Please vote.

Norman Lear says it is, and that's good enough for me.

Eric Monte says it's not and that's good enough for Me

just because if there was no Maude I don't think Good Times would have been made so I will go with yes. There is a lot of reasons for both sides but I just don't think it would have been made. I think a television version of Rasin in the Sun would have been made eventually but there would be no Florida Evans.

Yes it's a spinoff.

Yes it's a spinoff.

No Pilot, No spinoff,

No Pilot, No spinoff,


What crazy ass rule is that :lol:

Yes...

Ed

No Pilot, No spinoff,

I swear Solomon, you make up your own dumb ass rules. :lol:

Yes...

Ed



I knew u would say yes-lol

I swear Solomon, you make up your own dumb ass rules. :lol:


Not my rule, Lear always does the PILOT

Maude-PILOT
Jeffersons-PILOT
Good Times-???????
Gloria-PILOT

Even Gloria had a Pilot-lol

Yes.

Not my rule, Lear always does the PILOT

Maude-PILOT
Jeffersons-PILOT
Good Times-???????
Gloria-PILOT

Even Gloria had a Pilot-lol


Sorry, Lear obviously doesn't always do it....


Good Times

just wondering if Checking In had a pilot

just wondering if Checking In had a pilot

Yes it did

Yes it did

well there goes that theory-lol

just wondering if Checking In had a pilot


It sure did MATT-lol

It sure did MATT-lol

well that idea didn't' work-lol

well that idea didn't' work-lol


So all the other shows that ARE spinoffs had PILOT eps

Maude
Jeffersons
Gloria
Checking In

But none for Good Times which is why that Interview means nothing if there isn't a explanation for no Pilot

So all the other shows that ARE spinoffs had PILOT eps

Maude
Jeffersons
Gloria
Checking In

But none for Good Times which is why that Interview means nothing if there isn't a explanation for no Pilot

Your theory means NOTHING because NORMAN LEAR SAID IT WAS A SPINOFF.

Having a pilot has nothing to do with whether or not a show is a spinoff. A pilot is used as a sample episode to sell a network on a potential series. Occasionally, a network buys the series sight unseen because of the talent involved - Lucille Ball's later series come to mind. "The Golden Palace" had no pilot, because CBS already knew what the concept was and who the producers were, so they bought the show sight unseen. Same thing happened with "Green Acres" - CBS bought it without a pilot because of Paul Henning's track record. He had two very successful series on the network already, and CBS didn't need to see a sample episode. And the same thing happened with Norman Lear and "Good Times".

Having a pilot has nothing to do with whether or not a show is a spinoff. A pilot is used as a sample episode to sell a network on a potential series. Occasionally, a network buys the series sight unseen because of the talent involved - Lucille Ball's later series come to mind. "The Golden Palace" had no pilot, because CBS already knew what the concept was and who the producers were, so they bought the show sight unseen. Same thing happened with "Green Acres" - CBS bought it without a pilot because of Paul Henning's track record. He had two very successful series on the network already, and CBS didn't need to see a sample episode. And the same thing happened with Norman Lear and "Good Times".


I'm not talkig about Lucille Ball, and Green Acres. I'm referring to NORMAN LEAR SHOWS ONLY. And the other 4 shws developed by him had PILOT eps but not that show called Good Times

I'm not talkig about Lucille Ball, and Green Acres. I'm referring to NORMAN LEAR SHOWS ONLY. And the other 4 shws developed by him had PILOT eps but not that show called Good Times
NORMAN LEAR SAID IT'S A SPINOFF. So he did it different that time. A pilot is not a criteria for a spinoff. You're nitpicking.

NORMAN LEAR SAID IT'S A SPINOFF. So he did it different that time. A pilot is not a criteria for a spinoff. You're nitpicking.



He did it different that time?-LOL HUH???

He did it different that time?-LOL HUH???
Yes, he did it different. It happens. It is a spinoff. Lear said it.

This is ridiculous. It's like debating if the sky is blue.

You lost Solomon. You gave it your all, but you lost.

Well, stumbled across the poll and voted. It is 8 to 2. I wonder who the opposing 2 are? Don't You? LOL?

Well, stumbled across the poll and voted. It is 8 to 2. I wonder who the opposing 2 are? Don't You? LOL?
I made it a public poll. If you click on one of the numbers (9 or 2, in this case), you can see exactly who voted for who. :)

I will always be undecided in this debate

its so easy to call it a spin off (even though it was 2 different characters with the same name and same actor)

But whatever
UNDECIDED
Thats My vote
when some one can explain why there are so many inconsistances with bridging GT to Maude then I can decide
So far I get the same answer?

I will always be undecided in this debate

its so easy to call it a spin off (even though it was 2 different characters with the same name and same actor)

But whatever
UNDECIDED
Thats My vote
when some one can explain why there are so many inconsistances with bridging GT to Maude then I can decide
So far I get the same answer?

Well, undecided is definitely an upgrade from a definite no. lol

Hey Brian Damage

This is why I'm indecided
there are far to many inconsistances in the facts for me to say yes or no just to many.

With spinoffs, inconsistencies don't matter that much. The writers and producers can creative as they please. Televsion changes everyday. The Golden Girls spun off Empty Nest. However, the hubby and wife that were on the Golden Girls episode were not used for Empty Nest and Richard Mulligan was picked to star once the show went into production. The only person who crossed over to the series spinoff was David Leisure who played Charley om Empty Nest but was Oliver on Golden Girls in the pilot. Those are consistencies.

With spinoffs, inconsistencies don't matter that much. The writers and producers can creative as they please. Televsion changes everyday. The Golden Girls spun off Empty Nest. However, the hubby and wife that were on the Golden Girls episode were not used for Empty Nest and Richard Mulligan was picked to star once the show went into production. The only person who crossed over to the series spinoff was David Leisure who played Charley om Empty Nest but was Oliver on Golden Girls in the pilot. Those are consistencies.



Good Times had 345 Inconsistencies-lol

Good Times had 345 Inconsistencies-lol

They could have 1,000,000 inconsistencies, it still doesn't mean it wasn't a spinoff. Sorry Solomon, but you are WRONG.

For the non believers, could you please get Mr. Ed funeral arrangements? You cracked the whip on a him a little too much.

Good Times had 345 Inconsistencies-lol


WTF EVER, You have actually lost it. You have lost the battle, so just surrender.

http://www.answers.com/topic/spin-off-1

spin·off or spin-off (spĭn'ôf', -ŏf')
n.

Something derived from an earlier work, such as a television show starring a character who had a popular minor role in another show.

There you go, that's it. There's the definition. All of the criteria for a spinoff is stated right there...and Good Times has that.

Whether Norman Lear had a pilot, whether or not there were inconsistencies, whether or not you just don't like the fact that they lived in Chicago...none of that matters. There's the definition, and Good Times fits it.

Say that I made a cake, and the first few times I made the cake, I did one particular step; then, in the future, I decided not to do that step but STILL meeting all of the needs to make that cake. So does would that mean that it wasn't "technically" a cake just because I didn't do what I did first the other times? No.

http://www.answers.com/topic/spin-off-1

spin·off or spin-off (spĭn'ôf', -ŏf')
n.

Something derived from an earlier work, such as a television show starring a character who had a popular minor role in another show.

There you go, that's it. There's the definition. All of the criteria for a spinoff is stated right there...and Good Times has that.

Whether Norman Lear had a pilot, whether or not there were inconsistencies, whether or not you just don't like the fact that they lived in Chicago...none of that matters. There's the definition, and Good Times fits it.

Say that I made a cake, and the first few times I made the cake, I did one particular step; then, in the future, I decided not to do that step but STILL meeting all of the needs to make that cake. So does would that mean that it wasn't "technically" a cake just because I didn't do what I did first the other times? No.
Very good Chad. Impressive.

Solomon, you may as well admit it's a spinoff.

WOW! I am so amazed. We have a definition. Wow. I, uh,....wow. Dan- I-don't know what else to say. Dang-I mea- wow!

I'm still looking for the PILOT ep of Good Times that aired on Jan 24, 1974 on CBS. Once I find that on the trading Board then I will say-"IT"S A SPINOFF"

I'm still looking for the PILOT ep of Good Times that aired on Jan 24, 1974 on CBS. Once I find that on the trading Board then I will say-"IT"S A SPINOFF"
I thought there was no pilot episode?

I thought there was no pilot episode?


Well Lear said it's a spinoff so it must be a pilot out there some where-lol

Well Lear said it's a spinoff so it must be a pilot out there some where-lol
There's no rule that states that a spinoff has to have a pilot episode. You're making up your own rules as you go along.

And there's that pesky little detail that Lear DID say it's a spinoff. Hard as you try, you can't get around that.

I'm still looking for the PILOT ep of Good Times that aired on Jan 24, 1974 on CBS. Once I find that on the trading Board then I will say-"IT"S A SPINOFF"


Why do you just dismiss other's post? You go off on a tangent that makes no difference at all. GT didn't need a pilot because they knew what the show was going to be about. And lets face it, it was Norman Lear, back then he was he man to go to. I personally think that the networks would have put on just about anything he pitched to them.

Why do you just dismiss other's post? You go off on a tangent that makes no difference at all. GT didn't need a pilot because they knew what the show was going to be about. And lets face it, it was Norman Lear, back then he was he man to go to. I personally think that the networks would have put on just about anything he pitched to them.




If anyone has the original CBS pilot of Good Times titled-"Movin on Down" aired on Jan 24, 1974, email me to set up a trade at retrotv@msn.com

lol

If anyone has the original CBS pilot of Good Times titled-"Movin on Down" aired on Jan 24, 1974, email me to set up a trade at retrotv@msn.com

lol

another tangent about something that doesn't matter :lol:

another tangent about something that doesn't matter :lol:


If you find let me know

I found it! It was about a couple of minutes of Norman Lear saying that Good Times was a spinoff. Everybody on this board has seen it. How come you haven't Solomon? I thought you were the "King" of TV Research???? :lol:

this thread and the other one need to be merged. they both say the same thing, as far as posts are concerned...:crazy: :lol:

hmmm i asked you guys to vote a week ago....anyway, the AYES have it! GOOD TIMES IS A SPINOFF!!!!! :)

I found it! It was about a couple of minutes of Norman Lear saying that Good Times was a spinoff. Everybody on this board has seen it. How come you haven't Solomon? I thought you were the "King" of TV Research???? :lol:


I will become the King of TV research if I ever find that jan 24th 1974 CBS broadcast called "Movin on Down"-lol

Why have a pilot if you already know what the show is going to be about?

And you STILL haven't answered my question.

Why have a pilot if you already know what the show is going to be about?

And you STILL haven't answered my question.


I remember hearing it was a Good Times Pilot that was LOST which was titled "Movin on Down" and James lost the Fireman Job and had to pack up and take his Family to a Southside Apartment in the Sky and the Theme Song was supposed to be-"We are movin on down to the Southside, we never got a piece of the Pie"



LOL-LOL

I remember hearing it was a Good Times Pilot that was LOST which was titled "Movin on Down" and James lost the Fireman Job and had to pack up and take his Family to a Southside Apartment in the Sky and the Theme Song was supposed to be-"We are movin on down to the Southside, we never got a piece of the Pie"



LOL-LOL

Answer my question

Solomon has clearly lost this debate, so he's ventured into silliness.

Doesn't change the fact that he lost the debate though.]

That song is funny Solomon, lol.

I loved the song too. Wow this debate has gone to nitpicking. Even the nitpicking is wearing thin. There is nothing that can convince me that Good Times is NOT a spinoff from Maude. It definitely was tied in. Back in 1992, TBS did the "All In the Family" Family Tree along with "The Andy Griffith Show" family tree. "All in the Family" consisted of the episode when George and Weezie move to Manhattan. "The Jeffersons" featured the first ep when George wants to hire a maid for Louise. "Maude" featured the episode when Maude hires Florida Evans as her housekeeper. "Good Times" feature the episode when Maude insists on living in the Ghetto for a month so she can feel the suffering and pain that most blacks in the ghetto go through.
LOL. Let me stop. It was actually the episode when Florida vies for best kept apartment and Ned gets made over. That is the family tree.

This was back in January of 1992. I still have it on tape.

Well, until Solomon LOGICALLY answers my question as to why Florida Evans was used on both shows, I cannot take him seriously anymore.

I look at it this way, there is a definition of a spinoff aleady given. As far as I am concerned, I don't even need Lear's opinion of the show being a spinoff. The definition is there and the shows speak for themselves. Lear's statement on video is an extra added bonus that backs up the claim. It is like icing on the cake.

I look at it this way, there is a definition of a spinoff aleady given. As far as I am concerned, I don't even need Lear's opinion of the show being a spinoff. The definition is there and the shows speak for themselves. Lear's statement on video is an extra added bonus that backs up the claim. It is like icing on the cake.



We never got a piece of the Pie-lol

It IS a spinoff of Maude, and I for one have seen, read & heard about GT being a spinoff of that particular show.
It's been explained & handed down that way for many, many years through the current day, too. TV Guide, Parade, and all the other major magazines that deal with media & shows have at some point in time made the statement that points to GT being a spinoff of Maude.
And you know it. :o :rolleyes:
"NO MATTER WHAT TVRESEARCHER MIGHT SAY OR TRY TO DO" :rolleyes: :p
LMAO, & I'm not kidding or fooling with you either. We don't have that kind of time to waste...
:mad: :cool:

It IS a spinoff of Maude, and I for one have seen, read & heard about GT being a spinoff of that particular show.
It's been explained & handed down that way for many, many years through the current day, too. TV Guide, Parade, and all the other major magazines that deal with media & shows have at some point in time made the statement that points to GT being a spinoff of Maude.
And you know it. :o :rolleyes:
"NO MATTER WHAT TVRESEARCHER MIGHT SAY OR TRY TO DO" :rolleyes: :p
LMAO, & I'm not kidding or fooling with you either. We don't have that kind of time to waste...
:mad: :cool:

I know it's listed as a spinoff but what started the debate was the Executive Producer saying it's not really a spinoff in 1974. If that statement was never made I would not be saying GT is not a spinoff

Solomon, you said it yourself. You wish that you had Norman Lear's Cell Phone Number. You said that you wanted proof from Norman himself. It was provided. R U admitting that you are taking back what you said?

Solomon, you said it yourself. You wish that you had Norman Lear's Cell Phone Number. You said that you wanted proof from Norman himself. It was provided. R U admitting that you are taking back what you said?

Uhhh-HUH, it certainly sounds & looks that way to me too, Tommie... looks like our fellow poster Solomon needs to recheck him for the "true facts", eh? LOL, not really kidding here. :eek: :p

Norman's GOT his proof down; now, with that in mind, Solomon, what have you got to say about this whole thing? I am just curious. :wave: :cool:

Brian, Cindy, Brie, Lamont and others isn't this kinda sad. Brie21 gave us the definition from the dictionary as to what a spinoff is and Solomon won't give in. LOL. That is the primary thing. Norman's interview is more secondary to me but it helps big time and that is what Solomon wanted to obtain in order for him to believe our story. I wonder if he is afraid to look at the interview and listen??? Hmm.....Happy Memorial Day to all my buddies here. That includes you too Solomon although you are on the opposite side. LOL.

Solomon, you said it yourself. You wish that you had Norman Lear's Cell Phone Number. You said that you wanted proof from Norman himself. It was provided. R U admitting that you are taking back what you said?


Yes but I was going to be the INTERVIEWER if I called him on his Cell Phone not someone else. If I had ased him-"Is Good Times a Spinoff? ad if he said yes you know I would have DRILLED HIM with TONS of questions as to why

"Drilled Him?" LOL. Give it up, man. Happy Holiday, Dude. Have a good one. I am going to Disney!

"Drilled Him?" LOL. Give it up, man. Happy Holiday, Dude. Have a good one. I am going to Disney!


Yeah Drilled Him with questions, well why no pilot like your other spinoffs, and why did the executive producer of Good Times say it wasn't a spinoff. After I got through with him he would have been doing so much back tracking that he would have doing the moonwalk. Enjoy your Holiday Tom

There's no question that it was a spinoff. Florida was Maude's "sassy" maid. Her character was a bit sharper and almost always stole the scene and that's why they gave her her own show. They changed her story a lot, but they kept her name. Spinoffs were huge back then. Mary Tyler Moore had a ton of them.

Yeah, it's definitely a spinoff.

There's no question that it was a spinoff. Florida was Maude's "sassy" maid. Her character was a bit sharper and almost always stole the scene and that's why they gave her her own show. They changed her story a lot, but they kept her name. Spinoffs were huge back then. Mary Tyler Moore had a ton of them.

Yeah, it's definitely a spinoff.


Wrong, and send me a PMi if you want me to mail you the article saying-"It's not a Spinoff"

I thought this debate had finally gone away.:rolleyes:

I thought this debate had finally gone away.:rolleyes:
tell me abt it. why was this bumped????????? This thread is dead.

tell me abt it. why was this bumped????????? This thread is dead.

This thread is dead, Zed's dead....:D

tell me abt it. why was this bumped????????? This thread is dead.


The Topic that Will never Die-lol

oh jesus christ this again my god iam so damm sick and tired of hearing is good times spinoff of maude answer is YES there u satisfied this thread schould be locked.! and any other thread regardign the damm spinoff conterversry!!!

This thread died when Janice provided us with the Norm Lear clips :D

This thread died when Janice provided us with the Norm Lear clips :D


Whatever-lol

Whatever-lol


You know it's true! LOL

You know it's true! LOL


I was going to say the same thing LOL

Ah, here we go again. We get new people on the board that pull up the topic for the first time. Its all good. Wow, it has been well over three year since this topic came to be. It is dead and King Lear left the building...but before leaving, he gave an answer. :lol:

You know, I'm fairly new to this board. And it looked so interesting to me cause I always loved this show when it was on in the 70's and I have been watching it again. I also liked that this was a board that seems pretty alive with lots of postings. I was going through the different threads, reading some and I saw this one. I was just adding what I remembered from the 70's, my own impression. I didn't realize this had been a whole debate. I didn't read the whole thread (my bad) or I would have known this. In that, I was wrong. But some of you were wrong to be so unwelcoming.

I voted yes..

You know, I'm fairly new to this board. And it looked so interesting to me cause I always loved this show when it was on in the 70's and I have been watching it again. I also liked that this was a board that seems pretty alive with lots of postings. I was going through the different threads, reading some and I saw this one. I was just adding what I remembered from the 70's, my own impression. I didn't realize this had been a whole debate. I didn't read the whole thread (my bad) or I would have known this. In that, I was wrong. But some of you were wrong to be so unwelcoming.


If you need the 1974 article that explains why good times is not a spinoff just send me a private message. That will tell you everything you need to know

If you need the 1974 article that explains why good times is not a spinoff just send me a private message. That will tell you everything you need to know


....and, if you want an answer to OVERRULE that article, just search this board for NORMAN LEAR's comments that it WAS a spinoff. :lol:

....and, if you want an answer to OVERRULE that article, just search this board for NORMAN LEAR's comments that it WAS a spinoff. :lol:


I tried it but it didn;t come up-lol

I tried it but it didn;t come up-lol


You know you aren't trying hard enough. ;)

I don't really know
what I can say is that it is a spin off of the charactor Florida
thats its nothing else from Maude spins off into good times that its
by the way I saw the norman lear clip that was provided
and it seems to me that NL is unsure himself

You know, I'm fairly new to this board. And it looked so interesting to me cause I always loved this show when it was on in the 70's and I have been watching it again. I also liked that this was a board that seems pretty alive with lots of postings. I was going through the different threads, reading some and I saw this one. I was just adding what I remembered from the 70's, my own impression. I didn't realize this had been a whole debate. I didn't read the whole thread (my bad) or I would have known this. In that, I was wrong. But some of you were wrong to be so unwelcoming.


Welcome to the boards! Feel free to post. You have to understand that this has been an ongoing thing for several years now. I have nothing against you. Occasionally, we get new people that don't know the history. Certainly IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT! I can assure. Come on back and keep posting. Folks, let's try and be careful with how we post. We don't want to offend innocent bystanders. Besides, since you voted "yes" you are my new friend on the board. LOL. We have video footage that was provided that closed this topic but some people who remain nameles keeps using some type of article to overshadow what Norman Lear says. :lol: Welcome to the boards. You better keep postin' too!

You know, I'm fairly new to this board. And it looked so interesting to me cause I always loved this show when it was on in the 70's and I have been watching it again. I also liked that this was a board that seems pretty alive with lots of postings. I was going through the different threads, reading some and I saw this one. I was just adding what I remembered from the 70's, my own impression. I didn't realize this had been a whole debate. I didn't read the whole thread (my bad) or I would have known this. In that, I was wrong. But some of you were wrong to be so unwelcoming.
YES! WE ARE WRONG AND SO BAD!!!! how rude of us indeed to not have noticed you are fairly new and we didn't welcome you!!!!!! I am sorry for not noticing and sincere apologies. Don't let this keep you from returning. Enjoy the boards and hope to see you post here at Good Times and all the other threads on the other boards!!!!:wave: :D

YES! WE ARE WRONG AND SO BAD!!!! how rude of us indeed to not have noticed you are fairly new and we didn't welcome you!!!!!! I am sorry for not noticing and sincere apologies. Don't let this keep you from returning. Enjoy the boards and hope to see you post here at Good Times and all the other threads on the other boards!!!!:wave: :D


That's not the only thing you were wrong about-lol

That's not the only thing you were wrong about-lol
what else Solomon? Don't forget, I am on YOUR SIDE ON THIS DEBATE!

....and, if you want an answer to OVERRULE that article, just search this board for NORMAN LEAR's comments that it WAS a spinoff. :lol:


Brian I believe we WON this debate, the people of the board have spoken :lol:

I voted YES in May, but I would like to take that back. On the E True Hollywood story Eric Monte had written the script for "Black Family" before Florida was a major part on Maude. The concept of Black Family changed so Esther Rolle could be in it. The script was already there before talk about a "Spin off of Maude" was in the works. Cast members from Maude were used in this new series. I am going to upload the section of the True Hollywood Story now.

I voted YES in May, but I would like to take that back. On the E True Hollywood story Eric Monte had written the script for "Black Family" before Florida was a major part on Maude. The concept of Black Family changed so Esther Rolle could be in it. The script was already there before talk about a "Spin off of Maude" was in the works. Cast members from Maude were used in this new series. I am going to upload the section of the True Hollywood Story now.

well there is a interview with EM says that as well but the feelings about this issue are mixed and will never be resolved so

the debate will continue

i think its fair to say that OVERWHELMINGLY the board recognizes the obvious

the show WAS Indeed a spinoff of Maude

always was, always will be!

i think its fair to say that OVERWHELMINGLY the board recognizes the obvious

the show WAS Indeed a spinoff of Maude

always was, always will be!





Who cares

I voted YES in May, but I would like to take that back. On the E True Hollywood story Eric Monte had written the script for "Black Family" before Florida was a major part on Maude. The concept of Black Family changed so Esther Rolle could be in it. The script was already there before talk about a "Spin off of Maude" was in the works. Cast members from Maude were used in this new series. I am going to upload the section of the True Hollywood Story now.


I knew my Buddy Matt would see my Point-lol

what else Solomon? Don't forget, I am on YOUR SIDE ON THIS DEBATE!


Oh that's right-lol You was Brie who turned on me. So we have you, Gilliagan Fanatic, and Trishalla

WHO CARES tvresearcher??? come on now, ive seen u post about a GA-ZILLION times on this subject and u want to say u dont care?????

i understand some changes were made when they Spun Off into their own show (like changing MR. EVANS first name) but this is TV not real life, and people change things all the time

but its still a spinoff

WHO CARES tvresearcher??? come on now, ive seen u post about a GA-ZILLION times on this subject and u want to say u dont care?????

i understand some changes were made when they Spun Off into their own show (like changing MR. EVANS first name) but this is TV not real life, and people change things all the time

but its still a spinoff

How it can it be a spinoff if the series already existed? I'll have to check on the date of Black Family, but I think he said he had the idea for a long time. Norman Lear really didn't do much but help get the series sold it sounds like. So I don't see why what he says is more improtant than what Eric Monte said

simple matt
the IDEA for the series existed
BUT NOT THE SERIES

Lear had an idea he wanted to do, BUT THEN he had great characters on Maude in the Evans Family--- so he MERGED the 2 ideas into 1-- and to make the concept he had work and be a hit, he SPUN OFF a popular character (florida) from a popular show, into a new spinoff
HAPPENS ALL THE TIME

a lot of SPINOFFs are reworked ideas that incorporate the characters into the new settings and use an idea that someone had before (BUT an idea that is made more profitable by spinnnig off characters!)

simple matt
the IDEA for the series existed
BUT NOT THE SERIES

Lear had an idea he wanted to do, BUT THEN he had great characters on Maude in the Evans Family--- so he MERGED the 2 ideas into 1-- and to make the concept he had work and be a hit, he SPUN OFF a popular character (florida) from a popular show, into a new spinoff
HAPPENS ALL THE TIME

a lot of SPINOFFs are reworked ideas that incorporate the characters into the new settings and use an idea that someone had before (BUT an idea that is made more profitable by spinnnig off characters!)

I'll have to disagree with that too because "The Baileys of Balboa" is based on what CBS wanted Gilligan's Island to be, but it isn't a spinoff of it. GI isn't spun off from anything but the same thing happened to Baileys and Good Times. The Network wanted it a certain way.

Here is the clip of Eric Monte

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6iExh6hpY0

Notice that first words. In the Fall of 1971....

the differnece is THE BALBOAS was NONE OF THE SAME CAST/CHARACTERS and a totallly differnet show, they didnt WORK the cast into it

IF THEY HAD DONE THE BALBOAS with the HOWELLS it WOULD be a spinoff

How it can it be a spinoff if the series already existed? I'll have to check on the date of Black Family, but I think he said he had the idea for a long time. Norman Lear really didn't do much but help get the series sold it sounds like. So I don't see why what he says is more improtant than what Eric Monte said
That's what I mean. My contention has always been what ERIC MONTE says. Not what Norman Lear says. For the simple and most important reason that Eric created the show. If Eric says it's not a spin-off, than, I accept that.

Thank you Matt for that tape. As Eric states, in 1971 he CREATED A SHOW ON PAPER ABT A BLACK FAMILY with Thelma, JJ...etc. etc. etc. At the same time, Norman was STARTING WORK on MAUDE. So, before there was ever a maid on Maude, the BLACK FAMILY was already being worked on paper.

That's what I mean. My contention has always been what ERIC MONTE says. Not what Norman Lear says. For the simple and most important reason that Eric created the show. If Eric says it's not a spin-off, than, I accept that.

Thank you Matt for that tape. As Eric states, in 1971 he CREATED A SHOW ON PAPER ABT A BLACK FAMILY with Thelma, JJ...etc. etc. etc. At the same time, Norman was STARTING WORK on MAUDE. So, before there was ever a maid on Maude, the BLACK FAMILY was already being worked on paper.


True, but it was Norman Lear's show. He did get it on tv with his backing. He is the one who receives residuals from the show not Monte.

I could easily create a script about a radio show host who lives in Seattle and deals with everyday life. If someone buys it from me and changes it to a spinoff of Cheers, it doesn't matter what I originally created. It is NOW a spinoff.

Norman Lear spun it off.

How it can it be a spinoff if the series already existed? I'll have to check on the date of Black Family, but I think he said he had the idea for a long time. Norman Lear really didn't do much but help get the series sold it sounds like. So I don't see why what he says is more improtant than what Eric Monte said


The Black Family was created in 1971

Norman Lear spun it off.


Black Family was created in 1971

simple matt
the IDEA for the series existed
BUT NOT THE SERIES

Lear had an idea he wanted to do, BUT THEN he had great characters on Maude in the Evans Family--- so he MERGED the 2 ideas into 1-- and to make the concept he had work and be a hit, he SPUN OFF a popular character (florida) from a popular show, into a new spinoff
HAPPENS ALL THE TIME

a lot of SPINOFFs are reworked ideas that incorporate the characters into the new settings and use an idea that someone had before (BUT an idea that is made more profitable by spinnnig off characters!)



Black Family was Created in 1971

True, but it was Norman Lear's show. He did get it on tv with his backing. He is the one who receives residuals from the show not Monte.

I could easily create a script about a radio show host who lives in Seattle and deals with everyday life. If someone buys it from me and changes it to a spinoff of Cheers, it doesn't matter what I originally created. It is NOW a spinoff.



It's time for you to come to the other side Brian-lol Give It Up

ok well u can post that the black family was created in 1971 til u r blue in the face, bUT that dont mean squat----
that concept was a dead duck, until lear was able to REWORK that idea into the spinoff

ONLY THEN DID IT HAVE LIFE

ok well u can post that the black family was created in 1971 til u r blue in the face, bUT that dont mean squat----
that concept was a dead duck, until lear was able to REWORK that idea into the spinoff

ONLY THEN DID IT HAVE LIFE


Black Family created in 1971, Maude created in 1972. The End.

hmmmm if only reality were that simple, unfortunately simply the year a concept was created means nothing---- some shows like E/R were "Created" on paper years earlier, BUT they didnt exist until someone filmed them and aired them

same with GOOD TIMES--- there was an IDEA on paper, but it wasnt a real show, until norman lear reworked it into a spinoff with characters from MAUDE

MANY spinoffs are ACTUALLY written BEFORE the original show they are spun off from--- i read where the idea for FRASIER was around BEFORE FRASIER EVEN JOINED CHEERS! but it never sold, LATER they reworked a show about a radio shrink IDEA into an actual SPINOFF for frasier

same with good times

END OF STORY

maude employed florida as her house keeper then they spun ester rolle on to her own series. now she never as far as i can remember talked about maude ,walter or anyone else from that series. GOOD TIMES went places MAUDE couldn't so in that sence no it was't a spin off. but in all fairness she did play florida evens on that show.

maude employed florida as her house keeper then they spun ester rolle on to her own series. now she never as far as i can remember talked about maude ,walter or anyone else from that series. GOOD TIMES went places MAUDE couldn't so in that sence no it was't a spin off. but in all fairness she did play florida evens on that show.


Right, she didn't talk about them because Walter and Maude diodn't exist.

i didn't think this was the disputed point

i didn't think this was the disputed point


It still doesn't mean anything because she had a different husband on Maude

on the jeffersons and at first on all in the family the original focus was on henrey jefferson not george .

on the jeffersons and at first on all in the family the original focus was on henrey jefferson not george .


Bad Example because it was the SAME character but Different Actors and Henry Jefferson was Louise Brother In Law not her Husband.

Oh that's right-lol You was Brie who turned on me. So we have you, Gilliagan Fanatic, and Trishalla

I never turned on you

I never turned on you


You were on my side until you got brain washed-lol

You were on my side until you got brain washed-lol


I think you are thinking of Janice. And you can't be brainwashed by the truth. Janice found out the truth and you couldn't handle it. lol

You were on my side until you got brain washed-lol


I never stepped over to your side. So I was never on your side. I stuck to my guns. And until Norm Lear THE PRODUCER himself say that it wasn't a spin off until that day, I will always believe and know that it was a spinoff.

Florida DID have the same husband played by the same actor--- they just changed his first name when he got a spinoff

HELLO? not too hard a concept to handle is it?

Florida DID have the same husband played by the same actor--- they just changed his first name when he got a spinoff

HELLO? not too hard a concept to handle is it?



I really don;t know what you are talking about. I swear you be talking about something WAY OFF.

NO its perfectly clear

JOHN AMOS guested on maude as HENRY EVANS who was FLORIDA EVANS Husband, when they SPUN OFF The show, they didnt like the name henry and it didnt fit, so they just RENAMED Him James

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17802/bio_of_actor_john_amos.html

u can read his bio and see the info

SAME CHARACTER_- just renamed his 1st name

PS a few more links SHOWING that GOOD TIMES is indeed a spinoff of MAUDE
and the characters ARE THE SAME

http://www.tv-now.com/stars/johnamos.html

http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1974/february_1_1974_145525.html

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=6651348

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/G/htmlG/goodtimes/goodtimes.htm

i can post like 500 more if need be, but they all confirm the same thing!

NO its perfectly clear

JOHN AMOS guested on maude as HENRY EVANS who was FLORIDA EVANS Husband, when they SPUN OFF The show, they didnt like the name henry and it didnt fit, so they just RENAMED Him James

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17802/bio_of_actor_john_amos.html

u can read his bio and see the info

SAME CHARACTER_- just renamed his 1st name

PS a few more links SHOWING that GOOD TIMES is indeed a spinoff of MAUDE
and the characters ARE THE SAME

http://www.tv-now.com/stars/johnamos.html

http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1974/february_1_1974_145525.html

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=6651348

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/G/htmlG/goodtimes/goodtimes.htm

i can post like 500 more if need be, but they all confirm the same thing!



Florida had a Different Husband on Good Times
Florida had a Different Husband on Good Times
Florida had a Different Husband on Good Times
Florida had a Different Husband on Good Times
Florida had a Differnt Husband on Good Times

ok real mature there tvresearcher---- i guess if the facts and the links don't back u up, just resort to this kind of silliness?

are we adults here, or is this the Sitcoms Online Day Care?

NO its perfectly clear

JOHN AMOS guested on maude as HENRY EVANS who was FLORIDA EVANS Husband, when they SPUN OFF The show, they didnt like the name henry and it didnt fit, so they just RENAMED Him James

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17802/bio_of_actor_john_amos.html

u can read his bio and see the info

SAME CHARACTER_- just renamed his 1st name

PS a few more links SHOWING that GOOD TIMES is indeed a spinoff of MAUDE
and the characters ARE THE SAME

http://www.tv-now.com/stars/johnamos.html

http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1974/february_1_1974_145525.html

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=6651348

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/G/htmlG/goodtimes/goodtimes.htm

i can post like 500 more if need be, but they all confirm the same thing!



WHY DO YOU KEEP USING WEBSITES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT????????????????????????????????????????? I already told you what websites say means didley POO

ummm

JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS SO, doesnt mean diddly sir-- websites are JUST AS legit of sources as PRINTED MATERIAL---

what you do sir, is because OVERWHELMINGLY ALL the online guides to the show, all the IMBD sites that cover the writers and actors, and ALL the web sources--- ALL show 100% that you are wrong--- since u CANNOT win with the facts--- u just want to throw out the facts and pretend they dont exist--- im sorry but in college u can use an online website as a source, in debate you can and in all areas of life-- its a legit source

BUT for that matter i have the complete guide to network tv shows, BOOK--- PRINTED BOOK that ALSO mentions GOOD TIMES as a spinoff, i also have NEWSPAPER Articles of Esther Rolles OBITUARY--- PRINTED NEWSPAPERS that ALSO state GOOD TIMES was a SPINOFF--- plus you have the words of Norman Lear himself WHO IS THE ONE WHO GETS THE ROYALTIES for the show and HE says so also

the facts are what they are, the ONLY issue is that ONE PERSON likes to ignore them and make up HIS OWN ARBITRARY RULES that make no sense-- such as

IF THERE IS NO PILOT IT AINT A SPINOFF???

or IF THEY CHANGE A NAME ITS NOT A SPINOFF?

but no matter how many SOLOMON-ISMS you put forth, they dont become factual at all, and if u read the results of the poll, OVERWHELMINGLY the board is disagreeing with the SOLOMON-ISMS and choosing to use the FACTS instead

you say i shouldnt use websites as sources-- BUT you are using NOTHING as a source, just supporting your theories with your own made up rules--- and THAT means diddly poo

im glad u love good times so much, but you are still wrong on this one

LOL

ummm

JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS SO, doesnt mean diddly sir-- websites are JUST AS legit of sources as PRINTED MATERIAL---

what you do sir, is because OVERWHELMINGLY ALL the online guides to the show, all the IMBD sites that cover the writers and actors, and ALL the web sources--- ALL show 100% that you are wrong--- since u CANNOT win with the facts--- u just want to throw out the facts and pretend they dont exist--- im sorry but in college u can use an online website as a source, in debate you can and in all areas of life-- its a legit source

BUT for that matter i have the complete guide to network tv shows, BOOK--- PRINTED BOOK that ALSO mentions GOOD TIMES as a spinoff, i also have NEWSPAPER Articles of Esther Rolles OBITUARY--- PRINTED NEWSPAPERS that ALSO state GOOD TIMES was a SPINOFF--- plus you have the words of Norman Lear himself WHO IS THE ONE WHO GETS THE ROYALTIES for the show and HE says so also

the facts are what they are, the ONLY issue is that ONE PERSON likes to ignore them and make up HIS OWN ARBITRARY RULES that make no sense-- such as

IF THERE IS NO PILOT IT AINT A SPINOFF???

or IF THEY CHANGE A NAME ITS NOT A SPINOFF?

but no matter how many SOLOMON-ISMS you put forth, they dont become factual at all, and if u read the results of the poll, OVERWHELMINGLY the board is disagreeing with the SOLOMON-ISMS and choosing to use the FACTS instead

you say i shouldnt use websites as sources-- BUT you are using NOTHING as a source, just supporting your theories with your own made up rules--- and THAT means diddly poo

im glad u love good times so much, but you are still wrong on this one

LOL


Just let me know if you want me to mail you the 1974 article stating why Good Times is not a spinoff so we can end this silly debate

1 article???? one article from 32 years ago??? and that is a fact???

i have MANY MANY MANY ARTICLES and 100s of online sources that show the exact OPPOSITE---

ANYONE can write 1 article sir!. ive got some articles from the 1980s showing ELVIS IS ALIVE! does it make it fact? no, just someones opinions

OK Great, u have an article from 32 years ago, that has someones OPINION in it that its not a spinoff---- WHOOPI, that doesnt make it the gospel truth, ive got so many articles from newspapers, magazines, books, online sources and interviews with the Owner of the show and stars that ALL show the exact opposite

Im glad you found this old article--- now u have one other person to share your incorrect view with

LOL

1 article???? one article from 32 years ago??? and that is a fact???

i have MANY MANY MANY ARTICLES and 100s of online sources that show the exact OPPOSITE---

ANYONE can write 1 article sir!. ive got some articles from the 1980s showing ELVIS IS ALIVE! does it make it fact? no, just someones opinions

OK Great, u have an article from 32 years ago, that has someones OPINION in it that its not a spinoff---- WHOOPI, that doesnt make it the gospel truth, ive got so many articles from newspapers, magazines, books, online sources and interviews with the Owner of the show and stars that ALL show the exact opposite

Im glad you found this old article--- now u have one other person to share your incorrect view with

LOL



It's an interview with the executive producer who states-"GT Is not a spinoff because..." So just let me know because I'm tired of this silly debate. For the last time if you want to debate with me don;t post websites because then I will have no interest in discussing this with you. Only state what books and newspapers or magaziens you have to support your agument. I'm not into that website crap-lol

?? one executive producer says its not a spinoff????? so why does his word count more than the words of Norman Lear, Jimmie Walker, Bea Arthur, Esther Rolle or John Amos????? or why does that count more than the COMPLETE GUIDE TO NETWORK TV SHOWS? or all the WASHINGTON POST, WASHINGTON TIMES or USA TODAY obits for rolle?????

?? one executive producer says its not a spinoff????? so why does his word count more than the words of Norman Lear, Jimmie Walker, Bea Arthur, Esther Rolle or John Amos????? or why does that count more than the COMPLETE GUIDE TO NETWORK TV SHOWS? or all the WASHINGTON POST, WASHINGTON TIMES or USA TODAY obits for rolle?????


Please stop posting that you have the Complete Guide to Network TV because I bought that book and it's a JOKE. The Book with a MILLION mistakes in it

hmmm it seems like ANY SOURCE that comes up that doesn't support EXACTLY WHAT SOLOMON THINKS---- is somehow inferior and wrong---
the book is wrong
the newspapers are wrong
the magazines are wrong
EVERY ONLINE SOURCE IS WRONG

everyone is wrong, EXCEPT Tvresearcher and his one 32 year old article???

:mrtarver:

:shocked :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

hmmm it seems like ANY SOURCE that comes up that doesn't support EXACTLY WHAT SOLOMON THINKS---- is somehow inferior and wrong---
the book is wrong
the newspapers are wrong
the magazines are wrong
EVERY ONLINE SOURCE IS WRONG

everyone is wrong, EXCEPT Tvresearcher and his one 32 year old article???

:mrtarver:

:shocked :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



Now you got it

well, i tried to discuss it intelligently at least....

well, i tried to discuss it intelligently at least....


No seriously, that Book is a JOKE. It has so many errors and I just don;t take it seriosuly anymore. I just use newspapers and magazines as my source of old TV shows.

ok well what about all my newspapers and magazines?? u know, the ones that SHOW how it WAS a spinoff?? or the obits for esther rolle that ALL comment how GOOD TIMES was spunoff from Maude? or the ARCHIE & EDITH book about ALL IN THE FAMILY which also shows how it was spunoff? i guess these dont count?????

the point is, u pick and choose what u think is legit, it is all completely bogus and illogical

if u r gonna say WEBSITES=BAD, BOOKS=GOOD, then u cannot go back and say SOME Books are no good too, and some magazines and newspapers are no good, u have to be consistent with your logic

BUT u cannot do that, because u r wrong 100%, and u r just trying to find ANYTHING at all that supports your claims and then try to discredit EVERY OTHER SOURCE that shows u r wrong

ok well what about all my newspapers and magazines?? u know, the ones that SHOW how it WAS a spinoff?? or the obits for esther rolle that ALL comment how GOOD TIMES was spunoff from Maude? or the ARCHIE & EDITH book about ALL IN THE FAMILY which also shows how it was spunoff? i guess these dont count?????

the point is, u pick and choose what u think is legit, it is all completely bogus and illogical

if u r gonna say WEBSITES=BAD, BOOKS=GOOD, then u cannot go back and say SOME Books are no good too, and some magazines and newspapers are no good, u have to be consistent with your logic

BUT u cannot do that, because u r wrong 100%, and u r just trying to find ANYTHING at all that supports your claims and then try to discredit EVERY OTHER SOURCE that shows u r wrong

If the newspapers and magazines you have doesn't include someone that was part of the show speaking on this topic then it really wouldn;t be strong enough to support your argument. Going to a website is not RESEARCH that's lazySearch-lol I had to look for months and see what was out there because i was confident that GT was not a spinoff and once i found the 1974 article, I knew that this debate was done and finished and that no one could not tell me any different because I have something no one else has on this board, PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-LOL

ok well what about NORMAN LEAR???? does he qualify??? or JOHN AMOS? or ESTHER ROLLE???? because i have seen quotes from all 3 of them who all 3 state 100% it WAS a spinoff

get real--- u have 1 article, from 3 decades ago where 1 member of the production says its not a spinoff--- DESPITE THAT NORMAN LEAR HIMSELF says it is!!! and u act like u have the gospel truth?

just plain silly logic

again--- a solomon-ism if ever there was one

LOL!

ok well what about NORMAN LEAR???? does he qualify??? or JOHN AMOS? or ESTHER ROLLE???? because i have seen quotes from all 3 of them who all 3 state 100% it WAS a spinoff

get real--- u have 1 article, from 3 decades ago where 1 member of the production says its not a spinoff--- DESPITE THAT NORMAN LEAR HIMSELF says it is!!! and u act like u have the gospel truth?

just plain silly logic

again--- a solomon-ism if ever there was one

LOL!


Well is there a way you can mail me a copy of the articles with Lear, Rolle, and Amos stating it was a spinoff?

I transcribed Lears statement word for word off of the Norman Lear clip that Janice provided us a few months back........... And here's what Lear said

The Interviewer- You practically invented the spin-off..........


Lear- When Maude happened incidently and accidently I casted Maude for the reason I mentioned 7 hrs ago (jokingly) and uh and what happened happened. After that we had a character Florida. And uh, what I thought was happening was uh you know like a ball player grows up in the Bush League and someone says "Oh candidate for the Majors." We had candidate for the majors, we tried to cast that was. And so Esther Rolle playing the role of Florida you know "Ah!" she's ready for the majors.


On Maude we introduce someone we thought might be her husband "lets see how they look together" so we brought in John Amos to play that role, we in the network loved them and we were then committed to do a pilot now called a SPIN-OFF!!!!! But what we thought we were doing was grooming people.



That's right out of Norman's Lears mouth HIMSELF.

I transcribed Lears statement word for word off of the Norman Lear clip that Janice provided us a few months back........... And here's what Lear said

The Interviewer- You practically invented the spin-off..........


Lear- When Maude happened incidently and accidently I casted Maude for the reason I mentioned 7 hrs ago (jokingly) and uh and what happened happened. After that we had a character Florida. And uh, what I thought was happening was uh you know like a ball player grows up in the Bush League and someone says "Oh candidate for the Majors." We had candidate for the majors, we tried to cast that was. And so Esther Rolle playing the role of Florida you know "Ah!" she's ready for the majors.


On Maude we introduce someone we thought might be her husband "lets see how they look together" so we brought in John Amos to play that role, we in the network loved them and we were then committed to do a pilot now called a SPIN-OFF!!!!! But what we thought we were doing was grooming people.



That's right out of Norman's Lears mouth HIMSELF.



But that's a LIE because there was never a PILOT for Good Times. -LOL

But that's a LIE because there was never a PILOT for Good Times. -LOL


Excuse me, there are pilots made for every show. And some are just shown the the network execs. So just because you didn't see it doesn't mean there wasn't one. And that still doesn't take from Lear called it a SPINOFF!

Eat it all up :liplick:

Excuse me, there are pilots made for every show. And some are just shown the the network execs. So just because you didn't see it doesn't mean there wasn't one. And that still doesn't take from Lear called it a SPINOFF!

Eat it all up :liplick:


That is true, there arwe UNAIRED PILOTS but since the Good Times Pilot was never seen to CLOSE up all those HOLES, GT is not a Spinoff. So maybe Lear should find that Pilot so everything can start making sense. Like I said in the summer the GT pilot was similar to the Jeffersons, "We are movin on Down, to the Southside, to a Ran down APT in the Sky"


LOL

That is true, there arwe UNAIRED PILOTS but since the Good Times Pilot was never seen to CLOSE up all those HOLES, GT is not a Spinoff. So maybe Lear should find that Pilot so everything can start making sense. Like I said in the summer the GT pilot was similar to the Jeffersons, "We are movin on Down, to the Southside, to a Ran down APT in the Sky"


LOL


You're picking at crumbs. Just give up, Lear said that GT's was a spinoff and he didn't mean nothing else. If he meant to say something he would have corrected himself but instead he continued to talk about The Jeffersons and whatnot. The producer himself said SPINOFF, can't go around that at all.

You're picking at crumbs. Just give up, Lear said that GT's was a spinoff and he didn't mean nothing else. If he meant to say something he would have corrected himself but instead he continued to talk about The Jeffersons and whatnot. The producer himself said SPINOFF, can't go around that at all.



If I interviewed him about whether GT is a spinoff he would be saying something Different.

If I interviewed him about whether GT is a spinoff he would be saying something Different.


Highly unlikely, the guy asked him one question and Lear went on and on about the spineoffs. Sorry Charlie

Highly unlikely, the guy asked him one question and Lear went on and on about the spineoffs. Sorry Charlie


Well Eric Monte is saying that it's not a spinoff so I guess this debate will never end

i dont know if this was a spinoff or not but good times was being filmed while esther was still on maude after her last episode of maude good times aired 3 days later.


she left maude because henry (james)got a job promotion but on the first epiosode of good times James is all excited because he's sure he's going to get a high paying job. but he is too old

dang

i dont know if this was a spinoff or not but good times was being filmed while esther was still on maude after her last episode of maude good times aired 3 days later.


she left maude because henry (james)got a job promotion but on the first epiosode of good times James is all excited because he's sure he's going to get a high paying job. but he is too old

dang



That's False, Florida's Husband got a Promotion on the Last ep of Maude, and her Husband was Broke on the first ep of Good Times

Well Eric Monte is saying that it's not a spinoff so I guess this debate will never end


First of all Solomon, I hope you know I have the utmost respect for you, inspite of our little spat last summer. Sometimes it appears as if you only skim the messages and don't actually read them and comprehend the points being made, leading to a bunch of posts that end up in circles, but at the end of the day, you're a good egg. Please know that. Plus, a lot of what you've posted on a few message boards that we both frequent provides a lot of thought provoking discussion, something that is sometimes needed when talking about shows that are no longer aired in prime time. Bravo!

Anyway, I have heard your argument about the show NOT being a spin-off, and I know others' views about why they think it is a spin-off. Not to begrudge Eric Monte his due, but he always sounds to me as if he's over-emphasizing his contribution to the show. You can't convince me he's the only person who ever envisioned a show starring African-Americans (imaginatively titled 'The Black Family' no less :rolleyes:). True, his show was the first to get the green light but it sounds as if he thinks he deserves the status of hero for that. We shouldn't forget that he was also the first to leave the show once he felt his future was secure in other projects. He claimed it was because he was tired of all of the fighting behind the scenes, but hey, things that are worth achieving don't come easily, right? So much for the activist...

His statement about it not being a spin-off is that it's not a spin-off in the *traditional* sense, since he conceived the show before Maude was on the air. Most spin-offs are conceived from the parent show it spin-offs from, and that wasn't the case with Good Times. Regardless, the show did enter primetime via Esther Rolle's character, Florida Evans. She was known as that name on Maude and Norman Lear felt that it would help to springboard Eric Monte's concept by having the same character, who the audience already loved, crossover to it. Back then doing a show about a black family was considered risky and they wanted to help it as much as they could.

Look at it this way. If Maude had never existed, then Good Times would never have been (at least not the way we know it). It would've been delayed for an indefinite amount of time. Eventually we would've received a comedy about a black family, but who's to say it would've been via Eric Monte's concept?

In any case, I think Eric Monte's statements about it not being a spin-off is because he's trying to play off how he helped to "pioneer" the black family comedy. Yes, he deserves his due, but I think his role is exaggerated. If it hadn't been his concept, then another's would've been. He wasn't the only one who wanted a show about blacks on the air. We got it in part because of Norman Lear's constant pushing of the envelope and because he knew America was ready for it, even if America didn't know it yet...


Ed

Well Eric Monte is saying that it's not a spinoff so I guess this debate will never end


And we all know what Monte was smoking:lol:

this is another SOLOMON-ISM

FIRST he says that all my websites are NOT proof at all, so i give him the proof in books, THEN he says those books are no good, and the ONLY proof is from someone on the show-- THEN when u quote NORMAN LEAR, the creator---- suddenly HE IS LYING!!!!

perfect solomon-isms, some people will just stick there head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the truth NO MATTER WHAT PROOF U SHOW THEM

you are wasting your breath explaining LOGIC to someone who just wants to believe a false concept

MANY SPINOFFS NEVER HAVE A PILOT episode--- IT IS NOT NEEDED AT ALL, for example

FRASIER is a spinoff of cheers BUT there was no pilot ep

LAVERNE AND SHIRLEY is a spinoff of Happy Days BUT no pilot ep

it goes on and on, SOMEHOW for SOME STRANGE REASON, solomon has convinced himself that the creators of a show MUST HAVE A PILOT that ties up the loose ends??? HELLO? this is NOT real life here, its make believe
these characters ARE NOT REAL, and so any loose ends or inconsistencies (name changes, changes in financial status, age, etc ) are all just part of the make believe world and not subject to reality!

so they changed his name--- BIG DEAL, so he got a promotion one ep and was broke on his own show--- BIG DEAL, happens all the time (look at the simpsons, they never age--- look at I LOVE LUCY, fred and ethels anniversary changes all the time)

why 1 person would refuse to see the truth is beyond me

UNLESS--- there is a big conspiracy between EVERY WEBSITE ONLINE, Norman Lear, Esther Rolle, Jimmie Walker, John Amos, the COMPLETE GUIDE TO NETWORK TV publishers and every article ever written save 1 by Eric Monte--- a huge conspiracy to lie about whether its a spinoff or not!!!

LOL !!!

PS it sounds to me as if Eric Monte is GRANDSTANDING
trying to twist the facts (which EVERY ELSE agrees on!)
to make himself seem more important than he is

this is another SOLOMON-ISM

FIRST he says that all my websites are NOT proof at all, so i give him the proof in books, THEN he says those books are no good, and the ONLY proof is from someone on the show-- THEN when u quote NORMAN LEAR, the creator---- suddenly HE IS LYING!!!!

perfect solomon-isms, some people will just stick there head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the truth NO MATTER WHAT PROOF U SHOW THEM

you are wasting your breath explaining LOGIC to someone who just wants to believe a false concept

MANY SPINOFFS NEVER HAVE A PILOT episode--- IT IS NOT NEEDED AT ALL, for example

FRASIER is a spinoff of cheers BUT there was no pilot ep

LAVERNE AND SHIRLEY is a spinoff of Happy Days BUT no pilot ep

it goes on and on, SOMEHOW for SOME STRANGE REASON, solomon has convinced himself that the creators of a show MUST HAVE A PILOT that ties up the loose ends??? HELLO? this is NOT real life here, its make believe
these characters ARE NOT REAL, and so any loose ends or inconsistencies (name changes, changes in financial status, age, etc ) are all just part of the make believe world and not subject to reality!

so they changed his name--- BIG DEAL, so he got a promotion one ep and was broke on his own show--- BIG DEAL, happens all the time (look at the simpsons, they never age--- look at I LOVE LUCY, fred and ethels anniversary changes all the time)

why 1 person would refuse to see the truth is beyond me

UNLESS--- there is a big conspiracy between EVERY WEBSITE ONLINE, Norman Lear, Esther Rolle, Jimmie Walker, John Amos, the COMPLETE GUIDE TO NETWORK TV publishers and every article ever written save 1 by Eric Monte--- a huge conspiracy to lie about whether its a spinoff or not!!!

LOL !!!

Exactly, a few of us just had an discussion on the Laverne and Shirley board and we were talking about how Laverne and Shirley were SO different when they were on Happy Days than when they were on their own show. Writers, Producers can change a character to suit the sitcom it happens all the time.

First of all Solomon, I hope you know I have the utmost respect for you, inspite of our little spat last summer. Sometimes it appears as if you only skim the messages and don't actually read them and comprehend the points being made, leading to a bunch of posts that end up in circles, but at the end of the day, you're a good egg. Please know that. Plus, a lot of what you've posted on a few message boards that we both frequent provides a lot of thought provoking discussion, something that is sometimes needed when talking about shows that are no longer aired in prime time. Bravo!

Anyway, I have heard your argument about the show NOT being a spin-off, and I know others' views about why they think it is a spin-off. Not to begrudge Eric Monte his due, but he always sounds to me as if he's over-emphasizing his contribution to the show. You can't convince me he's the only person who ever envisioned a show starring African-Americans (imaginatively titled 'The Black Family' no less :rolleyes:). True, his show was the first to get the green light but it sounds as if he thinks he deserves the status of hero for that. We shouldn't forget that he was also the first to leave the show once he felt his future was secure in other projects. He claimed it was because he was tired of all of the fighting behind the scenes, but hey, things that are worth achieving don't come easily, right? So much for the activist...

His statement about it not being a spin-off is that it's not a spin-off in the *traditional* sense, since he conceived the show before Maude was on the air. Most spin-offs are conceived from the parent show it spin-offs from, and that wasn't the case with Good Times. Regardless, the show did enter primetime via Esther Rolle's character, Florida Evans. She was known as that name on Maude and Norman Lear felt that it would help to springboard Eric Monte's concept by having the same character, who the audience already loved, crossover to it. Back then doing a show about a black family was considered risky and they wanted to help it as much as they could.

Look at it this way. If Maude had never existed, then Good Times would never have been (at least not the way we know it). It would've been delayed for an indefinite amount of time. Eventually we would've received a comedy about a black family, but who's to say it would've been via Eric Monte's concept?

In any case, I think Eric Monte's statements about it not being a spin-off is because he's trying to play off how he helped to "pioneer" the black family comedy. Yes, he deserves his due, but I think his role is exaggerated. If it hadn't been his concept, then another's would've been. He wasn't the only one who wanted a show about blacks on the air. We got it in part because of Norman Lear's constant pushing of the envelope and because he knew America was ready for it, even if America didn't know it yet...


Ed


Esther Rolle was supposed to have a Different name on Good Times but she wanted to keep Florida. Doesn't that sound believable since the guy playing her husband had a different name????

Esther Rolle was supposed to have a Different name on Good Times but she wanted to keep Florida. Doesn't that sound believable since the guy playing her husband had a different name????
????

ok, maybe so
BUTTTT what does that have to do with it being a spinoff or not???

name changes happen all the time on sitcoms
doesnt mean tiddly winks :wave:

LOL

this is another SOLOMON-ISM

FIRST he says that all my websites are NOT proof at all, so i give him the proof in books, THEN he says those books are no good, and the ONLY proof is from someone on the show-- THEN when u quote NORMAN LEAR, the creator---- suddenly HE IS LYING!!!!

perfect solomon-isms, some people will just stick there head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the truth NO MATTER WHAT PROOF U SHOW THEM

you are wasting your breath explaining LOGIC to someone who just wants to believe a false concept

MANY SPINOFFS NEVER HAVE A PILOT episode--- IT IS NOT NEEDED AT ALL, for example

FRASIER is a spinoff of cheers BUT there was no pilot ep

LAVERNE AND SHIRLEY is a spinoff of Happy Days BUT no pilot ep

it goes on and on, SOMEHOW for SOME STRANGE REASON, solomon has convinced himself that the creators of a show MUST HAVE A PILOT that ties up the loose ends??? HELLO? this is NOT real life here, its make believe
these characters ARE NOT REAL, and so any loose ends or inconsistencies (name changes, changes in financial status, age, etc ) are all just part of the make believe world and not subject to reality!

so they changed his name--- BIG DEAL, so he got a promotion one ep and was broke on his own show--- BIG DEAL, happens all the time (look at the simpsons, they never age--- look at I LOVE LUCY, fred and ethels anniversary changes all the time)

why 1 person would refuse to see the truth is beyond me

UNLESS--- there is a big conspiracy between EVERY WEBSITE ONLINE, Norman Lear, Esther Rolle, Jimmie Walker, John Amos, the COMPLETE GUIDE TO NETWORK TV publishers and every article ever written save 1 by Eric Monte--- a huge conspiracy to lie about whether its a spinoff or not!!!

LOL !!!



Laverne and Shirkey/Happy Days was a bad example

????

ok, maybe so
BUTTTT what does that have to do with it being a spinoff or not???

name changes happen all the time on sitcoms
doesnt mean tiddly winks :wave:

LOL



Because if her name was Aquanetta Evans and her Husband was James Evans, it would not have been connected to Maude especially if the show was based in another STATE.

Laverne and Shirkey/Happy Days was a bad example
??????
why do u focus on a small insignificant example
and ignore the entire point of the post?

Because if her name was Aquanetta Evans and her Husband was James Evans, it would not have been connected to Maude especially if the show was based in another STATE.


we can play WHAT IF tell we are blue in the face---- BUT the fact is
she WAS still florida evans
she WAS still played by esther rolle
her hubby WAS still played but john Amos
the Show WAS a spinoff
NORMAN LEAR the creator CONFIRMS it was a spinoff

rolle, amos and walker in interviews ALL confirmed the same thing

every magazine article, newspaper article, book, tv book or online source, ALL confirm it too

the ONLY thing you are clinging to is a 32 year old article by 1 member of the crew, who seems to me to be trying to PLAY UP his part in the show to make himself look more important than he is

false how maude last episode got job promotion
1st good times too old blues was up for high paying job

what did say that was false

false how maude last episode got job promotion
1st good times too old blues was up for high paying job

what did say that was false


Yes it was false, Her husband was Working Part-Time on Good Times in Chicago and Full Time on Maude in New York. No Connection

hmmmmmm lets see

MAYBE they moved and his employment situation changed???

would that be unheard of??
or MAYBE-- It's NOT REAL LIFE
and so inconsistencies sometimes happen on tv shows?

lol

hmmmmmm lets see

MAYBE they moved and his employment situation changed???

would that be unheard of??
or MAYBE-- It's NOT REAL LIFE
and so inconsistencies sometimes happen on tv shows?

lol

So they moved on DOWN? I wish I heard the theme of the UNAIRED PILOT back in 1974 sung by Roxie Roker

Were a movin on Down to the Southside, a Ran down APT in the sky

Were a movin on Down to the Southside, we never got a piece of the pie

No food to eat in the Kitchen on top of a whole lot of bills

Trying to get better employment and it's making very ILL

Now we are in the Low Leagues, because we didn't try pur best

That's Ok you and me baby and it's defintely nothing wrong with that

We are movin on down, to the southside to a ran down APT in the sky

Were a movin on down to the Soutside, we NEVER GOT A PIECE OF THE PIE


LOL

Solomon, Florida kept the name, because it was the same Florida, just a different setting.

Your article even says that GT WAS a spinoff. The writer of the article wrote that. So even your article states that Good Times is a spinoff.

You have zero legs to stand on now. Sorry Solomon, but you lost the battle. lol

Solomon, Florida kept the name, because it was the same Florida, just a different setting.

Your article even says that GT WAS a spinoff. The writer of the article wrote that. So even your article states that Good Times is a spinoff.

You have zero legs to stand on now. Sorry Solomon, but you lost the battle. lol


Well that John Amos should have changed his name too

Wow! This is still going... cool. I want to yell in the form of loud laughter, but I am in a New York library on ave c in manhattan so I don't want to get thrown out. LOL.

Well that John Amos should have changed his name too


why do u focus on an insignificant fact like that

AND TOTALLY IGNORE
the main part of the post??

Your article even says that GT WAS a spinoff. The writer of the article wrote that. So even your article states that Good Times is a spinoff.

EVEN YOUR OWN article states it??????

why do u focus on an insignificant fact like that

AND TOTALLY IGNORE
the main part of the post??

Your article even says that GT WAS a spinoff. The writer of the article wrote that. So even your article states that Good Times is a spinoff.

EVEN YOUR OWN article states it??????



It stated that "It's not really a spinoff"

In the late seventies, writer David Jacobs wrote a script called Knots Landing - a soap opera that took place on a cul-de-sac in California. The network (CBS) wasn't interested and rejected the script.

Afterwards, Jacobs wrote and created Dallas, which, to the network's surprise, became a smash hit. Wanting to cash in on the success of Dallas, the network wanted a spinoff. Jacobs took out his old Knots Landing script, wrote in the characters of Gary and Val Ewing (recurring characters on Dallas) and the network bought it.

Gary and Val were married on Dallas to set up the spinoff (Knots Landing) and there were several crossover episodes between the two shows in the first two seasons.

Knots Landing wasn't originally conceived as a spinoff, but it ended up being one. I'm sure David Jacobs didn't care - the show was a hit and ran for fourteen seasons.

In the late seventies, writer David Jacobs wrote a script called Knots Landing - a soap opera that took place on a cul-de-sac in California. The network (CBS) wasn't interested and rejected the script.

Afterwards, Jacobs wrote and created Dallas, which, to the network's surprise, became a smash hit. Wanting to cash in on the success of Dallas, the network wanted a spinoff. Jacobs took out his old Knots Landing script, wrote in the characters of Gary and Val Ewing (recurring characters on Dallas) and the network bought it.

Gary and Val were married on Dallas to set up the spinoff (Knots Landing) and there were several crossover episodes between the two shows in the first two seasons.

Knots Landing wasn't originally conceived as a spinoff, but it ended up being one. I'm sure David Jacobs didn't care - the show was a hit and ran for fourteen seasons.



Were the names the same on Knots Landing?

Were the names the same on Knots Landing?

If you're asking about Gary and Val Ewing, yes the names were the same.

If you're asking about Gary and Val Ewing, yes the names were the same.


Well then the Knots Landing/Dallas spinoff is not a good example.

It stated that "It's not really a spinoff"


Actually, that is what Allan Mannings said, the writer of the piece said it was a spinoff to Maude. So I guess he wasn't convinced what Mannings said. lol

I wonder how it came to make sense to anyone that
IF U CHANGE 1 first name of 1 character, that makes it no longer a spinoff?

I wonder how it came to make sense to anyone that
IF U CHANGE 1 first name of 1 character, that makes it no longer a spinoff?


Can you give me the name of another spinoff when one of the character was changed? I"M WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you can't then the Debate is OVER

Can you give me the name of another spinoff when one of the character was changed? I"M WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you can't then the Debate is OVER


The debate IS over. It ended when Lear said it was a spinoff. Sorry buddy. lol

Can you give me the name of another spinoff when one of the character was changed? I"M WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you can't then the Debate is OVER

NO solomon, you cannot just arbirtrarilly make up your own rules

I refuse to play along with your solomon-isms
where u create the rules as u go along to support your claims

you do this all the time--- u claim all online sources are wrong, and all websites are wrong (WHY? because they disagree with your incorrect claims) you then claim that all the books and newspapers and magazines that i quote are wrong, and u even claim that Norman Lear is a liar on this issue

and now u want to make more silly rules up to try to help your point?

COME ON, if u cannot win a debate with the FACTS dont try to change the rules to make it easier for you to win?

THATS LIKE BOWLING WITH THE BUMPER PADS UP!!!!

changes happen ALL THE TIME

ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW was a spinoff of DANNY THOMAS SHOW-- and guess what, AUNT BEA was NOT aunt bea in the episode on DANNY THOMAS they changed her name when it got its own show!!!!

there u go--- theres another spinoff that CHANGED A NAME!!!

PLUS all sorts of changes happen in spinoffs
for

EXAMPLE on CHEERS Frasier Crane was the only child, BUT when it spun off he got a brother in Niles

OF COURSE i expect tvreseacher to TRY to change the rules again to cover this slip up

HOW ABOUT Spinoffs that change time???? BLANKSYS BEAUTIES spun off from happy days, BUT TOOK PLACE IN ANOTHER DECADE??? and how did Laverne guest star in another decade and not age??? hmmmmm... must involve time travel i guess????

OF COURSE i expect tvreseacher to TRY to change the rules again to cover this slip up

HOW ABOUT Spinoffs that change time???? BLANKSYS BEAUTIES spun off from happy days, BUT TOOK PLACE IN ANOTHER DECADE??? and how did Laverne guest star in another decade and not age??? hmmmmm... must involve time travel i guess????


I'm not going to get into that here because Blansky Beauties was not a spinoff either

HMmmmm--- u asked for an example of a spinoff that ALSO changed names--- i gave u one-- ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, and u dont reply to that?

u just comment on another show and avoid the issue?? (ps BLANSKYS not a spinoff??? hmm so i guess Laverne and Carmine and Mr. Defazio just happened to show up and i guess its a pure coincidence that nancy walker guested on happy days as a relative BEFORE the show spun off)

so wheres the snappy reply to the andy griffith example? u asked for another spinoff to change names, and i gave u one

Should I assume that since TVResearcher himself made the challenge that

Can you give me the name of another spinoff when one of the character was changed? I"M WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you can't then the Debate is OVER

and i was able to give him another spinoff

that the debate is OVER and he admits he is wrong???

i mean if he says that NO example means he wins, then COMMON SENSE Must tell us that since I WAS able to give him an example that he loses?

HMmmmm--- u asked for an example of a spinoff that ALSO changed names--- i gave u one-- ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, and u dont reply to that?

u just comment on another show and avoid the issue?? (ps BLANSKYS not a spinoff??? hmm so i guess Laverne and Carmine and Mr. Defazio just happened to show up and i guess its a pure coincidence that nancy walker guested on happy days as a relative BEFORE the show spun off)

so wheres the snappy reply to the andy griffith example? u asked for another spinoff to change names, and i gave u one


I have to do research on the Andy Griffith sittuation right. Let me get back to you because I'm not a fan of 1960 TV shows to know that much about them

ok well do your research
i popped the dvd i have of that danny thomas ep in and YES indeed Aunt Bea is NOT aunt bea

FURTHERMORE Frances Bavier does NOT play Andys Aunt in that episode either---- she IS in the show, BUT PLAYS A DIFFERENT CHARACTER

so u have got 2 changes-- a double whammy to your theory!

NO solomon, you cannot just arbirtrarilly make up your own rules

I refuse to play along with your solomon-isms
where u create the rules as u go along to support your claims

you do this all the time--- u claim all online sources are wrong, and all websites are wrong (WHY? because they disagree with your incorrect claims) you then claim that all the books and newspapers and magazines that i quote are wrong, and u even claim that Norman Lear is a liar on this issue

and now u want to make more silly rules up to try to help your point?

COME ON, if u cannot win a debate with the FACTS dont try to change the rules to make it easier for you to win?

THATS LIKE BOWLING WITH THE BUMPER PADS UP!!!!

changes happen ALL THE TIME

ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW was a spinoff of DANNY THOMAS SHOW-- and guess what, AUNT BEA was NOT aunt bea in the episode on DANNY THOMAS they changed her name when it got its own show!!!!

there u go--- theres another spinoff that CHANGED A NAME!!!

PLUS all sorts of changes happen in spinoffs
for

EXAMPLE on CHEERS Frasier Crane was the only child, BUT when it spun off he got a brother in Niles



Can you give me more info on the Andy Griffith being a spinoff from DAnny Thomas show. Who from AG was on Danny Thomas?

Can you give me more info on the Andy Griffith being a spinoff from DAnny Thomas show. Who from AG was on Danny Thomas?
It was a one time spin-off episode and it introduced the characters of Andy Taylor and his son Opie. Andy Griffith and Ron Howard played Andy and Opie as they did on the tv show. Frances Bavier played a local townsperson. When the AGS began she was recast as Aunt Bea.

It was a one time spin-off episode and it introduced the characters of Andy Taylor and his son Opie. Andy Griffith and Ron Howard played Andy and Opie as they did on the tv show. Frances Bavier played a local townsperson. When the AGS began she was recast as Aunt Bea.


Was both shows based into the same city?

Was both shows based into the same city?
No how it was explained was that the Danny Williams family from TDTS was on vacation and they stopped in Mayberry where Danny was arrested by Andy for speeding.

No how it was explained was that the Danny Williams family from TDTS was on vacation and they stopped in Mayberry where Danny was arrested by Andy for speeding.


Well that sounds a lot more consistent than Good Times-lol

Exactly
Danny was held in the Mayberry Jail for several days as he refused to pay the fine on principal

the ANDY TAYLOR Sheriff character was a bit different from the series, he was sort of like Sheriff Lobo, a good natured but crooked cop

Ron Howard still played Opie

BUT They had a different Aunt, not bea
and frances bavier played a citizen of mayberry but not related to them

the show aired before the spinoff and was used as a "TEST" pilot, to see if Mainstream america (not just the south) would get that kind of humor

I'm with you Solomon. Different location, different name. No way is it a spinoff.

I'm with you Solomon. Different location, different name. No way is it a spinoff.


Exactly, No explanation on why the Evans were living in another state with NO MONEY-lol

Exactly, No explanation on why the Evans were living in another state with NO MONEY-lol
You're right Solomon. The creator says it's not a spinoff then that's good enough for me.

You're right Solomon. The creator says it's not a spinoff then that's good enough for me.


Lear can say it's his show without calling it a spinoff. That' all he had to do. I produced it but it's not a spinoff. It's clear from watching Good times that it's not connected to Maude

Lear can say it's his show without calling it a spinoff. That' all he had to do. I produced it but it's not a spinoff. It's clear from watching Good times that it's not connected to Maude


Florida Evans

Solomon I thought this was settled on the last page, where u challenged us to show ANOTHER SPINOFF that changed a name of a character-- and we pointed out THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW and aunt bea to u? You are the one who threw down the challenge and said that it PROVED it wasnot a spinoff that no other spinoff did so, but since we showed u otherwise--- does that mean u admit u made a boo boo??? let us know--- im hoping this is settled once and for all now!!

Everything is all right, with Kid---

DYN-O-MITE

Florida Evans
:lol:

After careful consideration and alot of reading I have to go with Solomon on this one. NOT A SPINOFF! Have a nice day everyone.;)

By tvrearchers OWN CHALLENGE HE LAID DOWN, it is a spinoff
the cast all says it is, norman lear says it is---
solomon challenged us to find another spinoff that changed a first name and we did---- he made a challenge and he lost, thus negating his position

sorry folks, good times always has been a spinoff and always will be a spinoff!

After careful consideration and alot of reading I have to go with Solomon on this one. NOT A SPINOFF! Have a nice day everyone.;)

Wow, bad luck does travel in threes. First Solomon, then FOX NEWS RULES, and now you. Oh well. You three can form your own 'Not a Spinoff' club while the rest of us take the word of Norman Lear and the rest of the cast. If Maude had never existed, then neither would Good Times have.

I can't believe this "debate" is still going on... :rolleyes:


Ed

the debate rages on because tvresearcher attempts to change the rules ever time that he loses the debate

HA HA HA

if u point out what lear says, then he claims lear "is lying", if u point out a website, he says "websites are not legit sources", if u quote a book---- he says "that book is garbage", if the cast says it was a spinoff then they dont know what they are talking about, he challenges us to prove another sitcom changed first names, we do that and he still insists we are all wrong

apparently the only reliable source in the entire world is one 30 year old article written by a member of the production team, who is trying to exaggerate his part in the series creation

LOL

After Janice produced the Lear interview, Solomon swore it would take him three weeks to find another article or interview that would counter that. Months later, I am still waiting. lol

After Janice produced the Lear interview, Solomon swore it would take him three weeks to find another article or interview that would counter that. Months later, I am still waiting. lol
:rofl:

As you know, I side with it not being a spin-off...however, because of what Eric Monte states, not Norman Lear. Solomon, you dug yourself in a hole when you told all of S.O. that IT HAD TO COME OUT OF NORMAN'S MOUTH whether it was a spin-off or not...Janice produced a video and you are changing WHAT YOU SAID INITIALLY...once you agree to something, you can't change WHAT YOU SAID, AFTER THE FACT. I have always contended whatever Eric Monte says...NOW, if Eric Monte comes on television tomorrow and says it is a spin-off, then I will have to accept that.

YOU CAN'T CHANGE HORSES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREAM.

Wow, bad luck does travel in threes. First Solomon, then FOX NEWS RULES, and now you. Oh well. You three can form your own 'Not a Spinoff' club while the rest of us take the word of Norman Lear and the rest of the cast. If Maude had never existed, then neither would Good Times have.

I can't believe this "debate" is still going on... :rolleyes:


Ed


That's wrong Ed, if Maude never existed Good Times would have existed as the Black Family that was created in 1971.

100 % wrong on this fact tvresearcher

if Maude had not existed then the Black Family pilot script would be sitting there doing nothing, like the other zillion pilot scripts that are written every year and never become a show

the black family was a DEAD concept--- a pilot that was written, and the networks PASSED ON IT and said NO THANKS!

it ONLY repeat ONLY became reality because of NORMAN LEAR! he resurrected a DEAD script and fine tuned the idea into GOOD TIMES--- he took a dead script and used ESTABLISHED CHARACTERS from MAUDE and spun them off into a new show that he could sell--- if not for Lear "TWEAKING" the concept from a dead script to GOOD TIMES, it would never have seen the light of day

ONLY by making the OLD concept of black family into the NEW SPINOFF of good times ONLY THEN were the networks interested

100 % wrong on this fact tvresearcher

if Maude had not existed then the Black Family pilot script would be sitting there doing nothing, like the other zillion pilot scripts that are written every year and never become a show

the black family was a DEAD concept--- a pilot that was written, and the networks PASSED ON IT and said NO THANKS!

it ONLY repeat ONLY became reality because of NORMAN LEAR! he resurrected a DEAD script and fine tuned the idea into GOOD TIMES--- he took a dead script and used ESTABLISHED CHARACTERS from MAUDE and spun them off into a new show that he could sell--- if not for Lear "TWEAKING" the concept from a dead script to GOOD TIMES, it would never have seen the light of day

ONLY by making the OLD concept of black family into the NEW SPINOFF of good times ONLY THEN were the networks interested



How do we know that Lear wouldn't have presented the Black Family to CBS if Maude didn't exist?

Common sense tells us that fact

the Black Family Script came about in 1971

Good Times SPUN OFF in 1974

Lear had 3 years to present the Black Family script, but he didnt do so--- he waited until he saw an opportunity to make it a hit--- he knew that Florida Evans and her husband were well liked characters and he knew he could build a hit show around them, so he pulled out an OLD AND REJECTED concept, and retooled it to make it work as GOOD TIMES--- it was LEAR and LEAR along who made the show a hit

Common sense tells us that fact

the Black Family Script came about in 1971

Good Times SPUN OFF in 1974

Lear had 3 years to present the Black Family script, but he didnt do so--- he waited until he saw an opportunity to make it a hit--- he knew that Florida Evans and her husband were well liked characters and he knew he could build a hit show around them, so he pulled out an OLD AND REJECTED concept, and retooled it to make it work as GOOD TIMES--- it was LEAR and LEAR along who made the show a hit


It's still a Show about Eric Monte's Life just a different name

No sir, u r mistaken on this

Lear totally revamped it
and added his own touches

the orignal pilot script was much more "realistic" if u want to call it that
and lear made it into the Good Times that we all know

No sir, u r mistaken on this

Lear totally revamped it
and added his own touches

the orignal pilot script was much more "realistic" if u want to call it that
and lear made it into the Good Times that we all know



But the show was still about Eric Monte's Life in Chicago,. NOT A Maude Spinoff

But the show was still about Eric Monte's Life in Chicago,. NOT A Maude Spinoff

What difference does that make? The show Frasier is supposed to be based on the producer's life. Does that make it less of a spin-off of Cheers? Who cares what the material is based on? The fact is, it's part of the Cheers continuity.

Ed

NO SIR, u can say it 1000 times but u r still wrong

the BLACK FAMILY pilot script that was REJECTED by the networks and not made was about his family

the GOOD TIMES series that was aired was NOT the same thing

Black Family was a DEAD DUCK--- it never moved past the initial pilot stage

LEAR took the original pilot and used that as a STARTING POINT ONLY--- then he adapted it to fit the Evans family from Maude and reworked the idea and the script

BLACK FAMILY was only the inspiration for Lear to work a spinoff based loosely on Montes idea

they are NOT the same show, and when eric claimed they were, he was just tooting his own horn, trying to make himself seem more important than he was!

What difference does that make? The show Frasier is supposed to be based on the producer's life. Does that make it less of a spin-off to Cheers?

Ed


a lot of REJECTED Pilots are later reused in different things

Monte had a pilot idea--- that was it

the arguement is so flawed

NO SIR, u can say it 1000 times but u r still wrong

the BLACK FAMILY pilot script that was REJECTED by the networks and not made was about his family

the GOOD TIMES series that was aired was NOT the same thing

Black Family was a DEAD DUCK--- it never moved past the initial pilot stage

LEAR took the original pilot and used that as a STARTING POINT ONLY--- then he adapted it to fit the Evans family from Maude and reworked the idea and the script

BLACK FAMILY was only the inspiration for Lear to work a spinoff based loosely on Montes idea

they are NOT the same show, and when eric claimed they were, he was just tooting his own horn, trying to make himself seem more important than he was!


Not only that, but the reason Norman Lear even went ahead with the show Good Times was because of Esther Rolle and not because of the concept. He obviously knew her from Maude and thus decided to create a show for her. When they did so, they took the SAME character Florida Evans and 'spun off' to Good Times.

So I stand by my argument that if Maude had never existed, then neither would Good Times. Eric Monte's idea for the show as we know it would've been there, but the show wouldn't have been.

Ed

exactly Lear WANTED To do a spinoff for FLORIDA and her family, THEN he remembered the DEAD black family script and he used that as a tool to do the spinoff

NOT the other way around!

It is a spinoff. We can talk until we are blue in the face. However, there is a connection between the shows. As Brian Stated: Florida Evans. And no they did not forget to change the names. Top Ramen? Yes! But Good Times? No! I have given examples of other TV shows that include Empty Nest, Knots Landing etc. so I will not do that again. Solomon, you lost this one a looooooooooooong time ago. I can tell that you are in good spirits because you are still energetic enough to debate. LOL. BTW, BRAVO LAMONT!

"This is the thread that never ends...it goes on and on again..."

THIS THREAD SHOULD BE LOCKED...:brent

This is like daytime tv....serial that never ends or goes away...you know, kinda like Susan Lucci on "All My Children."

why should it be locked??? its an ongoing saga that will never end
because everytime it is settled, tvresearcher changes the rules again

Ha ha ha

What difference does that make? The show Frasier is supposed to be based on the producer's life. Does that make it less of a spin-off of Cheers? Who cares what the material is based on? The fact is, it's part of the Cheers continuity.

Ed



Well since you want to bring up the word-"CONTINUITY, can you explain how the Evans ended up in Chicago with NO MONEY? While you are doing that I'm going to get my dinner out the oven-lol

Well since you want to bring up the word-"CONTINUITY, can you explain how the Evans ended up in Chicago with NO MONEY? While you are doing that I'm going to get my dinner out the oven-lol


Solomon, storyline can have inconsistencies. It happens a lot. There can be changes. It happens a lot, dude.

Solomon, storyline can have inconsistencies. It happens a lot. There can be changes. It happens a lot, dude.


Inconsistency????? I'm sorry Tommie but a Family living in New York with MONEY and all of a sudden living in the projects in another state with NO MONEY is way beyond INCONSITENCY!_LOL

No matter how you look at it, that is how the story was told and Norman wanted Esther Rolle to go into that "Rolle". LOL. Rememeber Head of the Class and Billy? There were inconsistent stories as well.

No matter how you look at it, that is how the story was told and Norman wanted Esther Rolle to go into that "Rolle". LOL.


Tom why is it so hard for you to understand the Amos and Rolle's characters were written OFF Maude not SPINNED OFF OF MAUDE. They were written off so they could star in a NEW COMEDY called Good Times. There was no link from the last ep of Maude to the first ep of Good Times. Nice Try Tom-lol

Nice Try nothin'. LOL. It is still a spinoff. Florida Evans is the lasting link between the shows. You seem to think that once a character leaves a show and goes to another that their life must automatically cross over into the first episode of their new show. In some cases it is true but it is not a standing rule. I stick to everything that I said. This is television. The idea was taken off the shelf and incorporated by Norman Lear. Florida Evans when from one show to another. I can understand your point, but it is still a spinoff.

Tom why is it so hard for you to understand the Amos and Rolle's characters were written OFF Maude not SPINNED OFF OF MAUDE. They were written off so they could star in a NEW COMEDY called Good Times. There was no link from the last ep of Maude to the first ep of Good Times. Nice Try Tom-lol


Florida Evans

Nice Try nothin'. LOL. It is still a spinoff. Florida Evans is the lasting link between the shows. You seem to think that once a character leaves a show and goes to another that their life must automatically cross over into the first episode of their new show. In some cases it is true but it is not a standing rule. I stick to everything that I said. This is television. The idea was taken off the shelf and incorporated by Norman Lear. Florida Evans when from one show to another. I can understand your point, but it is still a spinoff.



So I guess It's Your Move was a spinoff of silver spoons then?-lol Remember the actor who played Derek was WRITTEN OFF Silver Spoons so he could star on It's Your Move?

No. There was no connection. Derek and Matt were two different characters. Norman Lear did not approach Jason Bateman about an idea that sat on the shelf. Jason Bateman did not want to keep the name Derek on Its your move. Silver Spoons and Its Your Move are not valid examples.

So I guess It's Your Move was a spinoff of silver spoons then?-lol Remember the actor who played Derek was WRITTEN OFF Silver Spoons so he could star on It's Your Move?

Hello, he played two different characters. They didn't have the same name, thus they're unrelated. That's like saying Michael Landon's show Little House on the Prairie is the same as his later show Highway to Heaven even though his characters had different names (Charles Ingalls & Jonathan Smith).

Ed

Florida Evans
:brent

everyone knows that its a spinoff

we've all pointed out about inconsistencies---- cheers/frasier and head of class/billy, and more--- it happens, they change things to make the show more interesting--- and it doesnt have to make 100% perfect sense-- because its NOT REAL LIFE, its only a sitcom and its not meant to be analyzed like a DNA sample!
its a spinoff

lear says so, all the cast says so, bea arthur from maude says so, all websites say so, all books on the subject say so, all tv books say so, all magazines and newspapers say so--- everyone knows it except solomon and the one lone article he has from decades ago

and i suspect that solomon knows it too, he just doesnt want to admit the truth

He almost did when Janice found that video. Solomon is a trip. LOL.

He almost did when Janice found that video. Solomon is a trip. LOL.


I still can't believe Janice turned on me like that-lol She was in my corner for 3 years and turned on me like Andre the Giant turned on Hulk Hogan in the fall of 86 when she posted that interview-lol

Bless your heart, bro. LOL.

I still can't believe Janice turned on me like that-lol She was in my corner for 3 years and turned on me like Andre the Giant turned on Hulk Hogan in the fall of 86 when she posted that interview-lol


I see it differently.

I picture Janice as Rowdy Roddy Piper and you as Superfly Jimmy Snuka.

In the end, Jani...er Piper smacks you upside the head with a coconut. The coconut represents the TRUTH with that Norman Lear video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuzOG6qSsNk

its not "turning on you" solomon

its called being fair enough to admit the truth

sometimes its better to change your mind and admit you were wrong
than to keep yelling THE EARTH IS FLAT

its not "turning on you" solomon

its called being fair enough to admit the truth

sometimes its better to change your mind and admit you were wrong
than to keep yelling THE EARTH IS FLAT


LOL. To quote Mrs. Thomas from "What's Happening", "This is true.":lol:

I see it differently.

I picture Janice as Rowdy Roddy Piper and you as Superfly Jimmy Snuka.

In the end, Jani...er Piper smacks you upside the head with a coconut. The coconut represents the TRUTH with that Norman Lear video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuzOG6qSsNk


You wrong-lol

I see it differently.

I picture Janice as Rowdy Roddy Piper and you as Superfly Jimmy Snuka.

In the end, Jani...er Piper smacks you upside the head with a coconut. The coconut represents the TRUTH with that Norman Lear video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuzOG6qSsNk


That's still not an accurate example because Piper and Snuka were never tight with each other-lol If you are tight with each other you don;t go digging for stuff to help the opposing side-lol Janice was plain wrong-lol

or maybe just maybe
Janice just happened to take an objective look at all the facts, quotes and information and came to the conclusion that you are wrong

or maybe just maybe
Janice just happened to take an objective look at all the facts, quotes and information and came to the conclusion that you are wrong



But she was supposed to let someone like you PROVIDE the Lear inteview because you are on the other side. Me and janice go way back to 2002, and she just Dropped the Bomb on me-lol Still can;t believe it

No that is where you are wrong

the TRUTH is the TRUTH and people should NOT just support people and false statements because they are friends

if my best friend posts something wrong--- i tell him-- You are Wrong

this silliness with friends LYING for friends is dumb

why should janice not tell the truth, just because she likes you?

No that is where you are wrong

the TRUTH is the TRUTH and people should NOT just support people and false statements because they are friends

if my best friend posts something wrong--- i tell him-- You are Wrong

this silliness with friends LYING for friends is dumb

why should janice not tell the truth, just because she likes you?


It's not about us being friends, we were always in agreement on the topic and then she felt the need to dig up a Lear interview to be 100% sure. I gave her all the proof she needed-lol

I gave her all the proof she needed-lol


Apparently not! lol

Exactly. It is a spinoff. I think the problem is that some people expect a spinoff to be a certain way. Its all good, though. Sin Embargo, this is a spinoff. There are no "nice tries" or "they forgot to change the names" or "why are they in a different city" to back up this spinoff factor.

Exactly. It is a spinoff. I think the problem is that some people expect a spinoff to be a certain way. Its all good, though. Sin Embargo, this is a spinoff. There are no "nice tries" or "they forgot to change the names" or "why are they in a different city" to back up this spinoff factor.


Like i said, if I interviewed Norman Lear about this, he would not be calling it a spinoff anymore

Like i said, if I interviewed Norman Lear about this, he would not be calling it a spinoff anymore

He would probably laugh about your insistence and think "poor thing, he's got nothing better to worry about or do with his life." Or maybe he'd think you were Eric Monte's nephew or son or something like that...


:crazy:

Ed