Hey all (now WHO do I sound like with that kind of greeting?) :lol:

Like most of you, I purchased Season 5 of Good Times the day it was released, but I hadn't gotten around to watching it until now. I'm always playing catch-up with my DVDs; they're released faster than I can watch them. For those interested, I was finishing up watching Dallas Season 3.

Anyway, given how poorly received Season 5 is on these boards, I was expecting to hate it right from the beginning. And without Esther Rolle during this season, I thought that'd be easy to do.

Well, I've only watched the first 5 episodes so far (Penny's debut and the episode where Thelma moves out) and I have to say I've enjoyed those episodes more than I thought I would.

Sure, I miss Esther Rolle but her absence is at least plausible, and seeing how the ensemble works makes me realize that her stardom on the show was as dependent on that ensemble as the ensemble was dependent on her.

With Esther gone (temporarily thankfully), the show focused on Willona. To some of you, especially Solomon, this is unforgivable, but I really think the show gained a new depth by doing this. When Willona was laying into Penny's abusive mother, she revealed that she had been on her own since the age of 16 and knew what it was like to be alone and without a husband. And then when Willona realized she needed to be Penny's mother as much as Penny needed her (even though she had just got done saying to Thelma that she preferred the single life) made the Willona character appeal to me more than ever. She became a much deeper character to me because of this.

Prior to this, I had regarded her as an affectionate, funny side character who had tough times but was able to laugh at life. But she isn't just a side character. The Willona character is a bit of a survivor who is able to laugh at life simply because she chooses to and not because she is the gossiping flake that she was previously depicted as. When Penny's mother made the decision to leave Penny, Willona, almost in tears, decides to perk up and try to make the situation lighter. And we almost buy her cheerfulness because she was that good at keeping a stiff upper lip (probably from years of practice); we only know her heart was breaking because we, the audience, saw how it crushed her just seconds before.

That's about it for now. I just wanted to share my reactions thus far on Season 5. Like I said, I've only watched the first 5 episodes, so I'm not defending the season as a whole.

And please, no one misunderstand me about my point. I'm not trying to say Season 5 was better than the previous seasons (actually, I'm enjoying it a bit more than Season 4) or that it was as good either. All I'm saying is that it wasn't total crap. It had its good episodes too (it had better opening credits, that's for sure!). Sure, it stank without Esther Rolle, but hey, she voluntarily left. She supposedly was angry with how black ghetto life was depicted; it's funny how her disdain for that depiction always accompanied demands for more money! From that side, I can forgive the show up to a point. Besides, without her, it gave us the opportunity to learn more about Willona, and thus far, I have liked what I seen...

Ed

Hey all (now WHO do I sound like with that kind of greeting?) :lol:

Like most of you, I purchased Season 5 of Good Times the day it was released, but I hadn't gotten around to watching it until now. I'm always playing catch-up with my DVDs; they're released faster than I can watch them. For those interested, I was finishing up watching Dallas Season 3.

Anyway, given how poorly received Season 5 is on these boards, I was expecting to hate it right from the beginning. And without Esther Rolle during this season, I thought that'd be easy to do.

Well, I've only watched the first 5 episodes so far (Penny's debut and the episode where Thelma moves out) and I have to say I've enjoyed those episodes more than I thought I would.

Sure, I miss Esther Rolle but her absence is at least plausible, and seeing how the ensemble works makes me realize that her stardom on the show was as dependent on that ensemble as the ensemble was dependent on her.

With Esther gone (temporarily thankfully), the show focused on Willona. To some of you, especially Solomon, this is unforgivable, but I really think the show gained a new depth by doing this. When Willona was laying into Penny's abusive mother, she revealed that she had been on her own since the age of 16 and knew what it was like to be alone and without a husband. And then when Willona realized she needed to be Penny's mother as much as Penny needed her (even though she had just got done saying to Thelma that she preferred the single life) made the Willona character appeal to me more than ever. She became a much deeper character to me because of this.

Prior to this, I had regarded her as an affectionate, funny side character who had tough times but was able to laugh at life. But she isn't just a side character. The Willona character is a bit of a survivor who is able to laugh at life simply because she chooses to and not because she is the gossiping flake that she was previously depicted as. When Penny's mother made the decision to leave Penny, Willona, almost in tears, decides to perk up and try to make the situation lighter. And we almost buy her cheerfulness because she was that good at keeping a stiff upper lip (probably from years of practice); we only know her heart was breaking because we, the audience, saw how it crushed her just seconds before.

That's about it for now. I just wanted to share my reactions thus far on Season 5. Like I said, I've only watched the first 5 episodes, so I'm not defending the season as a whole.

And please, no one misunderstand me about my point. I'm not trying to say Season 5 was better than the previous seasons (actually, I'm enjoying it a bit more than Season 4) or that it was as good either. All I'm saying is that it wasn't total crap. It had its good episodes too (it had better opening credits, that's for sure!). Sure, it stank without Esther Rolle, but hey, she voluntarily left. She supposedly was angry with how black ghetto life was depicted; it's funny how her disdain for that depiction always accompanied demands for more money! From that side, I can forgive the show up to a point. Besides, without her, it gave us the opportunity to learn more about Willona, and thus far, I have liked what I seen...

Ed




That's cool Edster, keep an open mind about season five. As much as I love Good Times, I liked the first disc of season 5, BUT, to me, the first 3 episodes of disc 2, "I hate 'em, I wish they were never born!" Ha Ha.

Those 3 episodes seem like (as other posters said on here) Three's Company episodes. They don't have nothing to do with living in the ghetto or trying to make it through tough times.

Then about the Willona and Penny relationship, I'm starting to see what Retro meant. It's like Penny is just there to try and make stale jokes, she really don't have a purpose because they're not focusing on the mother and daughter relationship.

Now there are a few episodes that's may favorite in season 5, like.....

Penny's 4 parter

Thelma Moves Out

Willona, The Fuzz

Penny's Xmas (a little boring tho)

Where's There Smoke

I Had A Dream

Write On, Thelma

and That's Entertainment, Evans Style

I wanna know what you think about the first 3 episodes of disc 2.


Another thing, I know Good Times pretty much word for word and say the words along with the actors in the first 4 seasons. In season 5 and 6, they don't have good classic lines that's memorable enough to remember and it seems weird that I don't speak along with the show. That just puts in perspective for me, how under par the last 2 seasons were.

I also recently began to watch the 5th season of Good Times DVD. I was impressed with the Evans Get Involved eps. I was actually brought to tears in some of the emotional scenes..and I was actually impressed with Janet Jackson's acting ability (I honestly thought she brought a lot of depth to the Penny character)..So far I am STILL on the first disc, so let's wait and see if my perspective changes...

I also recently began to watch the 5th season of Good Times DVD. I was impressed with the Evans Get Involved eps. I was actually brought to tears in some of the emotional scenes..and I was actually impressed with Janet Jackson's acting ability (I honestly thought she brought a lot of depth to the Penny character)..So far I am STILL on the first disc, so let's wait and see if my perspective changes...


Yes, please let me know when you check out the first few on disc 2.

Yes, please let me know when you check out the first few on disc 2.
Will do :)

Yes, please let me know when you check out the first few on disc 2.

Will do :)

Same here... :)

Ed

Hey all (now WHO do I sound like with that kind of greeting?) :lol:

Like most of you, I purchased Season 5 of Good Times the day it was released, but I hadn't gotten around to watching it until now. I'm always playing catch-up with my DVDs; they're released faster than I can watch them. For those interested, I was finishing up watching Dallas Season 3.

Anyway, given how poorly received Season 5 is on these boards, I was expecting to hate it right from the beginning. And without Esther Rolle during this season, I thought that'd be easy to do.

Well, I've only watched the first 5 episodes so far (Penny's debut and the episode where Thelma moves out) and I have to say I've enjoyed those episodes more than I thought I would.

Sure, I miss Esther Rolle but her absence is at least plausible, and seeing how the ensemble works makes me realize that her stardom on the show was as dependent on that ensemble as the ensemble was dependent on her.

With Esther gone (temporarily thankfully), the show focused on Willona. To some of you, especially Solomon, this is unforgivable, but I really think the show gained a new depth by doing this. When Willona was laying into Penny's abusive mother, she revealed that she had been on her own since the age of 16 and knew what it was like to be alone and without a husband. And then when Willona realized she needed to be Penny's mother as much as Penny needed her (even though she had just got done saying to Thelma that she preferred the single life) made the Willona character appeal to me more than ever. She became a much deeper character to me because of this.

Prior to this, I had regarded her as an affectionate, funny side character who had tough times but was able to laugh at life. But she isn't just a side character. The Willona character is a bit of a survivor who is able to laugh at life simply because she chooses to and not because she is the gossiping flake that she was previously depicted as. When Penny's mother made the decision to leave Penny, Willona, almost in tears, decides to perk up and try to make the situation lighter. And we almost buy her cheerfulness because she was that good at keeping a stiff upper lip (probably from years of practice); we only know her heart was breaking because we, the audience, saw how it crushed her just seconds before.

That's about it for now. I just wanted to share my reactions thus far on Season 5. Like I said, I've only watched the first 5 episodes, so I'm not defending the season as a whole.

And please, no one misunderstand me about my point. I'm not trying to say Season 5 was better than the previous seasons (actually, I'm enjoying it a bit more than Season 4) or that it was as good either. All I'm saying is that it wasn't total crap. It had its good episodes too (it had better opening credits, that's for sure!). Sure, it stank without Esther Rolle, but hey, she voluntarily left. She supposedly was angry with how black ghetto life was depicted; it's funny how her disdain for that depiction always accompanied demands for more money! From that side, I can forgive the show up to a point. Besides, without her, it gave us the opportunity to learn more about Willona, and thus far, I have liked what I seen...

Ed


Just keep watching-lol

Season 5 isn't as bad as some people might think.

Season 5 isn't as bad as some people might think.


I know no one wants to believe this but Penny caused the ratings to drop.

That's cool Edster, keep an open mind about season five. As much as I love Good Times, I liked the first disc of season 5, BUT, to me, the first 3 episodes of disc 2, "I hate 'em, I wish they were never born!" Ha Ha.

Those 3 episodes seem like (as other posters said on here) Three's Company episodes. They don't have nothing to do with living in the ghetto or trying to make it through tough times.

Dammit people....lol
What were the first three episodes on disc 2???

For the record, writers Kim Weiskopf and Michael S. Baser (who joined Three's Company's writing team during the fourth season) wrote some episodes during Good Times' fourth and fifth season and became story editors for the show's fifth season.

Dammit people....lol
What were the first three episodes on disc 2???

Were they:
Bye, Bye Bookman
Thelma's Brief Encounter
Requiem For A Wino

Were they:
Bye, Bye Bookman
Thelma's Brief Encounter
Requiem For A Wino



YES, 3 of the WORST episodes in the whole run of the show. There are some others, but those are 3 of them. IMO

YES, 3 of the WORST episodes in the whole run of the show. There are some others, but those are 3 of them. IMO


Well out of those 3, Requiem for a Wino was the most watchable

I know no one wants to believe this but Penny caused the ratings to drop.


Don't you think they would have dropped even without Penny? If it were just J.J., Thelma, Michael, Willona and Bookman, no James, no Florida, would the ratings be any higher? It's not fair to say Penny is the cause.

Having said that, even though I've always been someone who said I loved all six seasons of Good Times, I have to admit the majority of season 5 episodes don't stand up well to previous seasons. That's not to say it's completely bad, but I don't have the same love for these episodes as I do the classic older ones.

Don't you think they would have dropped even without Penny? If it were just J.J., Thelma, Michael, Willona and Bookman, no James, no Florida, would the ratings be any higher? It's not fair to say Penny is the cause.

Having said that, even though I've always been someone who said I loved all six seasons of Good Times, I have to admit the majority of season 5 episodes don't stand up well to previous seasons. That's not to say it's completely bad, but I don't have the same love for these episodes as I do the classic older ones.



The fact that show went backward, i blame Penny. All the Evans Kids were almost grown and then a 11year old is added? Made no sense

I don't like this season at all. Sorry. It got really corny. But, I still love Good Times though. :cool:

I don't like this season at all. Sorry. It got really corny. But, I still love Good Times though. :cool:


Yeah me too, I love Good Times to death, But those last 2 seasons...... ohno:

The fact that show went backward, i blame Penny. All the Evans Kids were almost grown and then a 11year old is added? Made no sense

With Esther suddenly quitting the show you can tell it put a strain on the cast with all the backstage fighting that took place over the years. Starting with John Amos being fired from the show to Esther Rolle not being happy with the direction of the show and the J.J. character. I still watched the show but that season was not enjoyable to watch and when Esther came back in season 6 the damage was done and there was nothing that could had been done to correct it. Plus the show ran its course.

With Esther suddenly quitting the show you can tell it put a strain on the cast with all the backstage fighting that took place over the years. Starting with John Amos being fired from the show to Esther Rolle not being happy with the direction of the show and the J.J. character. I still watched the show but that season was not enjoyable to watch and when Esther came back in season 6 the damage was done and there was nothing that could had been done to correct it. Plus the show ran its course.


And part of the reason it ran it's course was because the Evans were still in that APT and not living any better than they were in season 1

Was the four-part episode on DVD syndicated versions???

Parts I and II ran longer than the other two parts.

There seemed to be an edit in Part I when Willona was hemming Thelma's dress right before JJ walked in the door

At the end of part two before the closing credits, there was a freeze-frame ending, no fade out.

Can someone confirm this???

Was the four-part episode on DVD syndicated versions???

Parts I and II ran longer than the other two parts.

There seemed to be an edit in Part I when Willona was hemming Thelma's dress right before JJ walked in the door

At the end of part two before the closing credits, there was a freeze-frame ending, no fade out.

Can someone confirm this???


Part one was 25:04 long
Part Two was 25:08 long-my version-there was a voiceover saying-"this episode of Good Times will continue next week"
Part three was 25:03 long
Part four was 25:17

Yes my version of Part 2 has a Freeze Ending too.

What about the edit when Thelma moves while Willona is hemming her dress before JJ walks in (around 16:39)???

As proof of my point, check the picture of Michael, Thelma and Willona on the back cover of the Season 5 DVD box. That looks like the scene that's missing (after Michael shows Thelma and Willona Alderman Davis' poster).

I didn't hear that voiceover on mine.

Dammit......This sucks!!!!

Part one was 25:04 long
Part Two was 25:08 long-my version-there was a voiceover saying-"this episode of Good Times will continue next week"
Part three was 25:03 long
Part four was 25:17

Yes my version of Part 2 has a Freeze Ending too.

My Disc

Including opening and closing credits:
Part One - 25:15
Part Two - 23:41
Part Three - 23:42
Part Four - 23:57

What the hell is going on here???
:mad:

My dDsc

Including opening and closing credits:
Part One - 25:15
Part Two - 23:41
Part Three - 23:42
Part Four - 23:57

What the hell is going on here???
:mad:


I'm not sure if that is an edit when Wllona is hemming the dress. But I don't have the DVD versions I have the CBS versions which is why i have the voiceovers. I never purchased the DVD. And yes my length of each part includes the opening and closing credits

Yes, please let me know when you check out the first few on disc 2.

Well, I am completely done with watching Season 5, and I can honestly say I enjoyed it. It wasn't as good as the previous seasons, but I think the show was wise enough to make good use of the time without Florida and delve into the other characters like Willona. I don't see how Florida could've added that much to the show that people end up hating Season 5 because she was absent. Come on, folks, get real. Yes, she was missed, but the show wasn't about her and only her. And quite frankly, I think Esther Rolle had to be taught that lesson.

Her reasons for leaving after Season 4 was because she wanted more money and the show didn't want to give it to her. It wasn't always about crusading for how blacks were depicted, although she would've had you believe that. She was just simply being greedy. And those of us who have seen The E! True Hollywood Story: Good Times can attest that the actress (along with John Amos) was combative, greedy, jealous of Jimmie Walker, and an all-around pain-in-the-butt.

With that in mind, I forgive the show for its lack of living up to the calibre of the previous 4 seasons and have enjoyed it for what it is. Try to see Season 5 as a momentary glimpse into Willona's life and not just as the season that Esther Rolle left. It might help change your perspective...

Ed

Well, I am completely done with watching Season 5, and I can honestly say I enjoyed it. It wasn't as good as the previous seasons, but I think the show was wise enough to make good use of the time without Florida and delve into the other characters like Willona. I don't see how Florida could've added that much to the show that people end up hating Season 5 because she was absent. Come on, folks, get real. Yes, she was missed, but the show wasn't about her and only her. And quite frankly, I think Esther Rolle had to be taught that lesson.

Her reasons for leaving after Season 4 was because she wanted more money and the show didn't want to give it to her. It wasn't always about crusading for how blacks were depicted, although she would've had you believe that. She was just simply being greedy. And those of us who have seen The E! True Hollywood Story: Good Times can attest that the actress (along with John Amos) was combative, greedy, jealous of Jimmie Walker, and an all-around pain-in-the-butt.

With that in mind, I forgive the show for its lack of living up to the calibre of the previous 4 seasons and have enjoyed it for what it is. Try to see Season 5 as a momentary glimpse into Willona's life and not just as the season that Esther Rolle left. It might help change your perspective...

Ed



You know what I see it as, they don't have stories about ghetto life, and how to deal with those situations. A lot of those episode were like some regular sitcom topics, and that's not what Good Time was about in the first four seasons. The episodes I liked had to do with learning a lesson, like.... the Penny episodes, Thelma Moves Out, Willona The Fuzz, I Had A Dream.

Episodes that could have been Three's Company shows (and by the way Three's Company used to be my all time favorite show), were Bye, Bye Bookman, Thelma's Brief Encounter, ReQuiem For A Wino, The Boarder. Those just didn't have a Good Times feel , to me.

You know what I see it as, they don't have stories about ghetto life, and how to deal with those situations. A lot of those episode were like some regular sitcom topics, and that's not what Good Time was about in the first four seasons. The episodes I liked had to do with learning a lesson, like.... the Penny episodes, Thelma Moves Out, Willona The Fuzz, I Had A Dream.

It's funny that you say the first 4 seasons were about ghetto life, since Esther Rolle & John Amos complained that the show was anything but. They also complained about JJ/Jimmie Walker being in the limelight. To me, that smacks of jealousy. I think they should have appreciated that there was a show about blacks that was successful in the first place, and that they were on it. They didn't.

Could the show have had more substance? Absolutely. But I also think some of the comedy, which sometimes had nothing to do with 'ghetto life', was just as valuable. It was a comedy first, and a reflection of life second. After a while, any show (no matter what its mission is) becomes about the CHARACTERS that are involved, and not just about its surroundings.

Fans who are unhappy with the show after Season 3 have no one to blame but John Amos and Esther Rolle themselves. Had they not been quite so disruptive with their greed & egos, perhaps the show could have taken more of the 'ghetto' slant that they wanted. Unfortunately, the producers couldn't take being held hostage by either actor (and I don't blame them... would any of you???) so they made the best of a tense situation and tried to do the comedy as best they could. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't, but about 95% of the time, the show made me laugh and made me care about the characters, and I think that's quite an accomplishment. Why else would I be buying the DVD sets years later?

I know Esther Rolle is deceased and thus this is a delicate issue, but I think she and John Amos were hypocrites in a way. They complained about the QUALITY of the scripts/episodes, saying it didn't depict 'black/ghetto' life in a true way. But it's funny how both were willing to tolerate this lack of quality as long as they kept getting raises in their salary. It's like their political consciousness and activism was bought.

John Amos was willing to stay for the 3rd season because of a raise, but he still complained and didn't show up for work for a few episodes, so they canned him. As much as I hated losing his character (honestly, I think the worst season of the show is Season 4), I cannot blame the show for John's firing alone. John Amos had as much to do with it as the show did, and thus he has to share the blame for James' death.

The same with Esther Rolle. Her 'complaint' or demands after Season 4 was simply for more money. It wasn't for true ghetto life or for more quality scripts. She simply thought that, with John Amos gone, the show couldn't afford to lose her and thus she demanded more money. How would any of you respond to that? She's lucky she wasn't killed off.

Either way, she wasn't there for Season 5, and yes, it did alter the show, but it simply makes Season 5 different, not less than. And they had to focus on Willona and Bookman and develop them since they didn't know at the time that Esther Rolle would be back. They thought she was gone for good so they went with Plan B. What else could they do? Some of you think they should've given in to her, but it probably wouldn't have stopped there. Demanding things was something she was quite good at. She even had a problem with Ja'net Du Bois being hired because Norman Lear hired her and not Esther Rolle. And we're talking before the show even aired one episode.

With that in mind, I am not saying that the actors's poor professionalism and greed is a reason to like a sub-standard season. Not at all. But I understand why decisions were made and why the direction of the show steered off course for a while. But how far could it have gone depicting true 'ghetto' life? By that, is it to mean the show was to be more dramatic? Was it to show the family constantly struggling or worrying about being shot, or about prejudice? How long could that have lasted? And how does one do that for so long and still make it funny? There had to be moments of levity. Something had to keep it light. Otherwise it'd be one depressing 'comedy'. This wasn't Shakespeare we were talking about or Dallas, it was Good Times. And it needs to be kept in that perspective.

One more beef: This show made these actors very visible, almost to iconic status, and it's sickening to learn that not once (that I can recall anyway) has Esther Rolle or John Amos ever expressed gratitude to the show for that. Instead, it's like they bragged about the fuss they put up, since it makes them look like they were championing the fight for their fellow black brothers and sisters. Puuuhhhhllleezzz! They were thinking mostly about their wallets and egos first.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone. Yes, Esther Rolle is gone and it's tragic. But her actions have to speak for themselves. To me, the downfall to Good Times had as much, if not more so, to do with two of its *stars* than it had to do with the writers. The woman's ego was about as big as her talent, and it cost the show dearly.

That's what *sucked* about Season 5: Esther Rolle's ego...


Ed

It's funny that you say the first 4 seasons were about ghetto life, since Esther Rolle & John Amos complained that the show was anything but. They also complained about JJ/Jimmie Walker being in the limelight. To me, that smacks of jealousy. I think they should have appreciated that there was a show about blacks that was successful in the first place, and that they were on it. They didn't.

Could the show have had more substance? Absolutely. But I also think some of the comedy, which sometimes had nothing to do with 'ghetto life', was just as valuable. It was a comedy first, and a reflection of life second. After a while, any show (no matter what its mission is) becomes about the CHARACTERS that are involved, and not just about its surroundings.

Fans who are unhappy with the show after Season 3 have no one to blame but John Amos and Esther Rolle themselves. Had they not been quite so disruptive with their greed & egos, perhaps the show could have taken more of the 'ghetto' slant that they wanted. Unfortunately, the producers couldn't take being held hostage by either actor (and I don't blame them... would any of you???) so they made the best of a tense situation and tried to do the comedy as best they could. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't, but about 95% of the time, the show made me laugh and made me care about the characters, and I think that's quite an accomplishment. Why else would I be buying the DVD sets years later?

I know Esther Rolle is deceased and thus this is a delicate issue, but I think she and John Amos were hypocrites in a way. They complained about the QUALITY of the scripts/episodes, saying it didn't depict 'black/ghetto' life in a true way. But it's funny how both were willing to tolerate this lack of quality as long as they kept getting raises in their salary. It's like their political consciousness and activism was bought.

John Amos was willing to stay for the 3rd season because of a raise, but he still complained and didn't show up for work for a few episodes, so they canned him. As much as I hated losing his character (honestly, I think the worst season of the show is Season 4), I cannot blame the show for John's firing alone. John Amos had as much to do with it as the show did, and thus he has to share the blame for James' death.

The same with Esther Rolle. Her 'complaint' or demands after Season 4 was simply for more money. It wasn't for true ghetto life or for more quality scripts. She simply thought that, with John Amos gone, the show couldn't afford to lose her and thus she demanded more money. How would any of you respond to that? She's lucky she wasn't killed off.

Either way, she wasn't there for Season 5, and yes, it did alter the show, but it simply makes Season 5 different, not less than. And they had to focus on Willona and Bookman and develop them since they didn't know at the time that Esther Rolle would be back. They thought she was gone for good so they went with Plan B. What else could they do? Some of you think they should've given in to her, but it probably wouldn't have stopped there. Demanding things was something she was quite good at. She even had a problem with Ja'net Du Bois being hired because Norman Lear hired her and not Esther Rolle. And we're talking before the show even aired one episode.

With that in mind, I am not saying that the actors's poor professionalism and greed is a reason to like a sub-standard season. Not at all. But I understand why decisions were made and why the direction of the show steered off course for a while. But how far could it have gone depicting true 'ghetto' life? By that, is it to mean the show was to be more dramatic? Was it to show the family constantly struggling or worrying about being shot, or about prejudice? How long could that have lasted? And how does one do that for so long and still make it funny? There had to be moments of levity. Something had to keep it light. Otherwise it'd be one depressing 'comedy'. This wasn't Shakespeare we were talking about or Dallas, it was Good Times. And it needs to be kept in that perspective.

One more beef: This show made these actors very visible, almost to iconic status, and it's sickening to learn that not once (that I can recall anyway) has Esther Rolle or John Amos ever expressed gratitude to the show for that. Instead, it's like they bragged about the fuss they put up, since it makes them look like they were championing the fight for their fellow black brothers and sisters. Puuuhhhhllleezzz! They were thinking mostly about their wallets and egos first.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone. Yes, Esther Rolle is gone and it's tragic. But her actions have to speak for themselves. To me, the downfall to Good Times had as much, if not more so, to do with two of its *stars* than it had to do with the writers. The woman's ego was about as big as her talent, and it cost the show dearly.

That's what *sucked* about Season 5: Esther Rolle's ego...


Ed




It had nothing to do with Rolle and Amos being jealous, it was the fact that there had never been a BLACK Family on TV before at point in time and they were bothered by the oldest child being so stupid. So they would have preferred to have a Black Family like the Huxtables where none of the kids were STUPID like J.J. Not only was he stupid, he Looked stupid, Walked stupid, and Sounded Stupid. So i can see why Amos and Rolle were bothered by the J,J character. And how could it be jealousy if TWO people were complaining about the J.J character???? It wasn;t like it was one character.

It had nothing to do with Rolle and Amos being jealous, it was the fact that there had never been a BLACK Family on TV before at point in time and they were bothered by the oldest child being so stupid. So they would have preferred to have a Black Family like the Huxtables where none of the kids were STUPID like J.J. Not only was he stupid, he Looked stupid, Walked stupid, and Sounded Stupid. So i can see why Amos and Rolle were bothered by the J,J character. And how could it be jealousy if TWO people were complaining about the J.J character???? It wasn;t like it was one character.

Of course it was jealousy. That's even mentioned (although not blatantly) in the E! True Hollywood Special: Good Times, that Esther resented how this untrained actor was upstaging her in her own show. Like she would've stopped it had she been in Jimmie Walker's shoes, right? I think we're both smarter than that, no?

As for J.J. being stupid, well, I wouldn't say stupid as much as silly. He did possess an intelligence (certainly an artist/painter of his calibre isn't dumb) and did come through in a pinch when the family was down. But he being the clown served up the comedy in the show, and of course that garnered him attention, which Esther Rolle and John Amos didn't like. But again, if Esther or John were in Jimmie Walker's shoes, I highly doubt they would've complained.

And had Jimmie Walker not been a part of the show, perhaps Esther Rolle and John Amos would've turned on each other, complaining that the other was hogging the limelight. As it is, I don't recall them not getting along, but I don't remember them being particularly close. In any case, there is no way you can't say ego wasn't involved here.

And I don't see how two actors can't be jealous of one actor simply because it's two people. Jealousy can be found in more than one person. Look at grade school. Many times a group of kids will be jealous of one kid simply because of how he/she dresses or the grades he/she gets. So I think it's very plausible that both Esther Rolle and John Amos were jealous of Jimmie Walker's fame. Had J.J. not been 'stupid' but just as popular, you don't think they wouldn't have had a problem with that? I think even 'stupid' J.J. knows the answer to that one!

Ed

Of course it was jealousy. That's even mentioned (although not blatantly) in the E! True Hollywood Special: Good Times, that Esther resented how this untrained actor was upstaging her in her own show. Like she would've stopped it had she been in Jimmie Walker's shoes, right? I think we're both smarter than that, no?

As for J.J. being stupid, well, I wouldn't say stupid as much as silly. He did possess an intelligence (certainly an artist/painter of his calibre isn't dumb) and did come through in a pinch when the family was down. But he being the clown served up the comedy in the show, and of course that garnered him attention, which Esther Rolle and John Amos didn't like. But again, if Esther or John were in Jimmie Walker's shoes, I highly doubt they would've complained.

And had Jimmie Walker not been a part of the show, perhaps Esther Rolle and John Amos would've turned on each other, complaining that the other was hogging the limelight. As it is, I don't recall them not getting along, but I don't remember them being particularly close. In any case, there is no way you can't say ego wasn't involved here.

And I don't see how two actors can't be jealous of one actor simply because it's 2 people. Jealousy can be found in more than one person. Look at grade school. Many times a group of kids will be jealous of one kid simply because of how he/she dresses or the grades he/she gets. So I think it's very plausible that both Esther Rolle and John Amos were jealous of Jimmie Walker's fame. Had J.J. not been 'stupid' but just as popular, you don't think they wouldn't have had a problem with that? I think even 'stupid' J.J. knows the answer to that one!

Ed



Here is the point you are missing, THEY WERE ALREADY FAMOUS, so why did they have to be jelaous of that ugly A$$ telephone pole looking man??????? Talk to me-lol

Here is the point you are missing, THEY WERE ALREADY FAMOUS, so why did they have to be jelaous of that ugly A$$ telephone pole looking man??????? Talk to me-lol

Because, inspite of their FAME, they weren't the first thing people thought of when Good Times was mentioned. It was J.J./Jimmie Walker. And I don't think Esther Rolle & John Amos were FAMOUS as you put it. They were just more experienced, that's all, but still relatively unknown. John did have exposure on The Mary Tyler Moore Show but he was hardly a landmark character on it. Other than die-hard fans, I bet the average fan of The Mary Tyler Moore Show can't even remember his name on the show. And Esther Rolle's only other major exposure was through Maude, although she had acted in theatre and such. Again, the experience was there, but not the fame.

So here comes Good Times and their chance to bask in the sun, and they find themselves not in the public consciousness as the focus of the show, but merely as the parents of that 'dy-no-mite' new character J.J.

You bet they had a problem with it. Big time...

Ed

Because, inspite of their FAME, they weren't the first thing people thought of when Good Times was mentioned. It was J.J./Jimmie Walker. And I don't think Esther Rolle & John Amos were FAMOUS as you put it. They were just more experienced, that's all, but still relatively unknown. John did have exposure on The Mary Tyler Moore Show but he was hardly a landmark character on it. Other than die-hard fans, I bet the average fan of The Mary Tyler Moore Show can't even remember his name on the show. And Esther Rolle's only other major exposure was through Maude, although she had acted in theatre and such. Again, the experience was there, but not the fame.

So here comes Good Times and their chance to bask in the sun, and they find themselves not in the public consciousness as the focus of the show, but merely as the parents of that 'dy-no-mite' new character J.J.

You bet they had a problem with it. Big time...

Ed


So they were not famous from being on Maude? And it's sad that Jimmy let the producers make tons of money off of him for being UGLY and Stupid looking in real life-lol I would think since he was so ugly, he would have wanted a more serious role. But he became ven UGLIER when he said-DYNOMITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So they were not famous from being on Maude? And it's sad that Jimmy let the producers make tons of money off of him for being UGLY and Stupid looking in real life-lol I would think since he was so ugly, he would have wanted a more serious role. But he became ven UGLIER when he said-DYNOMITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said Esther Rolle did have exposure from being on Maude, but was she the star character? Nope. Again, when one thinks of Maude, Esther Rolle wasn't who you thought of first. It was Bea Arthur, Bill Macy, Rue McClanahan, etc.

I'm not saying they were never on TV before. I'm saying that they weren't mainstream famous. They weren't the *stars*. But when Good Times came around, they saw it as their chance to be that... *stars*.

It's understandable. They weren't twenty year olds who had just started in the business. They were middle-aged and had probably paid more than their dues. So they rightfully had a sense of entitlement when it came to Good Times, and they were very good at what they did. I just think they got carried away with it and complained a bit too much, which helped bring about the show's downfall. They weren't victims as much as participators in hurting the show. How is demanding more money and then quitting going to help a show in need of their 'expertise' in depicting black ghetto life?

So my main point in all of this is, anyone who dislikes Good Times after Season 3 should blame Esther Rolle & John Amos for it as much as anyone else.

Ed

I said Esther Rolle did have exposure from being on Maude, but was she the star character? Nope. Again, when one thinks of Maude, Esther Rolle wasn't who you thought of first. It was Bea Arthur, Bill Macy, Rue McClanahan, etc.

I'm not saying they were never on TV before. I'm saying that they weren't mainstream famous. They weren't the *stars*. But when Good Times came around, they saw it as their chance to be that... *stars*.

It's understandable. They weren't twenty year olds who had just started in the business. They were middle-aged and had probably paid more than their dues. So they rightfully had a sense of entitlement when it came to Good Times, and they were very good at what they did. I just think they got carried away with it and complained a bit too much, which helped bring about the show's downfall. They weren't victims as much as participators in hurting the show. How is demanding more money and then quitting going to help a show in need of their 'expertise' in depicting black ghetto life?

So my main point in all of this is, anyone who dislikes Good Times after Season 3 should blame Esther Rolle & John Amos for it as much as anyone else.

Ed


So who would you have prefeered to see more of? James or J.J?

So who would you have prefeered to see more of? James or J.J?

What does that matter? Let's say you're right about J.J. being stupid and not worthwhile. That doesn't mean Esther Rolle & John Amos were justified in being pains in the butt. It wasn't professional and was counter-productive. Lots of their arguments had more to do with themselves and not for the good of the show. Again, if J.J. had been super-smart but just as popular, Esther Rolle & John Amos would have had a problem with that. This is acceptable to you?

And if you must know, I preferred the show the way it was in Seasons 1-3. Season 4 sucked big time, and not just because James was killed off (although that was a BIG part of it). I just didn't think the characterization of the family was consistent. Not only did Florida find love way too fast (James wasn't even gone for a year yet!) but she ended up with an atheist. That didn't sit well with me for some reason.

Do I think the writers goofed with that detail? You bet I do, but again, they were only trying to find a replacement for John Amos since he was no longer on the show. Had John been a bit more cooperative, he wouldn't have been fired in the first place. Again, John Amos isn't blameless.

Season 5 actually made quite a few references to James, which I applaud the show for. Even though I disliked Esther Rolle not being there, she left voluntarily since they didn't give in to her demands for more money $$. But even offscreen, Florida's presence was still a part of the show, and that helped make it enjoyable for me. But she was still responsible for her not being there.

As for who I'd prefer to see more of, actually, there isn't just one person. I liked Seasons 1-3 simply because the show had a nice balance of exposing all of the characters, even Willona. Obviously, depending on the story, some got more exposure than others, but it more or less evened out.

John Amos was very valuable to the show, as was Esther Rolle. But so was Jimmie Walker, Ja'Net Du Bois, Ralph Carter, etc. It was an ensemble that needed everyone. No one was more important than the other, but I think Esther Rolle & John Amos overestimated their importance. They were too busy hollering about their own birthday and that hurt the show. Like it or not, they're responsible for Good Times's decline as much as Norman Lear and CBS.

Ed

So who would you have prefeered to see more of? James or J.J?
JJ

JJ


Well u obviously can;t be an adult you if made that decision. You must be 15 and under

Well u obviously can;t be an adult you if made that decision. You must be 15 and under


I do love your adult use of grammar, spelling and punctuation. LOL

I do love your adult use of grammar, spelling and punctuation. LOL


Thanks, i bet your ******** a$$ would prefer J.J over James too-lol

Thanks, i bet your ******** a$$ would prefer J.J over James too-lol


Who would want to see more of that ignorant dead man they called James? :lol:

BTW, Retro... It's good to be back. :)

BTW, Retro... It's good to be back. :)


Why such the long hiatus?

Could you guys take this chat to another thread? There was some interesting discussion here about the merits of Season 5 and the actors Esther Rolle & John Amos, and now it's been reduced to a chat between the two of you. No offense is intended, since I like you both, but it's this sort of thing that will end discussion on the previous topic. OK?

Ed

Could you guys take this chat to another thread? There was some interesting discussion here about the merits of Season 5 and the actors Esther Rolle & John Amos, and now it's been reduced to a chat between the two of you. No offense is intended, since I like you both, but it's this sort of thing that will end discussion on the previous topic. OK?

Ed


If you read my last post the chit chat between us just ended

I still don't like season 5 as much cause a lot of the episodes wasn't good to me, same with season 6. With Esther back, they still had some terrible shows. They did try to come up with some meaningful story lines, like.....

Stomach Mumps

JJ the Teacher

House Hunting

Evans Dilemma

I just think the show ran it's course and they ran out of story lines, even with Esther back.

I still don't like season 5 as much cause a lot of the episodes wasn't good to me, same with season 6. With Esther back, they still had some terrible shows. They did try to come up with some meaningful story lines, like.....

Stomach Mumps

JJ the Teacher

House Hunting

Evans Dilemma

I just think the show ran it's course and they ran out of story lines, even with Esther back.


House Hunting was defintely the best episode of Season 6

Well u obviously can;t be an adult you if made that decision. You must be 15 and under

Ay Dios....
OK....what other possible storyline could the writers come up with that focused mainly on James, besides losing his job again, or possibly getting evicted again?

Ay Dios....
OK....what other possible storyline could the writers come up with that focused mainly on James, besides losing his job again, or possibly getting evicted again?


I'm sure they would have come up with happy results eventually if he stayed on the show.

I'm sure they would have come up with happy results eventually if he stayed on the show.

What are you talking about? John Amos never had one happy day while working on Good Times.

Ed

What are you talking about? John Amos never had one happy day while working on Good Times.

Ed


James never had happy moments??????? What about when he graduated trade school, playing the dozens at the Apt, cleaning up ned the wino, and the RENT PARTY!!!!!!!!!! So you defintely are not a fan of Good Times to make that silly statement

Ay Dios....
OK....what other possible storyline could the writers come up with that focused mainly on James, besides losing his job again, or possibly getting evicted again?
Ay dios!!!! LMAO!!!! I can see you rolling your eyes when you "said" that!!! Verda??? :lol:

James never had happy moments??????? What about when he graduated trade school, playing the dozens at the Apt, cleaning up ned the wino, and the RENT PARTY!!!!!!!!!! So you defintely are not a fan of Good Times to make that silly statement
I think he is referring to the actor not the character.

James never had happy moments??????? What about when he graduated trade school, playing the dozens at the Apt, cleaning up ned the wino, and the RENT PARTY!!!!!!!!!! So you defintely are not a fan of Good Times to make that silly statement

Hey Solomon, you can go jump in a lake. I said John Amos never had one happy day, not James Evans. James Evans was always happy, even when he was down. He always knew what he had in his wife and family, even when life sucked for him. But how dare you say I'm not a fan of the show. I definitely am. Besides, who set you up as the authority of the show to make such a grandiose statement (or should I say silly statement?)... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ed

Hey Solomon, you can go jump in a lake. I said John Amos never had one happy day, not James Evans. James Evans was always happy, even when he was down. He always knew what he had in his wife and family, even when life sucked for him. But how dare you say I'm not a fan of the show. I definitely am. Besides, who set you up as the authority of the show to make such a grandiose statement (or should I say silly statement?)... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ed
Man, I don't know which thread is hotter right now...this one or the "spin-off debate" thread where George & GeeBee are going at it... :lol:

Ay dios!!!! LMAO!!!! I can see you rolling your eyes when you "said" that!!! Verda??? :lol:

Verdad!!
LMAO!!!

Man, I don't know which thread is hotter right now...this one or the "spin-off debate" thread where George & GeeBee are going at it... :lol:

They're gonna start playing the dozens now....LOL

You're eyes may shine
And your teeth may grit
But that Moderator job
You ain't gonna get

You damm right, I'm going to start playing the dozens, HEY EDSTER,



"If you want respect you got to earn it, so cover your nose before I burn it"




LOL

Hey Solomon, you can go jump in a lake. I said John Amos never had one happy day, not James Evans. James Evans was always happy, even when he was down. He always knew what he had in his wife and family, even when life sucked for him. But how dare you say I'm not a fan of the show. I definitely am. Besides, who set you up as the authority of the show to make such a grandiose statement (or should I say silly statement?)... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ed



Ok i misunderstood you, i thought you were referring to the character

I think he is referring to the actor not the character.

Some people don't seem to know the difference.


:rolleyes:

Some people don't seem to know the difference.


:rolleyes:

One would think that the mention of the name 'John Amos' would be enough of a clarification, but no...

Ed :rolleyes: