2004, 10:53 AM

How big was Bookmans role in Season 4 and did his character change at all.... like was he more likeable/funnier?

Caffeine King

12-07-2004, 08:57 PM

I think he might've been on the main credits or he could've been just recurring...I'm not sure though, I forget.

I think that he was just as stupid as he always was.

I thought it was so stupid how they're in the ghetto yet he could just barge right in when they supposedly couldn't stand him.

Edster2973

12-07-2004, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Caffeine King
I think he might've been on the main credits or he could've been just recurring...I'm not sure though, I forget.

His role and visibility was increased after John Amos was fired, and especially after Esther Rolle left the show. He was a minor character, admittedly, but he still had appeal with the audience as the foil. Plus, his character gave plenty of fodder for landlord and overweight jokes, particularly 'buffalo butt'. The producers used what worked with the show, which was Goodman, and tried to use the character to help maintain interest in the show. It's debatable whether it worked as far as Goodman is concerned. Either way, I don't think the decline of Good Times had to do with upping Goodman's visibility.

Originally posted by Caffeine King
I think that he was just as stupid as he always was.

I thought it was so stupid how they're in the ghetto yet he could just barge right in when they supposedly couldn't stand him.

Well, again Good Times isn't real life. It was a comedy, plain and simple. Plus, his barging in could be excused with the notion that the Evans allowed him that luxury since it always seemed that Goodman could evict them if they ticked him off enough. Since he apparently had that trump card, it was in their best interest to not ruffle his feathers too much except with the verbal diatribes.

Again, it may not make the most sense, but it was a TV show. It was meant to entertain and hopefully enlighten, but not to depict life as it really is. If any show tried to do that back then, the censors would never allow such a thing to air.

It's too bad John Amos & Esther Rolle didn't come to this realization about the merit of the show. Had their egos not gotten out of whack, especially with their jealousy over Jimmy Walker's celebrity, the show might have enjoyed a longer, more substantive run. They're as much to blame for the show's decline as the writers are...

Ed

Caffeine King

12-07-2004, 11:06 PM

If any show tried to do that back then, the censors would never allow such a thing to air.
Then why did the censors let All In The Family air?

It's too bad John Amos & Esther Rolle didn't come to this realization about the merit of the show. Had their egos not gotten out of whack, especially with their jealousy over Jimmy Walker's celebrity, the show might have enjoyed a longer, more substantive run. They're as much to blame for the show's decline as the writers are...
I see what you're saying but wasn't it supposed to depict what life is like in the ghetto and going through hard times?

Then it became The JJ Show, IMO.

Edster2973

12-07-2004, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Edster2973
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If any show tried to do that back then, the censors would never allow such a thing to air.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Caffeine King
Then why did the censors let All In The Family air?

Even All in the Family didn't depict life as it really is. There's a lot more swearing in real life for starters. Sure, it came close, but ultimately its real goal was to entertain.

Originally posted by Edster2973
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's too bad John Amos & Esther Rolle didn't come to this realization about the merit of the show. Had their egos not gotten out of whack, especially with their jealousy over Jimmy Walker's celebrity, the show might have enjoyed a longer, more substantive run. They're as much to blame for the show's decline as the writers are...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Caffeine King
I see what you're saying but wasn't it supposed to depict what life is like in the ghetto and going through hard times?

Then it became The JJ Show, IMO.

Of course it was supposed to depict life in the ghetto and how they went through hard times. Don't you think it lived up to that? I think so. I just don't think any of us should look to it as gospel, that's all. Obviously things are going to have a certain slant, since 1) it's a TV show and 2) it's a comedy. Perhaps if the show had been a drama instead of a comedy, it would've been more realistic, but it wasn't a drama, and the show, being a comedy, had one major responsibility: to make people laugh.

Perhaps the only way to do that without appearing to belittle the Evans' hard life in the ghetto was to make JJ the fool of the comedy. Who knows? As far as it being the JJ show, I concur that sometimes it felt that way. Then there were times I think the show got too preachy and that it took center stage through Mike Evans (who knew way too much for someone his age). Sometimes it felt like it was 'The Militant Midget Show'. Or Willona (one of my favorites) sometimes got the better joke, making it feel like 'The Willona Show'. It's always hard to find a balance I suppose.

It wasn't always about JJ. How could it be? Other than the dynomite phrase and his painting ambitions, dating and fights with Thelma (which all got old by the 7th episode), there's nothing really interesting that could have been done with him. JJ needed the other characters, make no mistake about it. That's why I think it was foolish for John Amos & Esther Rolle to feel so threatened of him. Their feelings of neglect or unimportance was unnecessary.

About their argument: Had the show been more realistic, I suspect we the viewers would've gone for the ride, but that's only because we grew to care for these characters and what happened to them. This was a result of the comedy. Take away the jokes and the comedy and you've got yourself a show that may be educational but is otherwise not too pleasant to watch.

Good Times wasn't meant to be a 'reality show'. ;)

Ed

robby76

12-08-2004, 09:12 AM

I've been watching Season 3 and James and Florida have got plenty of air time. Most of the episodes evolve around them and JJ's only in for a couple of laughs.

I think John Amos got the "Suzanne Somers - asking for too much too soon" bug. If he had demands, he should have at least waited til the sitcom was into it's 4th or 5th season. But to ask for a payrise and to have a part in the shows direction before the third season is even filmed is pushing it. Plus the series always covered relative issues seriously, so what the fuss was about who knows!

Anyway, we all have our favourites and we should respect that. People watch different programmes for different things.

And to personally insult JJ's looks like I've read in past posts isn't a wise argument! JJ obviously saw Good Times as a break in his (and the casts) career. He obviously felt John Amos was jeopardising this... no wonder he wanted Amos out so they could continue. Amos delayed filming for a whole week... how selfish... the other cast members needed to make their living too! It's like Suzanne Somers causing trouble in Three's Co when the show was at it's peak... it's called manipulation! No wonder they both Amos and SOmers got fired!

Edster2973

12-08-2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by robby76
I've been watching Season 3 and James and Florida have got plenty of air time. Most of the episodes evolve around them and JJ's only in for a couple of laughs.

That's exactly my point. And the focus on them NEVER made them look foolish, but it did make the show somewhat heavy in terms of story. That's why JJ's antics, though foolish at times, were always welcome, as was Willona's entrances. They were the levity the show needed if it weren't to depress the entire audience that watched it.

Originally posted by robby76
I think John Amos got the "Suzanne Somers" asking for too much too soon bug. If he had demands, he should have at least waited til the sitcom for into it's 4th or 5th season. But to ask for a payrise and to have a part in the shows direction before the third season is even filmed is pushing it. Plus the series always covered relative issues seriously, so what the fuss was about who knows!

And James & Florida always looked dignified when the show covered those issues. Perhaps the fuss they made had something to do with that. I don't know since I wasn't there, but clearly the producers were willing to compromise and try to make everyone happy. But Amos & Rolle claimed the producers didn't know how to write 'black'. Well, had Amos & Rolle been in charge of a non-'black' sitcom, I wonder how they'd handle being told that they couldn't write 'white'. :rolleyes:

For John Amos to get his raise (they did give it to him by the way, unlike Suzanne Somers) and then to continue balking at the show and its direction, smacks of egotism and ingratitude. Other than Roots, he hasn't been in anything that has garnered him publicity and accolades. Yes, he has been in other things, like The Mary Tyler Moore Show, but he isn't noted for those appearances like he is in Good Times. He's a good actor who deserves recognition, but that doesn't come easily. It would have served his ego well to have showed a little bit of gratitude for being part of an ensemble that was doing well in the ratings and was paying well too. Instead he came off with a sense of entitlement, as did Rolle. In that sense, I see the producers trying to make the best out of everything by increasing Bookman's visibility, as well as bringing in Penny, Keith and exposing Willona all the more. What else could the show do? What would any of us have done?

Originally posted by robby76
Anyway, we all have our favourites and we should respect that. People watch different programmes for different things.

Right, and I agree with that. I just don't understand why this show was given the 'duty' of a true-to-life depiction of the ghetto. I don't think The Jeffersons or Sanford & Son are any more realistic, especially The Jeffersons. Where are the slams against those shows?

I for one love those shows. They were a product of their time and I heartily applaud that they put 'black' families and culture on TV and brought it into the mainstream. It had never been done before and it helped pave the way for more shows, like The Cosby Show (is that show a truer depiction of 'black' life? And Bill Cosby produced it!!!) and A Different World. That alone is a victory that should be celebrated.

And for what it's worth, I've yet to see a TV show that depicts 'white' life as it TRULY is. I don't see TV depicting anyone in the truest sense. Women are made to be sex objects or second tier, blondes are made to be dumb, gays are made to be flamboyant or whores, guys are made to be insensitive or jockish, etc. etc.

Heck, even the so-called 'reality shows' don't get it right (their conflicts are always instigated and not natural). Why expect more from Good Times?

Ed

knl9674

12-08-2004, 10:48 AM

ohh, you do pose such an interesting point. we spend so much time discussing how shows do not reflect the true life of the AA family or social unit, but never discuss shows reflecting the true life of the white family. i'm an AA woman and i have yet to see a show that truly, as a whole concept, supports the average AA family. But, now that you mention it, i do not believe there was one for the white community either. in those days, we're left to believe that the white family is either the Waltons or the Engalls OR the polar opposite as Archie Bunker with his insecurities and racist ideology.

somebody sound off on this....

robby76

12-08-2004, 11:55 AM

For the record I love Suzanne Somers and John Amos, I just think some arguments were a little one sided.

mamadynomite

12-11-2004, 09:03 PM

I have to agree that if JJ left there would have been a LOT more people stop watching the show.
and the chicken on his head. give me a break. he was working, we all have had to do stupid stuff for a job.

robby76

12-12-2004, 12:06 AM

When people mentioned the chicken on JJ's head, I imagined that scene from Friends where someone had a huge real turkey on their head (can't remember which girl/boy it was)... then last night I saw the GT episodes with the chicken and thought "Wow is that what the fuss was about"... I don't think it was supposed to be that big a joke. Probably thrown in for the little kiddies to laugh at cos it was a family-ish sorta show. And trust me I've seen more outlandish uniforms than that... look at the people who work at Disneyland!

Caffeine King

12-12-2004, 04:29 AM

http://timstvshowcase.com/goodtimes3.jpg

I think the season 4 cover is this but in color and with Bookman put on there.

[EDIT: Actually, it's not.]

Pavan

02-08-2005, 12:39 PM

Good Times - The Complete Fourth Season DVD Review:
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/goodtimesseason4dvdreview.html

vashti1999

02-10-2005, 12:52 AM

I watched the entire first disc of the season 4 set today. All episodes are over 24 minutes long. J.J.'s New Career, Part 2 was around exactly 24 min., all the rest were around 24 and a half minutes, including credits.

TVFactFan

02-10-2005, 08:45 PM

vashti1999

02-12-2005, 12:43 AM

Make sure you watch my girl Judy Cohen

I watched that one yesterday. Even though I'm still not crazy about that episode, it didn't seem so bad this time around. I almost kind of liked it. Today I watched your favorite episode "A Friend In Need." That was a good J.J. episode, it showed him not being as goofy as usual in terms of trying to keep his friend awake and alive. I haven't seen that one since I was little.

I'm up to the last 3 episodes, J.J. In Business and Love Has A Spot on Its Lung, Parts 1 & 2. From what I've noticed all the episodes are around 25 minutes long, give or take some seconds.

TVFactFan

02-12-2005, 01:10 AM

I watched that one yesterday. Even though I'm still not crazy about that episode, it didn't seem so bad this time around. I almost kind of liked it. Today I watched your favorite episode "A Friend In Need." That was a good J.J. episode, it showed him not being as goofy as usual in terms of trying to keep his friend awake and alive. I haven't seen that one since I was little.

I'm up to the last 3 episodes, J.J. In Business and Love Has A Spot on Its Lung, Parts 1 & 2. From what I've noticed all the episodes are around 25 minutes long, give or take some seconds.

In the episode-"A Friend in Need"-The part when J.J is trying to convince the guy that he has so much to live for went on TOO LONG which is why I hate that episode