Even though I enjoyed Good Times for the majority of its run, after seeing last nights episode (James and Florida go to a cabin) I can't help but think that Lear ruined Good Times.

By the 3rd season, James finished trade school and was getting better paying jobs. It showed a slow and gradual upgrade that the family was slowly making it out of poverty. The ending of GT would've been so much better if James finally landed a Foreman job and was able to afford to get his family out of the ghetto. I think Lear is a genius, but he really fumbled the ball by firing John Amos.

Even though I enjoyed Good Times for the majority of its run, after seeing last nights episode (James and Florida go to a cabin) I can't help but think that Lear ruined Good Times.

By the 3rd season, James finished trade school and was getting better paying jobs. It showed a slow and gradual upgrade that the family was slowly making it out of poverty. The ending of GT would've been so much better if James finally landed a Foreman job and was able to afford to get his family out of the ghetto. I think Lear is a genius, but he really fumbled the ball by firing John Amos.

He ruined a bunch of his shows. He and Carroll O'Connor went at it on All In the Family. Redd Foxx fought the producers of Sanford and Son. I don't know, was it a power thing he was on?

Carroll O'Connor, Redd Foxx, and John Amos, all felt that they were underpayed, and overworked. Which for the most part, is true. I think Lear just wanted to build his fortune.

Still can't believe Norman Lear asked the writers-"Can you do you a show without a Mother and Father?-lol

He ruined a bunch of his shows. He and Carroll O'Connor went at it on All In the Family. Redd Foxx fought the producers of Sanford and Son. I don't know, was it a power thing he was on?

Very good points, I forgot about all that. He fought with all of those people. Norman Lear is a genius, but at the same time is his worst enemy. Good Times would've been a much stronger and successful show if he would've kept Amos.

I think Amos got fired for being too combative about the scripts. As far as Carroll O'Connor and Redd Foxx they wanted more money and when they didn't get they made it known.

He probably wanted to make an example of Amos to keep the others in line. Carroll O'Connor and Redd Foxx were clearly the stars of their shows and Good Times was more of an ensemble. I still can't believe he was considering killing off Archie Bunker. If he would have done that AITF would have JTS much more than even GT did.

He probably wanted to make an example of Amos to keep the others in line. Carroll O'Connor and Redd Foxx were clearly the stars of their shows and Good Times was more of an ensemble. I still can't believe he was considering killing off Archie Bunker. If he would have done that AITF would have JTS much more than even GT did.



Come on sonny, John Amos was THE STAR on Good times. him and only him-lol

Hey didn't anyone notice during one of the showings of Good Times, they played a commercial for TVLand Confidential, some show debuting that will talk abt the making of shows, behind the scenes stuff, etc. Anyhow, they were talking abt the theme for All In The Family and how it was supposed to be an instrumental by an orchestra. Just like how the closing music is on All In the Family. They said Norman Lear couldn't afford to get the orchestra (or the budget wouldn't allow it) so that's why Archie and Edith sing the theme song.

Come on sonny, John Amos was THE STAR on Good times. him and only him-lol



:lol: I liked him and agree that Good Times totally JTS after he left. I can barely watch that last season. But looking at it from Norman Lear's point of view,Esther Rolle was the star and Jimmie Walker was the most popular actor on the show ( at least in the 1970's). He probably felt that he was replaceable. He was wrong.

Come on sonny, John Amos was THE STAR on Good times. him and only him-lolEsther Rolle's name was first in the credits, so I always thought she was supposed to be the star.

Norman felt a strong father figure wouldn't work well with this show. Could it be his own "attitude" or "assumptions" that most black families would identify with the show if the father was absent? Why would he be so adamant abt not wanting a father on the show?

Norman felt a strong father figure wouldn't work well with this show. Could it be his own "attitude" or "assumptions" that most black families would identify with the show if the father was absent? Why would he be so adamant abt not wanting a father on the show? He wanted the Florida character to be the center of the show I think.

Very good points, I forgot about all that. He fought with all of those people. Norman Lear is a genius, but at the same time is his worst enemy. Good Times would've been a much stronger and successful show if he would've kept Amos.

You said it in a nutshell. I agree :wave:

John Amos was fired from the show because he came off too strong. He, as well as Esther Rolle, wanted the show to be respectable to the African-American community. Norman Lear had problems with some of his actors except for Bonnie Franklin and Beatrice Arthur. Esther Rolle was not happy playing a single mom after fighting to get a father figure on the show. Florida was not good without James and it was too far fetched to leave her children alone for a year only to come back and no mention of Carl but only once when she came home.

John Amos was fired from the show because he came off too strong. He, as well as Esther Rolle, wanted the show to be respectable to the African-American community. Norman Lear had problems with some of his actors except for Bonnie Franklin and Beatrice Arthur. Esther Rolle was not happy playing a single mom after fighting to get a father figure on the show. Florida was not good without James and it was too far fetched to leave her children alone for a year only to come back and no mention of Carl but only once when she came home.
Bonnie was playing a strong woman who was raising two daughters. She was divorced. She felt it was a strong and positive role to play considering there were (and there still are) single mothers raising their kids alone. No issue there to argue with. Beatrice was also playing a strong figure. Esther was being asked to play a single mother with 3 kids in the ghetto. How did Norman Lear expect her to raise her kids, on welfare??? I wonder if that's how it would have gone if Norman had it his way from the beginning. It seems Norman was trying to give the impression that the ghetto was this real bad place with no father's around. Yes the ghetto in general is bad, but that doesn't make the people who have no choice but to live there, bad people.

Bonnie was playing a strong woman who was raising two daughters. She was divorced. She felt it was a strong and positive role to play considering there were (and there still are) single mothers raising their kids alone. No issue there to argue with. Beatrice was also playing a strong figure. Esther was being asked to play a single mother with 3 kids in the ghetto. How did Norman Lear expect her to raise her kids, on welfare??? I wonder if that's how it would have gone if Norman had it his way from the beginning. It seems Norman was trying to give the impression that the ghetto was this real bad place with no father's around. Yes the ghetto in general is bad, but that doesn't make the people who have no choice but to live there, bad people.



:clap , RIGHT ON!!