Please read:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/blog/2008/04/mini-dvd-review-solomons-final-rant.html

... then discuss this final rant.

Thats just YOUR opinion
What makes you so right
It WAS and ALWAYS will be a SPIN-OFF:lol:

Nice argument and logic. too bad we can't hear Eric Monte's views or even the late Mike Evans, both of whom co-created the show. I do know in one episode Florida referenced having previously being a housekeeper. But of course, she never says anything about Maude or New York. A few sentences in episode 1 could have taken care of a lot of debate. Also the Evans family makes it out to seem that they have been living in that urban housing project for YEARS. So how can the characters been in NY previously? You know, I once disagreed with Sol, but the more you think about it, the more logical his reasoning becomes. I settle the matter by saying Good Times is a quasi-spinoff. Sort of like how Mama's Family is a quasi-spinoff of The Family sketches on Carol Burnett.

Wow, Solomon, I can't beliee your weekly rants are coming to an end. I can honestly say, you've changed my Saturday's forever-LOL. You've definitely done a great job on them. This one is no different.

For the most part, I've usually agreed with what you've had to say. If I were to watch Maude, and then watch Good Times, not knowing anything about the two shows, I would easily say one was a spinoff of the other. But, you've definitely proven your facts on this one. I think Good Times was intentionally supposed to be a spinoff of Maude, but with the retooling, it just turned out to be an entirely different show. Like you mentioned, the location and characters changed quite a lot. I would agree with you, that at heart, Good Times was not a spinoff of Maude. But, since Florida was actually "spun off" onto her own show, that would make it more of a semi-spinoff.

You could say the same thing for All in the Family and Maude, too. Maude was Edith's cousin only for 2 episodes on AITF, but once she was spunoff onto Maude, we never heard of Edith on the show, and things were completely different.

Nice argument and logic. too bad we can't hear Eric Monte's views or even the late Mike Evans, both of whom co-created the show. I do know in one episode Florida referenced having previously being a housekeeper. But of course, she never says anything about Maude or New York. A few sentences in episode 1 could have taken care of a lot of debate. Also the Evans family makes it out to seem that they have been living in that urban housing project for YEARS. So how can the characters been in NY previously? You know, I once disagreed with Sol, but the more you think about it, the more logical his reasoning becomes. I settle the matter by saying Good Times is a quasi-spinoff. Sort of like how Mama's Family is a quasi-spinoff of The Family sketches on Carol Burnett.


Yup, and when florida said she was a maid she never said where-lol

Sorry Solomon...Norman Lear said it was a spinoff.

We've come full circle. :lol:

Sorry Solomon...Norman Lear said it was a spinoff.


Well he didn't say why so the debate will remain alive-lol

Sorry Solomon...Norman Lear said it was a spinoff.


Brian you and I see eye to eye on the subject. It's great to know that you haven't gone over to the dark side LOL. Good Times is a spin-off and it will always remain a spin-off.

Brian you and I see eye to eye on the subject. It's great to know that you haven't gone over to the dark side LOL. Good Times is a spin-off and it will always remain a spin-off.


Oh now you want to read the rants-lol

Oh now you want to read the rants-lol


I've read a few in the past, I just couldn't relate to some so I didn't post anything.

"Good Times" was planned as a "Maude" spin-off. The end result had lots of retooling and revisioning, but in the end, IMO, it still qualifies as a spin-off. I think it fits into the same category as "Mama's Family" with "The Carol Burnett Show." I mean, the producers of "Good Times" obviously didn't pull the show's premise out of their asses. The entire thing was based on the Florida character.

In all due respect, I don't think your last point really holds any weight. When the networks air things barely even matters sometimes, it's all about when the stuff was produced. Going by airdates alone, the last installment of the "Little House on the Prairie" series would be the December 1984 movie "Bless All the Dear Children," which was aired ten months *after* the official finale of the series, "The Last Farewell." Fans, producers, and most episode guides consider "Farewell" to be the last episode, even though "Children" was the last one to air.

I was particularly interested in your statement that some markets began airing Good Times on 2/1/74. What markets? Where did you find this?

I was particularly interested in your statement that some markets began airing Good Times on 2/1/74. What markets? Where did you find this?


some of the Tv guides I had back in 2004/05 started airing the show on 2/1/74. some of them was from the Midwest area

The thing is, there are actually two kinds of spinoffs:

1) From the point of view of the real world. That is, a production company takes some of the secondary, maybe occasional, actors on one of its shows, and develops a starring vehicle for them. Because it's good to have the audience identify a little with what we've already watched, some or most of the plot elements in the original show are reused or recycled -- but there's no real need to be consistent. Examples: Good Times, Mork & Mindy, etc. A producer like Norman Lear would naturally consider this a spin-off.

2) From the point of view of the fictional universe. As above, but all elements of the plot are maintained as consistently as possible. Sometimes, in fact, it's the lead character who gets the spinoff as all his/her sidekicks are written out. Examples: The Ropers, Laverne and Shirley, Archie Bunker's Place. For a literary critic -- which category includes the entire audience -- this is the only true spin-off.

Solomon obviously took POV 2. :)

The thing is, there are actually two kinds of spinoffs:

1) From the point of view of the real world. That is, a production company takes some of the secondary, maybe occasional, actors on one of its shows, and develops a starring vehicle for them. Because it's good to have the audience identify a little with what we've already watched, some or most of the plot elements in the original show are reused or recycled -- but there's no real need to be consistent. Examples: Good Times, Mork & Mindy, etc. A producer like Norman Lear would naturally consider this a spin-off.

2) From the point of view of the fictional universe. As above, but all elements of the plot are maintained as consistently as possible. Sometimes, in fact, it's the lead character who gets the spinoff as all his/her sidekicks are written out. Examples: The Ropers, Laverne and Shirley, Archie Bunker's Place. For a literary critic -- which category includes the entire audience -- this is the only true spin-off.

Solomon obviously took POV 2. :)



Mork and Mindy is not a good example because the Fonz appeared in the PILOT e of Mork and Mindy. No one from Maude ever appeared on Good times or was referred to at all throughout the series

Mork and Mindy is not a good example because the Fonz appeared in the PILOT e of Mork and Mindy. No one from Maude ever appeared on Good times or was referred to at all throughout the series

OK, as regards M&M I submit to you, o King of TV Research. :) :)

Re Maude/Good Times, that's exactly what I meant by the first category, the production spinoff. Esther Rolle had appeared on 8 epis of Maude (imdb), and Lear & Co. decided to give her her own show.

OK, as regards M&M I submit to you, o King of TV Research. :) :)

Re Maude/Good Times, that's exactly what I meant by the first category, the production spinoff. Esther Rolle had appeared on 8 epis of Maude (imdb), and Lear & Co. decided to give her her own show.


Even from watching her last appearance on Maude, it was more of a WRITE OFF instead of a transitional type of move.

Even from watching her last appearance on Maude, it was more of a WRITE OFF instead of a transitional type of move.

Right, sort of the way The Simpsons were taken off the Tracy Ullman Show. :) -- Although I guess the production companies were different. OK, Mama's Family off Carol Burnette. Or Honeymooners off Cavalcade of Stars and its CBS successors.

Right, sort of the way The Simpsons were taken off the Tracy Ullman Show. :) -- Although I guess the production companies were different. OK, Mama's Family off Carol Burnette. Or Honeymooners off Cavalcade of Stars and its CBS successors.



Ohhhh GREAT examples, I totally forgot about the Simpsons

OK, as regards M&M I submit to you, o King of TV Research. :) :)

Re Maude/Good Times, that's exactly what I meant by the first category, the production spinoff. Esther Rolle had appeared on 8 epis of Maude (imdb), and Lear & Co. decided to give her her own show.


8 episodes? I think she appeared in more than 8 episodes. You can't rely on imdb.com.

8 episodes? I think she appeared in more than 8 episodes. You can't rely on imdb.com.

Ok, more than eight. How many can you name?

Ok, more than eight. How many can you name?


I'm not here to start a debate. If my post caused you to be upset, I apologize. :( I haven't seen Maude in years so I can't tell you how many episodes, but considering she was on for almost 2 seasons, it seems she would be in more than eight episodes.

I'm not here to start a debate. If my post caused you to be upset, I apologize. :( I haven't seen Maude in years so I can't tell you how many episodes, but considering she was on for almost 2 seasons, it seems she would be in more than eight episodes.

Good grief, there's nothing to apologize for, except maybe that I didn't write enough to be clear. :) I just followed your other post up with the obvious question -- how many can you name -- a game, not a debate. :)

Good grief, there's nothing to apologize for, except maybe that I didn't write enough to be clear. :) I just followed your other post up with the obvious question -- how many can you name -- a game, not a debate. :)


I know her husband was only seen about twice maybe 3 times in 2 years on Maude

Good grief, there's nothing to apologize for, except maybe that I didn't write enough to be clear. :) I just followed your other post up with the obvious question -- how many can you name -- a game, not a debate. :)


sorry bout that, chief! :D

Are we STILL on that spinoff debate?? YIKES.

I doubt anything will ever satisfy Solomon, but here is some evidence that supports Good Times being a spin-off of Maude:
Because Good Times is a spinoff from Maude, which was a spinoff from All in the Family, people around town are jokingly calling Florida "Archie Bunker's granddaughter." Actually, Lear saw the possibility of a new show right after shooting that first Florida episode on Maude, and he mentioned it then to Esther.

"I didn't even know what a spinoff meant," she recalled. "I love my role as Florida. Like Maude, she is a strong woman and tho they are always fighting, they are fond of each other. Both have big mouths but are real softies underneath."

Some fans have begun to complain to Esther for leaving Maude. Her reply: "Keep on watching Maude. But now also try watching Good Times. It's a good show, too."

Source: Servi, Vera. "Florida's Now On Her Own." Chicago Tribune. 3 Feb. 1974: J9.
It seems pretty clear-cut to me. Esther Rolle refers to Good Times as a spin-off. Were there differences between Maude and Good Times? Yes. But were the characters fundamentally the same? I would say yes. And all contemporary accounts very clearly point to Good Times being a spin-off of Maude.

Thanks for the rants Solomon. It was a good run. You created some interesting discussion on here. I knew that you would go out with a bang, lol.

And for the record, I have always considered Good Times a spin-off of Maude. The debate will never end, lol.

Good Times was conceived before Maude, about the Black family James Black, JJ Black etc...according to E! True Hollywood Story interview with Eric Monte (writer) Lear like the idea (circa 1971). The writers guild stated that Lear could not have anything to do with the creative team and Lear was working on the pilot of Maude at that time. Blah Blah Blah FLorida and Henry (aka James from Good Times) made appearances and the Good Times idea that was conceived prior to Maude was made with Florida and Henry who would become known as James on Good Times.
In the end it seems that Lear took the idea and called it a spin off so that he could get it made since Maude was a rating winner at the time and people were interested in the character Florida etc....

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

Maude was used to establish a good times character first.

So it is a spin off in the since that Maude was used to establish a character.
I think technically it had to be called a spin off for Lear to have produced it and get on board with the project. So it is technically a spin off of a spin off but after all is said and done it was part of Maude as a jumping board to get the show produced and nothing more.

The actors were spun off due to the success of Maude. Sure, the characters and their locale changed but often those things change as a show develops anyway.

The actors were spun off due to the success of Maude. Sure, the characters and their locale changed but often those things change as a show develops anyway.


They were not spun off due to the success of Maude, they were given their own show

Big difference

They were not spun off due to the success of Maude, they were given their own show

Big difference


No difference. Are you really this dense? No one gets spun off based on failure. They got their own show because of the success of Maude and their contribution. Viewers wanted to see more of them.

Ultimately, it is a pointless argument. Nothing on this board changes the fact that it's been regarded as a spin-off for decades.

Solomon, you bring up very good points and valid arguments. However, the show is a spinoff of "Maude" always has been and always will be. You keep saying that the character cannot be in Westchester, NY one minute and then Chicago the next to be a spinoff. BTW Tuchahoe really isn't conisdered upstate. It is considered an outskirt NYC suburb. Once again, a spinoff does not have to be consistent. This is televsion. TV is creative art and has the right to change up the game if it wishes.

I am proud to say that I now work in the field of Televsion and see changes happen every waking moment. This show is a spinoff and the explanation has been stated as to why and Norman Lear himself on video which many of us have seen backing up the "spinoff" claim.


BTW, maybe you should come back for another season of weekly rants. I think that you will come back for another round. :wave:

No difference. Are you really this dense? No one gets spun off based on failure. They got their own show because of the success of Maude and their contribution. Viewers wanted to see more of them.

Ultimately, it is a pointless argument. Nothing on this board changes the fact that it's been regarded as a spin-off for decades.


Due to the success, both actors had their characters WRITTEN OFF Maude so they could be in a new sitcom called Good Times. Totally different situation and it was no way to make the transition from Maude so they had no choice but to write the characters off

Due to the success, both actors had their characters WRITTEN OFF Maude so they could be in a new sitcom called Good Times. Totally different situation and it was no way to make the transition from Maude so they had no choice but to write the characters off


What's the difference between written off and spun off? Same thing just different name. You have to be written off a show in order for it to be a spin off.

What's the difference between written off and spun off? Same thing just different name. You have to be written off a show in order for it to be a spin off.


Was the Ropers ritten off of three's company??? No they were moved into another phase which was a tranistional type of situation.


Florida and Henry were just written off, more of a farewell type of situation

Not everything has to be concise when it comes to spinning off tv shows.

Was the Ropers ritten off of three's company??? No they were moved into another phase which was a tranistional type of situation.


Florida and Henry were just written off, more of a farewell type of situation


Helen and Stanley were written off Three's Company.

Helen and Stanley were written off Three's Company.


How if the pilot of the Ropers started in the Ropers old three' company apt?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-lol

What's the difference between written off and spun-off?

What's the difference between written off and spun-off?


Spun of is more of a transition to a new situation, being written off is more of a CLOSURE type thing, closing out the reality of certain characters.

Spun of is more of a transition to a new situation, being written off is more of a CLOSURE type thing, closing out the reality of certain characters.

So by your definition, if a secondary character was spun-off into their own show, they aren't written off. BUT if a secondary character get's their own show from the show that they were on they are written off?????

So my question to you is....Isn't that the same damn thing. No matter how you slice it or dice it, if a secondary character leaves a show and they get their own show from the show that they were already on, then they are spun-off into their own show.

So by your definition, if a secondary character was spun-off into their own show, they aren't written off. BUT if a secondary character get's their own show from the show that they were on they are written off?????

So my question to you is....Isn't that the same damn thing. No matter how you slice it or dice it, if a secondary character leaves a show and they get their own show from the show that they were already on, then they are spun-off into their own show.

I think (may I interject, Solomon?) that if the last appearance of the character on the original show sounds like a farewell, AND the new show's situation is NOT consistent with the old, then it's a write-off. (Or a "producer's spinoff".) On the other hand, if the new show IS consistent with the old (especially if continuing characters from the old show sometimes appear on the new one), then it's a true spin-off.

I think (may I interject, Solomon?) that if the last appearance of the character on the original show sounds like a farewell, AND the new show's situation is NOT consistent with the old, then it's a write-off. (Or a "producer's spinoff".) On the other hand, if the new show IS consistent with the old (especially if continuing characters from the old show sometimes appear on the new one), then it's a true spin-off.


Some people would say that Frasier is a spin-off of Cheers, but by Solomon’s definition, Frasier isn't a spin-off of Cheers. If you have a secondary character on a show, and that character gets their own show from being on their present show, Then that person was spun-off into their own show. I don't care how you write it, transcribe it or define it. Florida was spun-off into her own TV show.

Some people would say that Frasier is a spin-off of Cheers, but by Solomon’s definition, Frasier isn't a spin-off of Cheers. If you have a secondary character on a show, and that character gets their own show from being on their present show, Then that person was spun-off into their own show. I don't care how you write it, transcribe it or define it. Florida was spun-off into her own TV show.

What was inconsistent in Frasier w.r.t. Cheers?

What was inconsistent in Frasier w.r.t. Cheers?


A character doesn't have to be consistent in order for it to be a spin-off.

With Frasier he was a whole different person than he was when he was on Cheers. If you watched Frasier and Cheers (like I) then you would see the difference.

Some people should look up the definition for the word spin-off and tell me if I'm wrong.

I do see what Solomon is saying and it even got me to thinking but that is just one way of thinking or looking at a situation.

John Amos' portrayal of Henry Evans can be questionable when it comes to comparing Henry vs. James. However, if it was still just him without Ms. Rolle, the show could still be a spinoff.

"A spin-off (or spinoff) is a new organization or entity formed by a split from a larger one, such as a television series based on a pre-existing one, or as a new company formed from a university research group or business incubator." (Definition provided by Wikipedia)

Although "Good Times" was created before "Maude" on paper, Maude played a part in helping to launch Good Times by the two characters that who go and portray the same or (close to the same) characters from the larger organization(Maude). Good Times got its base and launch due to the help of two main characters on Maude which will remain nameless. LOL.

"Knots Landing" was created before "Dallas" but Dallas was used to help launch Knots Landing.

There are no specific sets of rules when it comes to a spinoff but Solomon, it seems that you are coming up with your own. You bring up very good points, but they don't change the fact that Good Time is still a Spinoff from Maude.

P.S.
For those of you that say Wikipedia is inaccurate on a lot of things, don't try to say that they are inaccurate with the definition of a spinoff. LOLOLOL.

So by your definition, if a secondary character was spun-off into their own show, they aren't written off. BUT if a secondary character get's their own show from the show that they were on they are written off?????

So my question to you is....Isn't that the same damn thing. No matter how you slice it or dice it, if a secondary character leaves a show and they get their own show from the show that they were already on, then they are spun-off into their own show.


No, false again. For example, Telma Hopkins was written off family matters so she could be in her own show Getting By which wasn't a spinoff, it was just that both shows was produced by the same company. Is any of this making sense?

No, false again. For example, Telma Hopkins was written off family matters so she could be in her own show Getting By which wasn't a spinoff, it was just that both shows was produced by the same company. Is any of this making sense?


No because she wasn't written off, she did come back in a few episodes in later episodes.

No because she wasn't written off, she did come back in a few episodes in later episodes.


They did write her off, she was just written back in

Due to the success, both actors had their characters WRITTEN OFF Maude so they could be in a new sitcom called Good Times. Totally different situation and it was no way to make the transition from Maude so they had no choice but to write the characters off

You seriously can't be this dense.

First, they didn't have their own characters written off. That is completely ignorant of how shows are produced. Actors have no say in that.

Fred Silverman had the Florida Evans character spun off of Maude. If you want to pretend thirty-five years later that something different happened, that's your fantasy land.

You seriously can't be this dense.

First, they didn't have their own characters written off. That is completely ignorant of how shows are produced. Actors have no say in that.

Fred Silverman had the Florida Evans character spun off of Maude. If you want to pretend thirty-five years later that something different happened, that's your fantasy land.


Fred silverman wanted her to have her own show that had nothing to do with the show she was already on since she was such a hit with viewers on maude. Why is that so hard for everyone to understand?

The fact that she was popular with viewers is not hard to understand. The fact that you say the GT was not spawned from Maude is hard to swallow.

You can just say Good Times was a spin-off of Maude but was a bit altered and revamped in characters and location to better tell the story. I don't think a black family in upstate NY would be better than a black family living in the projects of Chicago.

The fact that she was popular with viewers is not hard to understand. The fact that you say the GT was not spawned from Maude is hard to swallow.


But why did her getting her own show mean it had to be labeled a spinoff? It's the name on both shows that confusing you and other people

You can just say Good Times was a spin-off of Maude but was a bit altered and revamped in characters and location to better tell the story. I don't think a black family in upstate NY would be better than a black family living in the projects of Chicago.


Watching the first episode of Good times and the farewell episode of Maude should be crystal clear it wasn't a spinoff

Watching the first episode of Good times and the farewell episode of Maude should be crystal clear it wasn't a spinoff


In Television, a spinoff does not have to follow that rule. Billy did not follow that rule after "Head of the Class" was canceled. You don't have to smoothly transisition a character in order for a show to spinoff from another. :cool:

As far as the name goes, I don't believe that they forgot to change the names of the characters when they went from Maude to Good Times. The producers knew what they were doing.

In Television, a spinoff does not have to follow that rule. Billy did not follow that rule after "Head of the Class" was canceled. You don't have to smoothly transisition a character in order for a show to spinoff from another. :cool:

As far as the name goes, I don't believe that they forgot to change the names of the characters when they went from Maude to Good Times. The producers knew what they were doing.

Then why didn't the husband's name stay the same?????LOL

Debate over Tom!!!

Then why didn't the husband's name stay the same?????LOL

Debate over Tom!!!


What was the full name of James Evans? Was he ever given a middle name?

What was the full name of James Evans? Was he ever given a middle name?


His middle name was never mentioned and even if it was that would be odd to go by his first name on one show and his middle on another show-lol

I am not sure why I am even reading this thread, let alone replying to it, given that it is simply a repeat of several other "debates" about this issue. I suppose it is just aggravating to find someone so obtuse about something so pointless.

Why anyone is trying to debate with Solomon is beyond me. We all know how he feels about this. No matter how much evidence to the contrary is provided, he will never accept that he is wrong about Good Times being a spin-off of Maude. He will quibble with every fact and disregard any proof, all in order to stay tucked away safely in his little world where Good Times has nothing to do with Maude. Anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously wrong, as this thread and many others like it have proven time and time again.

Take a look over this thread. Notice that every argument anyone makes is met with a swift dismissal and a condescending "lol" from Solomon. Personally, I have provided an excerpt from an article that includes a quote from Esther Rolles in which she refers to Good Times as a spin-off. Apparently even that is not enough for Solomon. He clings to his proof -- that the family could not possible have moved New York to Chicago, that CBS may have aired the first episode of Good Times prior to an episode of Maude (as if no network has ever aired episodes out of order), that Florida's husband's name was changed (despite the fact that Florida's name was the same on both shows), and a comment from the producer from an article in Ebony that nobody else has ever seen stating that Good Times is "not really" a spin-off (it is interesting that this producer did not come right out and say with certainty that Good Times was not a spin-off, he just said it was "not really" one).

Please, everyone, for the sanity of this community, drop this issue. Let Solomon believe what he wants. I for one pity him that he feels so strongly about something so silly that he has to continually rant and rave about it. But that is just me.

Fred silverman wanted her to have her own show that had nothing to do with the show she was already on since she was such a hit with viewers on maude. Why is that so hard for everyone to understand?


Because that's not true. You can't re-write history. Silverman wanted Florida Evans character to have her own show... just as he wanted Maude to have her own show and later, Laverne and Shirley. You can't say it was nothing like the other show because the producers transplanted the character and her mannerisms to the new show.

I guess you just want to argue with people in a nonsensical manner.

Then why didn't the husband's name stay the same?????LOL

Debate over Tom!!!

:rolleyes: Uh, no its not bro.

A spinoff can still happen although a name is changed or altered. If you are basing the debate being over a name, then keep in mind that the "Evans" name was never, ever changed. ;) However, I am not relying on the last name as a basis for this debate and neither should you.

Norman Lear said it and you have to look at it from all angles. It is a spinoff and as much as you would like for this debate to be over, its not. :D