Remember that book I got, that is authored by Sean Campbell called The Sitcoms of Norman Lear? Well I just read the chapter on Good Times and here is what Sean says and also what Norman Lear said abt the whole spin-off issue:

"Before the first episode aired, the talk was all about spin-offs, since Lear's Good Times appeared to be the first spin-off of a spin-off. As the New York Times phrased it, Good Times was a third-generation series. The journey started in a Queens neighborhood and ended in a Chicago projects. But Lear did not believe Good Times was a true spin-off. Lear said, "I got the idea for this show 2 1/2 years ago, before there ever was a Maude, from Michael Evans," Lear told reporters in 1974. "We'd never seen a black family on the tube and it sounded like a good idea. It's taken two years to develop it; we went through 30 drafts of the story for the first episode." As the show evolved and continued season after season, Lear was appalled by anyone who called Good Times a spin-off. By the third season, Lear went around Hollywood telling people he would "throw up" if he heard the show called that one more time."

;) Although you and I and few others already knew it is not a spin-off, I'd thought I would share this with you since you don't have the book. The same book that had the ratings information that Weezy fan and I "kept" from you. :lol:

This debate will go on forever - this and the Ginger vs. Mary Ann debate! :rofl:

Remember that book I got, that is authored by Sean Campbell called The Sitcoms of Norman Lear? Well I just read the chapter on Good Times and here is what Sean says and also what Norman Lear said abt the whole spin-off issue:

"Before the first episode aired, the talk was all about spin-offs, since Lear's Good Times appeared to be the first spin-off of a spin-off. As the New York Times phrased it, Good Times was a third-generation series. The journey started in a Queens neighborhood and ended in a Chicago projects. But Lear did not believe Good Times was a true spin-off. Lear said, "I got the idea for this show 2 1/2 years ago, before there ever was a Maude, from Michael Evans," Lear told reporters in 1974. "We'd never seen a black family on the tube and it sounded like a good idea. It's taken two years to develop it; we went through 30 drafts of the story for the first episode." As the show evolved and continued season after season, Lear was appalled by anyone who called Good Times a spin-off. By the third season, Lear went around Hollywood telling people he would "throw up" if he heard the show called that one more time."

;) Although you and I and few others already knew it is not a spin-off, I'd thought I would share this with you since you don't have the book. The same book that had the ratings information that Weezy fan and I "kept" from you. :lol:



That was my point 4 years ago-lol

*Put fingers in ears* NANANANA I'M NOT LISTENIIIINGG!!!!NANANANANANANA

:rofl: Mikado!

I always maintained whatever the producer said, but it seemed many would go with what Norman Lear stated. Well, there it is above^^^^. :lol:

*Put fingers in ears* NANANANA I'M NOT LISTENIIIINGG!!!!NANANANANANANA


The Debate of the Decade-lol

That's funny, because in the video clip he actually calls it a spinoff, so I'm taking his word for it, since I actually heard those words come out of his mouth.

That's funny, because in the video clip he actually calls it a spinoff, so I'm taking his word for it, since I actually heard those words come out of his mouth.
Maybe he eventually changed his mind. lol

All I can say is what is written in this book by someone who actually received help in making this book and notes that on the inside cover where he states:

To all the people involved in the creation of the sitcoms discussed,
especially those involved with this book:

Rue McClanahan (Golden Girls)
Bill Macy (Maude)
Susan Harris (Golden Girls creator, producer)
Franklin Cover (The Jeffersons)
Marla Gibbs (The Jeffersons)
...and of course: Norman Lear

Maybe he eventually changed his mind. lol


Yeah, OK :lol:

As the show evolved and continued season after season, Lear was appalled by anyone who called Good Times a spin-off. By the third season, Lear went around Hollywood telling people he would "throw up" if he heard the show called that one more time."
Those are Campbell's words, not Norman Lear's. He can say the moon is made out of cream cheese, but that doesn't make it so. I believe the words that actually came out of Norman Lear's mouth. He stated Good Times was a spin-off of Maude, so it is.

Those are Campbell's words, not Norman Lear's. He can say the moon is made out of cream cheese, but that doesn't make it so. I believe the words that actually came out of Norman Lear's mouth. He stated Good Times was a spin-off of Maude, so it is.


LOL...RIGHT ON!

Those are Campbell's words, not Norman Lear's. He can say the moon is made out of cream cheese, but that doesn't make it so. I believe the words that actually came out of Norman Lear's mouth. He stated Good Times was a spin-off of Maude, so it is.


I haven't bought his book yet but I will soon

The character of Florida Evans began on Maude so it is a spin off if an actress plays the same character from one show where she was a supporting actress and now is the lead that is a spinoff. If it was another character, other than Florida Evans, then it would not been a spinoff. That's my take on it.

The character of Florida Evans began on Maude so it is a spin off if an actress plays the same character from one show where she was a supporting actress and now is the lead that is a spinoff. If it was another character, other than Florida Evans, then it would not been a spinoff. That's my take on it.


It was a different character, just the same name by a accident

It was a different character, just the same name by a accident
The same actress played her.

Those are Campbell's words, not Norman Lear's. He can say the moon is made out of cream cheese, but that doesn't make it so. I believe the words that actually came out of Norman Lear's mouth. He stated Good Times was a spin-off of Maude, so it is.
No, Cambpell is quoting Lears' words from an article that appeared in the Washington Post. The article appeared on September 16, 1975. I checked the bibliography.

No, Cambpell is quoting Lears' words from an article that appeared in the Washington Post. The article appeared on September 16, 1975. I checked the bibliography.


What you have to say now Janice????-LOL

It was a different character, just the same name by a accident


It wasn't an accident, that doesn't even sound right. :lol:

It wasn't an accident, that doesn't even sound right. :lol:


Esther Rolle mentioned that it was a error that her name stayed the same, i have to locate the article

What you have to say now Janice????-LOL
I am going to email Sean and ask him for a copy of that Washington article. I am sure you would like a copy for your archives too Solomon. ;)

The book has a lot of quotes from Esther Rolle. It really is a great section on Good Times. I hope you get the book soon Solomon.

I am going to email Sean and ask him for a copy of that Washington article. I am sure you would like a copy for your archives too Solomon. ;)

The book has a lot of quotes from Esther Rolle. It really is a great section on Good Times. I hope you get the book soon Solomon.


$35 s a little high for me to spend for a book. The book I just rteceived I spent $5.00-lol I would pay 35 for a TV show not a book. Unless it had the complete rankings for every tv season from 1950-Current-lol

Lear said, "I got the idea for this show 2 1/2 years ago, before there ever was a Maude, from Michael Evans," Lear told reporters in 1974. "We'd never seen a black family on the tube and it sounded like a good idea. It's taken two years to develop it; we went through 30 drafts of the story for the first episode."

The concept for Good Times might have been brought up 2 1/2 years before Maude, but the whole idea didn't come into play until Maude....Maybe they dropped the whole thing/or was waiting for the right time, and then saw what a hit Esther Rolle was on Maude, and decided "That's it! There's the show we were talking about all this time!"...And developed the new show for her, using their old idea. This is what it seems like they did, IMO.

What you have to say now Janice????-LOL
I say I don't see a LINK to the story. Even so, I heard Norman Lear, with my own ears, say that it was a spinoff. Reporters can misquote in articles, but Lear said what he said. If Norman Lear stating that Good Times was a spin-off of Maude won't convince you, nothing will.

I say I don't see a LINK to the story. Even so, I heard Norman Lear, with my own ears, say that it was a spinoff. Reporters can misquote in articles, but Lear said what he said. If Norman Lear stating that Good Times was a spin-off of Maude won't convince you, nothing will.


It's amazing how Solomon disputes evidence that proves his theories wrong, but once he hears about something to prove his theories, he is 100% behind it. :lol:

Esther Rolle mentioned that it was a error that her name stayed the same, i have to locate the article
An "error" that went on for 6 YEARS? LOL

I guess it was also an error that the same actor that played her husband on Maude, also ended up playing her husband on Good Times.

The concept for Good Times might have been brought up 2 1/2 years before Maude, but the whole idea didn't come into play until Maude....Maybe they dropped the whole thing/or was waiting for the right time, and then saw what a hit Esther Rolle was on Maude, and decided "That's it! There's the show we were talking about all this time!"...And developed the new show for her, using their old idea. This is what it seems like they did, IMO.
It does explain in detail the whole idea, but I just put that part of the book here. I didn't feel like typing word for word the entire page.

It does explain in detail the whole idea, but I just put that part of the book here. I didn't feel like typing word for word the entire page.


But like Janice said, there is VIDEO evidence, recent too, where Lear himself calls it a spinoff. LOL

But like Janice said, there is VIDEO evidence, recent too, where Lear himself calls it a spinoff. LOL
Yeah, I know I seen it. He was probably drunk or senile. :lol: j/k

But there is a newspaper article where he says otherwise. So, the man is probably saying whatever suits him at the time. It sure isn't a wise move from a well regarded producer. You'd think he'd stick with one thing and one thing only.

Yeah, I know I seen it. He was probably drunk or senile. :lol: j/k

But there is a newspaper article where he says otherwise. So, the man is probably saying whatever suits him at the time. It sure isn't a wise move from a well regarded producer. You'd think he'd stick with one thing and one thing only.


The Washington Post article was from the 70's, the video is from this generation. I will put more credence into what he says now. I agree, Lear should've been more consistent, but at the same time, Solomon needs to accept things that dispute his claims.

The Washington Post article was from the 70's, the video is from this generation. I will put more credence into what he says now. I agree, Lear should've been more consistent, but at the same time, Solomon needs to accept things that dispute his claims.


What newspaper article from the 70's??? I haven't read an article. Has anyone every posted the article here?

What newspaper article from the 70's??? I haven't read an article. Has anyone every posted the article here?
The article Brian is referring to is the one where the author of this book I have, quoted Lear. In the book, in the bibliography section it gives the reference as The Washington Post and the date the article appeared, where Norman made those statements. I gave the date on page one or two of this thread.

The character of Florida Evans began on Maude so it is a spin off if an actress plays the same character from one show where she was a supporting actress and now is the lead that is a spinoff. If it was another character, other than Florida Evans, then it would not been a spinoff. That's my take on it.
:yeahthat My feelings exactly!

The article Brian is referring to is the one where the author of this book I have, quoted Lear. In the book, in the bibliography section it gives the reference as The Washington Post and the date the article appeared, where Norman made those statements. I gave the date on page one or two of this thread.


I took a look at your first post, and I'm sorry but the quote that you gave, sounds nothing at all like Lear. I've watched 2 of his interviews and read 2 transcripts of an interviews that he gave. And that quote doesn't sound as if it would come out of Lear’s mouth. Plus the fact that I actually heard Lear with my own two ears say that GT was a spin-off, and that he spun Esther off into her own show. JMO

I took a look at your first post, and I'm sorry but the quote that you gave, sounds nothing at all like Lear. I've watched 2 of his interviews and read 2 transcripts of an interviews that he gave. And that quote doesn't sound as if it would come out of Lear’s mouth. Plus the fact that I actually heard Lear with my own two ears say that GT was a spin-off, and that he spun Esther off into her own show. JMO
I just learned on another thread in another forum that the man who wrote the Washington Post article is Tom Shales. Janice enlightened me abt this man's political views and how he uses those views in his everyday life, work, etc. Now, if Norman Lear is as political as Brian D. has stated, (something I have heard elsewhere) then it is a possibility that Norman Lear may have said BEFORE that GT is not a spin-off, and for whatever reasons, he may have recently changed his mind. What politics plays in that, I don't know, but like I said to Brian, funny the man would say one thing in 1974 and then say the opposite now. Hmmmm.....what agenda is there for that? :confused: :crazy:

What I need, is Solomon to explain why some things like that book can be gospel, but Janice's video clips were not good enough. lol

What I need, is Solomon to explain why some things like that book can be gospel, but Janice's video clips were not good enough. lol
:lol:

Yeah, I know I seen it. He was probably drunk or senile. :lol: j/k
Good one Irene! You never know. :lol:

Good one Irene! You never know. :lol:
Or!!!! he was drunk when he was being interviewed by Tom Shales. :lol:

Or!!!! he was drunk when he was being interviewed by Tom Shales. :lol:


I would be too if I had to be interviewed by that biased piece of trash. lol

I would be too if I had to be interviewed by that biased piece of trash. lol
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I would be too if I had to be interviewed by that biased piece of trash. lol
Brian's mad at Tom Shales.

:rofl:

Brian's mad at Tom Shales.

:rofl:


Actually, I was ok with him not liking the show, heck you can't please everyone, but the reasoning might have been askew. lol

Brian's mad at Tom Shales.

:rofl:
I don't blame him. :rofl:

Actually, I was ok with him not liking the show, heck you can't please everyone, but the reasoning might have been askew. lol
I wonder if he's written a review of Bill Maher's show? Heck, he's probably been a guest a few times, lol.

Well, it sounds like it is making sense now, in the beginning of this topic, I think that it was Ms I.P. who gave information that Norman Lear really disliked the idea of someone calling it a spinoff and hated that. In the video that we saw he says that he really hates to use that word, but it is a word that is used today called "spinoff". He doesn't like it, but he knows that is what it is. That is what I take it for.

I can understand the points from the others about this show not being a spinoff, but the fact of the matter is that an idea for a show can be created before another show, but the show after it like "Maude" can be a catalyst to assist in getting that other show off the ground by using some of the ideas from the other show. It is a spinoff.

Everyone please calm down....new Shimmer is a floor wax AND a dessert topping !

Per the m-w.com dictionary definition I vote for spinoff:

3 : something that is imitative or derivative of an earlier work, product, or establishment; especially : a television show starring a character popular in a secondary role of an earlier show

Well, it sounds like it is making sense now, in the beginning of this topic, I think that it was Ms I.P. who gave information that Norman Lear really disliked the idea of someone calling it a spinoff and hated that. In the video that we saw he says that he really hates to use that word, but it is a word that is used today called "spinoff". He doesn't like it, but he knows that is what it is. That is what I take it for.

I can understand the points from the others about this show not being a spinoff, but the fact of the matter is that an idea for a show can be created before another show, but the show after it like "Maude" can be a catalyst to assist in getting that other show off the ground by using some of the ideas from the other show. It is a spinoff.


Tom I'm hurt-lol

Tom I'm hurt-lol


Don't worry. This will not affect our trading relationship. LOL. :cool:

Don't worry. This will not affect our trading relationship. LOL. :cool:


:lol: Too Funny :lol:

Don't worry. This will not affect our trading relationship. LOL. :cool:
Awwwww, that is so sweet. *irene reaching for a tissue*

Awwwww, that is so sweet. *irene reaching for a tissue*


LOL